DISESTABLISH MARRIAGE?: Henry Dieterich

...C.S. Lewis--I believe in Mere Christianity--suggests something like what I am about to suggest: that it might be better if the Church simply did not recognize civil marriages at all. In that case two people who were married, but not in the Church, would no more be considered married by the Church than two people living together outside of legal marriage. Similarly, marriage in the Church would have no standing in the law unless the couple also entered into a civil marriage. This would, at least, mean that no one would seek to marry in the Church as a means of entering into the legal relationship.

The problem with this proposal is that both these contracts are called "marriage" but the word means two very different things. One means "a permanent, exclusive union between a man and a woman undertaken for the common service of God, particularly envisioning the procreation of children by sexual union." The other means, "an open-ended, but not necessarily permanent, arrangement whereby two people enter into a set of legally defined mutual rights and duties, mainly economic, but beyond these the terms are entirely at the discretion of the parties." Nothing in the second definition could be said to imply logically that the relationship involve only two persons, and those of opposite sexes. Nothing in the two definitions makes using the same word for them even understandable, except that they share a historical root. ...

If secular marriage is increasingly meaningless in Christian terms, and the legal system is extending its privileges to relationships increasingly distant from the Christian idea of marriage, might it not be a good idea to get rid of it entirely? Rather than fight a losing battle to make civil marriage a dim reflection of Christian marriage, why not return marriage to the Church where it belongs and substitute significant-otherhood in the secular realm?

The state could register and license an official legal relationship between two persons, which would have certain legal privileges and duties attached to it, such as the ability to file a joint tax return, or to enjoy one another's pension benefits, health insurance, or inheritance, and so on. Married couples (married in religious services or other ceremonies, with no relation to the state) could gain such a status; but so could other individuals, whether or not their relationship involved sexual relations or some facsimile thereof. It might be considered good public policy to limit such a contract to two adult persons--or maybe not. But at any rate, it would not be called marriage. People could call themselves married if they felt like it, but the word itself would have no legal standing. The Church could then administer her own laws on marriage, without reference to the state if she so desired. The previous existence of a licensed partnership or even of a marriage undertaken outside the Church's discipline would have no effect on the canonical eligibility for marriage, except insofar as it might involve a sexual relationship.

Obviously I am not covering all the details of how such a regime of partnership would work. Likewise one might argue that I am too easily abandoning the field of culture to the secular realm. One might argue to the contrary that it would be better to try to roll back the secularization of marriage. Christians, by this argument, should attempt to influence the culture around them, rather than maintaining their own culture within, but in opposition to, it. There is much to be said for that argument. I would contend that to decide between them is a matter of prudence--whether the battle can be won, and at what cost. As a citizen of the State of Michigan, I did sign a petition for the defense of marriage. But at the same time, I wonder if what is left of marriage as a civil institution is worth the saving.

more
posted by Eve at 4:58 PM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home