http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=16128
Quote from: Catholic News Agency
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.
If they let me have my polygamy, I'll throw my vital support to the homos.
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."
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?
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 28, 2009, 07:06:42 PM
If they let me have my polygamy, I'll throw my vital support to the homos.
Martinus-lover.
Quote from: Gaius Marius on May 28, 2009, 09:14:16 PM
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.
Why do we care so much about gay marriage?
Quote from: Siege on May 28, 2009, 09:26:44 PM
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.
Quote from: Siege on May 28, 2009, 09:26:44 PM
Why do we care so much about gay marriage?
Because most gays are the enemies of decent humans.
Quote from: Siege on May 28, 2009, 09:26:44 PM
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.
Quote from: pimpicus on May 28, 2009, 09:46:20 PM
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.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 29, 2009, 12:12:47 AM
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.
Quote from: Gaius Marius on May 28, 2009, 09:14:16 PM
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.
Quote from: Siege on May 28, 2009, 09:26:44 PM
Why do we care so much about gay marriage?
Because not having it is a big pain for our gay friends.
Quote from: pimpicus on May 28, 2009, 09:46:20 PM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on May 29, 2009, 12:25:11 AM
Right...it has no legal standing.
I am not sure how that makes it a joke though.
:nelson
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 29, 2009, 12:20:26 AM
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.
I'm not sure that CNN is more impartial but they're certainly more subtle. On Fox you'll hear conservative blowhards like Sean Hannity or Fred Barnes who don't even attempt to give the opposing arguments a fair shake. They're pretty easy to tune out. On CNN you get light condescension and dismissiveness and sometimes even omission which is a lot harder to adjust for.
But really, I usually watch Fox over CNN because it's more entertaining. Larry King and Wolf Blitzer put me to sleep. :blush:
Speaking from the perspective of having grown up in a religious home---Marriage is most definitely considered a religious institution there. The paper you sign at the courthouse means jack shit. You aren't married until you say your vows before God and the pastor pronounces you married.
It's probably the most important religious ceremony of your life. Trying to separate marriage from religion is a completely and utterly foreign concept for a large part of the population. Why does the bad guy in Robin Hood try so hard to get that priest to declare him married before Kevin Costner can arrive? Who gives a crap, if marriage isn't a religious thing in the first place?
I think it's just so ingrained in western culture as a religious institution that these odd compromises and different ways of looking at it are worth looking at.
I know my religious family members have no problem with getting the government out of marriage, but they are vehemently against gay marriage. Even if I tell them that getting the state out means they can't ban gay marriage. They just want to make sure no gays can get married in their church. Hateful? Yeah, but not oppressive. And that's pretty good from where we are now.
IMHO the problem is, we have two very different things under the 'marriage' label
1. A legal contract between two persons, granting rights and imposing duties on the contracting parties. In addition, states all over the world grant certain rights to people binded by such contracts. Fiscal advantages, pensions, etc, etc...
2. A religious rite. Nuff said.
This pretty much says it all. I don't think the Law should forbid two persons signing a marriage contract just because they are men or women (and incidentally, that disposes of the ridiculous 'soon someone will want to marry a dog' objection; wake me up the day dogs can read and sign... )
If churches don't want to perform their marriage rites on man-man or woman-woman combinations, that's strictly their business and no one is talking about forcing them to do so. Indeed it is amazing that some of our transatlantic fellows in Languish think otherwise... Rather, the opposite is happening: Churches are trying to force state and law to obey their dogmas on marriage, even when brides and grooms aren't Christians (or Muslims, or whatever)!
And I can see why this guy wants to decouple 'marriage' (the contract) from 'marriage' (the rite) but I don't see it happening any day soon. What is happening, in my opinion, is that civil marriages are becoming a rite on their own.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 29, 2009, 01:05:16 AM
I know my religious family members have no problem with getting the government out of marriage, but they are vehemently against gay marriage. Even if I tell them that getting the state out means they can't ban gay marriage. They just want to make sure no gays can get married in their church. Hateful? Yeah, but not oppressive. And that's pretty good from where we are now.
Ya know, I've never gotten a clear answer from people with this stance about how they feel about stopping the Quakers, a bunch of bomb throwing radicals, from marrying who they please.
But I tend to have a cynical view, raised in a prosper household of Presbytarian Atheists.
Quote from: Neil on May 28, 2009, 09:18:51 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 28, 2009, 07:06:42 PM
If they let me have my polygamy, I'll throw my vital support to the homos.
Martinus-lover.
You wound me sir. :(
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 29, 2009, 01:05:16 AM
I know my religious family members have no problem with getting the government out of marriage, but they are vehemently against gay marriage. Even if I tell them that getting the state out means they can't ban gay marriage. They just want to make sure no gays can get married in their church. Hateful? Yeah, but not oppressive. And that's pretty good from where we are now.
Ok that is insane. Their church can marry or not marry anybody they want now. Why do they think this will change? Separation of Church and State anyone? It protects both the church and the state.
Tell them to stop smoking crack and understand the point of the debate.
The only good thing about gay marriage is that gays have to marry gays. Really, they deserve it.
Quote from: Valmy on May 29, 2009, 12:25:11 AM
Quote from: pimpicus on May 28, 2009, 09:46:20 PM
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.
In the sense that religious marriage and state marriage are two different institutions. State marriage has nothing to do with love, sex, commitment, or even God. It has everything to do with two people's legal standing. There are churches perfectly willing to marry homosexual couples, but these marriages do nothing without civil marriage.
A same sex couple legally married in a church in Canada has no marriage as far as most state governments of the US are concerned. This doesn't change their religious vows, however.
I don't really have a problem with people defending marriage as "traditionally" between a man and a woman as much as bringing religious defenses for marriage. The Bible's rules on marriage include such wonderful passages as "if a woman claims she is a virgin and she is not, take her outside the city and stone her to death" and "if your brother-in-law dies, you now have a second wife."
I'm amazed that this guy had the balls to do this; I've been on the record for a few years now that I believe the problem is that the state recognizes marriage in the first place, but I've also always added a disclaimer that I don't think efforts to remove it as a legal principle would be successful.
The term "marriage" is so loaded and entrenched in family and civil law that I believe we should just get the courts to recognize that the religious and legal definitions of the word are and should be kept separated, and grant legal "marriage" to couples, regardless of sexuality.
Can't be bothered to read the article or the thread but the idea of getting government out of the marriage business has been around a long time. I for one think that it is unclear why government should be involved at all.
Quote from: The Brain on May 29, 2009, 12:39:50 PM
Can't be bothered to read the article or the thread but the idea of getting government out of the marriage business has been around a long time. I for one think that it is unclear why government should be involved at all.
As are many of us. The author's pointing out (correctly) that the issue is entirely vocabulary and could be redefined away. But caving to religious insistence that legal recognition of homosexual household dynamics is a slight against the church is as much a crumbling of the church/state separation as the arbitrary decisions to refuse marriage licenses.
Actually, speaking of arbitrary, there's another problem present: how states are permitted to make arbitrary decisions about grouping that severely affects federal recognition status. On that count, it's questionable why the feds would have authority to issue across-the-board status to groups that are generally accepted to be permitted different statuses from state to state, and that's where the "getting government out of the marriage business" comes in.
Quote from: Siege on May 28, 2009, 09:26:44 PM
Why do we care so much about gay marriage?
Because your being awarded with tax exemptions and the like based on awards given by your church is illegal, you stupid fuck. So is discrimination based on gender.
It's an issue because we need to keep your Zionist conspiracy out of Washington so that Iran won't be right. :contract: