MARRIAGE IS NONE OF THE STATE'S BUSINESS
DEFINE OR RECOGNISE?
Is marriage a union that is to be defined by the government or state or is it
something that is recognised instead of being defined?
If it is recognised, then marriage is merely a formality. The marriage ceremony
is not a marriage ceremony. It only recognises a marriage that already exists.
Perhaps a commitment is a marriage and this is only made public by a
ceremony and a certificate? In other words, marriage is only
recognition of commitment and a special word for committment.
Clearly the notion of the state merely having the role of recognising marriage
makes no sense. And why would the couple care what the state thinks unless they
are looking for benefits from the state?
But what about the idea that the ceremony is required for a marriage to be real
and this is what we mean by state or government recognition?
Then surely if a same sex couple for example are closer than most married
couples and they go through a wedding ceremony then the state is merely
recognising their marriage? We see then that the notion of recognising marriage
and defining marriage are compatible - they are not opposites. The argument that
the state cannot re-define marriage as between two people no matter what sex
they are because the states role is to recognise marriage is incorrect.
REGULATION OF MARRIAGE
Why does the state feel it has the right to regulate marriage and recognise
marriage as valid or real according to its laws? Some say that procreation, the
children, is the principle reason why the state must recognise marriage and
regulate it. But this implies that the state should not consider a union to be a
true marriage unless the couple intend to and do have children! Why not regulate
the family and forget about marriage? Regulating a marriage is not the same as
regulating the family. Many laws regulate the family anyway. If a family is
extremely dysfunctional, it is up to social services to do something and
marriage will not make any difference.
The law does decree what is a marriage and what is not. Marriage, if valid, is
only valid if recognised by civil law. It can be as a simple as signing a
partnership agreement or a wedding ceremony. Religious weddings that do not
satisfy legal requirements must not be considered to be true weddings. The
Catholic Church feels free to let people who are regarded as married to other
people by the state remarry in Church resulting in legal bigamy! Marriage is a
social matter not a religious one.
Is marriage the partners giving each other the gift of their love and themselves
and all that they own? No. It's the commitment that does that not the marriage.
Marriage is unimportant compared to the commitment. What is the difference?
Marriage is legal, a declaration of law. Law is law and you can't make the law
stronger by loving more. Law is law no matter about love. Commitment however is
based on love.
You are not more married the more you love. The more you love, the stronger the
commitment not the marriage gets.
Marriage is defined by the Christian faith as the lifelong union of one man and
one woman for life to the exclusion of any other sexual partners. The state, if
it takes seriously the distinction between Church and state, may adopt this
definition but will not consider itself bound to it. The Church argues that it
is bound to it and must accept that. Thus the Church does not believe in
separation of Church and state at least in relation to the definition of
marriage. Why then should it believe in separation in relation to anything else
then!
For the Church, you do not marry to become happy but to make your wife or
husband happy. Marriage is not about you but about the other person and about
having children and about doing this for the glory of God.
Assuming marriage, is the business of parliament, then the state rightly
re-defines marriage to avoid discriminating against same-sex couples and to give
their families the same protection as the families of married heterosexual
couples. This is necessary under the legal ethos of "All are equal before the
law."
We deep down know and believe that a country can make whatever laws it likes. If
the people oppose the laws, they must obey them but work for their abolition. We
believe that the law of the land takes priority over other laws such as Church
laws. Indeed religion cannot exist unless civil law lets it exist. Talk about
separation between Church and state implies that the state should not interfere
if a religion advocates say racism or threatening children with hellfire until
they go insane with fear. How do we reconcile our instinct that civil law comes
first and should be allowed to interfere with our freedom by making stupid laws
with a denial that it should interfere with the freedom of religion? This is a
matter for debate and discussion. One thing is for sure, the state needs to keep
out of marriage and the Church must stop urging it to interfere.
The practice of the state defining marriage and treating it as a legal
institution is a relatively new phenomenon. The United Kingdom only started that
in 1837. It never bothered making laws about marriage until the early 1700's.
Marriage before that was a common law contract.
MARRIAGE "CONTRACT" IS REALLY CONTRACTS
Marriage today in the eyes of the law creates contracts based on the following,
#Next of kin nomination
#Sharing of property rights
#Duties of care
#Parental rights
#Duty of sex
All of that could be done by signing a private contract. Or perhaps a number of
contracts? Of the contracts, the property rights one is essential one.
There is no need for the state to recognise marriage as such. People should sign
contracts if they want certain legal protections. They should be able to pick
and choose what contracts they make - eg will they have sex, will they own
property jointly and so on.
Special rights are given to married couples and that is unfair and against the
duty of the law that all are to be considered equal before the law.
For example, inheritance tax exemptions and parental access from marriage need
to cease. Also, people need the right to choose what legal arrangements they
want in their marriage.
Keep the government out of the laws about marriage, and then couples will decide
for themselves what rights they are giving and taking in marriage.
People should not degrade themselves by having a Catholic wedding for that
implies support for the principles of discrimination and interference that are
enshrined in Catholic marriage. Catholic marriage contracts do not let you
select what rights you want.
WHY THE STATE MUST STOP RECOGNISING MARRIAGE
We protest at the protection the state affords to marriage. Married people gain
benefits from the state for being married. The state must cease to look on
marriage as a legal contract.
Suppose the state upholds marriage and has laws about it. Let people get married
if they wish but no distinction must be made between marriages. For example, a
humanist wedding that is not legally recognised must be equalised with a
full-blown church wedding that is legalised and which confers legal privileges.
Some say that the best way to make all weddings equal is to legally recognise
none of them!
Marriage should be replaced by a property rights contract in which the man and
woman agree to own what each other owns. A married couple must be treated as two
singles not as a unit. The couple must be treated as two singles living together
in a sexual and romantic relationship and not as a unit. There is no need for
the state to protect marriage.
As long as some rules are kept in operation there is no problem with a woman
maturely having a family outside of marriage. If she takes care to avert the
possibility that the children might grow up and unknowingly sleep with their
father’s other children and makes sure that there is a wide family circle to
help her with the children there is no problem. Making an ideal of marriage
insults people in her situation.