Some Guy: "We should replace marriage with a civil license."

[MadImmortalMan]

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=16128

Kmiec proposes end of legally recognized marriage


Professors Douglas Kmiec and Robert George

Washington D.C., May 28, 2009 / 04:41 am (CNA).- Doug Kmiec, a prominent Catholic who backed Barack Obama's presidential bid, has endorsed replacing marriage with a neutral "civil license," a proposal law professor Robert P. George called a "terrible idea" that would make the government neglect a vital social institution.

Speaking to CNSNews.com, Pepperdine University law professor Doug Kmiec said that although his solution to disputes over the definition of marriage might be "awkward," it would "untie the state from this problem" by creating a new terminology that would apply to everyone, homosexual or not. "Call it a 'civil license'," he said.

"The net effect of that, would be to turn over--quite appropriately, it seems to me, the concept of marriage to churches and a church understanding," he said.

Kmiec said that a motive for California's Proposition 8, which restored the definition of marriage to being between a man and a woman, was religious believers' "genuine concern" that the California ruling imposing homosexual "marriage" was not addressing religious freedom issues.

Saying he was among those believers who had such concern, Kmiec noted the possibility that churches which don't acknowledge same-sex "marriage" could be subject to penalty, lose public benefits, or be subject to lawsuits "based on some theory of discrimination."

Kmiec argued "civil licenses" would address the question. He proposed the state withdraw from "the marriage business" and do licensing "under a different name" to satisfy government interests for purposes of taxation and property.

Under his proposal, "the question of who can and cannot be married would be entirely determined in your voluntarily chosen faith community," he added, saying that the proposal would reaffirm the significance of marriage "as a religious concept," which has a much fuller understanding than is found in civil marriage.

Responding to Kmiec's proposal, Princeton University professor Robert George said it was a "terrible" idea and a "very, very bad one."

George told CNSNews.com that marriage is not like baptisms and bar mitzvahs but has "profound" social and public significance.

"It's a pre-political institution," he said. "It exists even apart from religion, even apart from polities. It's the coming together of a husband and wife, creating the institution of family in which children are nurtured."

"The family is the original and best Department of Health, Education and Welfare," he continued, saying that governments, economies and legal systems all rely on the family to produce "basically honest, decent law abiding people of goodwill – citizens – who can take their rightful place in society."

"Family is built on marriage, and government--the state--has a profound interest in the integrity and well-being of marriage, and to write it off as if it were a purely a religiously significant action and not an institution and action that has a profound public significance, would be a terrible mistake," George told CNSNews.com.

"I don't know where Professor Kmiec is getting his idea, but it's a very, very bad one."

I dunno. If it's a "pre-political institution" it shouldn't need the state to sanction or support it. Of course it would cause some upheaval to change around the way the subject is approached by just about every jurisdiction on the planet, not to sound like a conservative.

[Ed Anger]

If they let me have my polygamy, I'll throw my vital support to the homos.

[Faeelin]

I honestly can't see how this would ever succeed. You can't get much more gays are out to destroy marriage than gays pushing for a bill to, um, destroy marriage.

I appreciate the guy's effort, but fundamentally it seems like "Okay, you know those marriage certificates you get from a clerk? Those aren't marriage certificates anymore."

[Gaius Marius]

I had a different concept in mind than this guy does. Rather than making marriage licenses illegal, make them something that only recognized religious institutions (Churches, etc) can bestow. Marriage licenses would be recognized by the state, but religious institutions would not have to perform a marriage ceremony against their will. Civil Unions, which are done by Justices of the Peace and other duly recognized individuals, would carry the actual legal rights and would also be issued for Marriage ceremonies alongside the 'marriage' document. This way, both traditional definitions of marriage AND equality under the law for all spousal partnerships are maintained.

Surely this would satisfy everyone from homophobes to conservative church groups to the gay and lesbian community themselves?

[Neil]

If they let me have my polygamy, I'll throw my vital support to the homos.

Martinus-lover.

[Faeelin]

I had a different concept in mind than this guy does. Rather than making marriage licenses illegal, make them something that only recognized religious institutions (Churches, etc) can bestow. Marriage licenses would be recognized by the state, but religious institutions would not have to perform a marriage ceremony against their will. Civil Unions, which are done by Justices of the Peace and other duly recognized individuals, would carry the actual legal rights and would also be issued for Marriage ceremonies alongside the 'marriage' document. This way, both traditional definitions of marriage AND equality under the law for all spousal partnerships are maintained.

Surely this would satisfy everyone from homophobes to conservative church groups to the gay and lesbian community themselves?

Why would it ever do that? It's not like there are 50 states with civil unions, and the question is how many of them will move to gay marriage. Looking at the news at the moment, the Nevada governor just vetoed a domestic partnership view, and civil unions are stuck in the Illinois legislature, because if you give gays any rights that approximate marriage, it's an attack on the religious institution.

[Siege]

Why do we care so much about gay marriage?

[pimpicus]

Why do we care so much about gay marriage?

It's the Religious Right, who think God made marriage somehow, or TEH GAYZ, who want it because they can't have it. Oh, and for important financial and legal protections. Even my dad, who thinks Fox News is a valid news source, doesn't really care if gays marry. According to the Iowa Supreme Court, neither does Iowa.

And don't get me started on "religious marriage". Religious marriage is a joke.

[Neil]

Why do we care so much about gay marriage?

Because most gays are the enemies of decent humans.

[Faeelin]

Why do we care so much about gay marriage?

Why do we care so much about letting a few kikes marry? They're only 1.7% of the American population, after all.

[Eddie Teach]

Even my dad, who thinks Fox News is a valid news source

Why do you say it's not? Is it because you believe there's an unbiased source out there(certainly not one that dismissed the tax protests as "tea-bagging") or simply that you prefer one that spins things the way you like to hear them?


On the original topic, haven't some Languish people been saying that for a while? Apparently, Brazen missed an opportunity for a scoop.

[Sheilbh]

Why do you say it's not? Is it because you believe there's an unbiased source out there(certainly not one that dismissed the tax protests as "tea-bagging") or simply that you prefer one that spins things the way you like to hear them?

There's deliberate bias (which I think is what Fox and MSNBC) go in for and then there's the almost inevitable bias which groups guard against and try and rectify approaching, however imperfectly, a closer approximation of impartiality.  In the latter camp I'd put the BBC at the staid end of things and at the more sensationalist side CNN (though I believe CNN International is different) and Sky News.

[Valmy]

but religious institutions would not have to perform a marriage ceremony against their will.

What?  Religious institutions can refuse to marry anybody they want now.  The State is not going to step in and force the Catholic Church to marry an atheist and a Lutheran.

What do religious institutions have to do with this issue anyway?  Tons of churches will marry gays, so finding religious institutions willing to do so is simply not a problem.

[Valmy]

Why do we care so much about gay marriage?

Because not having it is a big pain for our gay friends.

[Valmy]

And don't get me started on "religious marriage". Religious marriage is a joke.

Right...it has no legal standing.

I am not sure how that makes it a joke though.