« The Church and the Public Square | Main | Formalism and Formality in Tocqueville »
January 06, 2012
Could civil unions be good for marriage?
My student Phil Steger offered the following response to my question about the impact of civil unions on marriage:
It is possible that an increase of civil unions may actually strengthen the institution of marriage by distinguishing contractual partnerships made for mutual benefit from sacramental unions that bear witness to divine reality and provide a "school of love" (to borrow St. Benedict's term) through which two people can labor toward holiness. People can then make a clear and conscious choice between the two, based on their actual intent and motive for joining their life with another person.This, to me, is the key distinction between civil unions and marriage. Both civil unions and marriages can provide a stable framework for having and raising children. And both civil unions and marriages can also be childless. The sociological argument for marriage--it's best for children and the social order--is important, but it is not the heart of the meaning and reality of marriage, at least as illuminated by revelation and tradition.In the Bible, the structure of marriage and its role in creating or contributing to the social order are somewhat fluid. What is consistent in the Bible, as well as the Apostolic and Patristic sources, is marriage a potent sign of God's love and union with his people. It encourages our faith in the biblical promise that we are each created for perfect union in God, by showing us examples of how two people can grow deeply in union with each other, even in our fallen state. It also provides a training ground of self-giving and self-denial for cultivating the practices and dispositions to prepare us for our destiny of union in God. It resembles the Eucharist and the Liturgy in these ways: as living signs of spiritual reality and as "arenas" in which to practice living according to that reality.There is no question that the potential for children and family are the natural outgrowth of this union. But this potential doesn't become actual in every marriage. The sacramental union, on the other hand, is actually present in every marriage, though its fullness remains a potentiality requiring commitment and effort and grace to develop. Neither the actuality, nor even the potential, for this sacramental union is ever present in civil unions, even though the potential for children and family are.I question whether our anxious concern for the sociology of marriage is obscuring our faithful witness to its sacramentality, which might do more to undermine marriage then civil unions. I think if we Catholics were to begin there, our encounters with both civil unions, same or opposite sex, and same-sex marriage, would cause us less fear and anxiety over the fate of marriage. It might also equip us with greater discernment about the essential truths of marriage that we want to preserve and protect and how best to do so.
Posted by Rob Vischer on January 6, 2012 at 03:29 PM in Vischer, Rob | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515a9a69e20162ff217e07970d
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Could civil unions be good for marriage?:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
This does a good job, I think, of refocusing on the real points of debate. It's not over whether marriage has a certain natural or traditional meaning. It's about whether one type of relationship should receive governmental subsidies over others. Perhaps it's because of my Methodist upbringing, but I tend to think that putting legal authority behind the kind of relationships your student is talking about cheapens them, and is also not within the proper realm of state activity.
Posted by: Andrew MacKie-Mason | Jan 6, 2012 7:26:19 PM
The student's definitions of marriage have seemingly nothing inherently to do with children.
Marriage is a one flesh union of the kind naturally fulfilled by the bearing of children. The comments excerpted above seem to make it a moral discipline for adults. Of course, it is that, but not only that....
Posted by: Ron | Jan 7, 2012 7:48:43 AM
Ron,
Marriage, as a legally recognized relationship, has no inherent relationship to children. A childless marriage is as legitimate as one with many children. This is not a new thing.
sean s.
Posted by: sean m. samis | Jan 7, 2012 11:16:35 AM
The student says that the key distinction between a civil union and marriage is something he subjectively views as a difference based on religious belief (while both are a contractual recognition, only one is a sacrament divine and holy). Legally, however, there is simply no distinction at all, as far as I know. Practically, no difference except for some Arabic letters and whatever a private organization or belief wishes to bestow on them.
Right now, any persons can set up shop and hold themselves out as married. Whether the law recognizes it as such and provides it benefits is the question. Shall the state hand out civil union licenses for one form, yet hand out the same form to the other labeled "marriage" and make this controversy end? If doing so satisfies those not in favor of gay marriage, wasn't this all just some rather semantic argument, entirely void of legal substance, and chocked mere formalism?
Posted by: Luke Jenson | Jan 7, 2012 12:40:09 PM
Luke, since it is true that not every couple can live in relationship as husband and wife, clearly this argument is not about semantics, it is about the essence of Marriage. The State accepts that those who present themselves to be united in Marriage as husband and wife do so in good faith, and recognizes the new family that is created by their union is good for the posterity and the prosperity of our Nation.
Posted by: Nancy D. | Jan 7, 2012 1:40:03 PM
I have quoted this from John L. McKenzie's Dictionary of the Bible countless times, but I think it is warranted once again:
**********
Marriage in Israel was neither a religious nor a public concern; it was a private contract, and it is this conception which leaves so little room for it in Hb law, which deals only with the exceptional cases. The contracting parties were not the bride and groom but the families, i.e., the fathers of the spouses; the brothers of the bride had the disposal of the girl if the father were dead.
**********
He also notes: "How deeply rooted it [polygamy] was before the exile may be seen from the parable of Ezk 23 which represents Yahweh as the husband of two wives."
People are fond of quoting Genesis 2:24 (husband and wife, two in one flesh), and it takes on great significance for Christians, since Jesus himself referred to it. But polygamy is very much a part of the Old Testament, and the Hebrews before the exile were a polygamous people. Genesis 2:24 fits very nicely with the idea many Christian opponents of civil unions and same-sex marriage would like to portray marriage as having been from the dawn of time, but I think it is foolish to attempt a single, timeless definition of marriage. It is preposterous to say that, say, King David was not a polygamist, and in fact in the genealogy in Matthew, Jesus is descended not from David and his first wife, but from David and Bathsheba.
The Church is entitled to its theology of marriage, but I see no reason why that should be binding on civil law. The history, anthropology, and sociology of marriage seem to me to be much more important than the Catholic theology of marriage when it comes to making civil law. Civil marriage in the United States is far from being an implementation of the Catholic concepts of natural and sacramental marriage.
Posted by: David Nickol | Jan 7, 2012 4:55:23 PM
Their is no "neutral" definition of marriage.
The law will enshrine one substantive view of marriage, and discriminate against others.
Sean, that's beside the point. Marriage is a life-long, one-flesh union of the kind naturally fulfilled by the bearing and rearing of children. That does not mean children must follow.
Posted by: Ron | Jan 7, 2012 11:59:33 PM
"There"
Posted by: Ron | Jan 7, 2012 11:59:44 PM
David, it is preposterous to suggest that Christ did not affirm God 's intention for Marriage from The Beginning or that God approves of polygamy. The Old Testament is filled with examples of those who broke God's Covenant, some who repented, some who did not.
In regards to this question regarding the essence of Marriage and the tangled web some are willing to weave while calling themselves followers of The Christ, I am reminded of Luke 11:11, and Matthew 7:9 - "Which of you fathers, if your son asks for bread, would give him a stone, or if he asks for fish, offer him a snake?"
The Word of God is Life-affirming and Life-sustaining.
Posted by: Nancy D. | Jan 8, 2012 10:04:37 AM
Nancy,
You say: "[I]t is preposterous to suggest that Christ did not affirm God 's intention for Marriage from The Beginning or that God approves of polygamy."
Jesus quite clearly declared marriage indissoluble and affirmed the tradition in Genesis 2:24. This is why I find it strange that not even the Catholic Church, which holds strictly to the indissolubility of marriage, makes anything at all about the fact that a huge proportion of people in the United States who are legally married are actually living in adultery (having living spouses from previous marriages).
According to the Church, same-sex couples cannot get married, so there should be no legal marriage for same-sex couples. But also according to the Church, those once married (who have living former spouses) also cannot get married, and yet their marriages are recognized as legal. It is an glaring inconsistency. Why should Ronald Reagan have been considered fit to be president of the United States? He was living in adultery.
Posted by: David Nickol | Jan 8, 2012 11:59:44 AM
Ron,
You are entitled to your opinion about marriage, but you are not entitled to impose your opinion on others. Live your life and your marriage as you see fit; and leave others to do likewise.
The State does not require even the Ability To Have Children to form a legally recognized marriage.
sean s.
Posted by: sean m. samis | Jan 8, 2012 12:15:45 PM
Legally, marriage does not require the whelping of children nor "a union before God," whatever that means.
If neither of those are legally necessary for straight marriages, why for gay ones?
Posted by: MrRoivas | Jan 8, 2012 10:08:55 PM
Rovias: Is the standard of rebuttable presumption applicable? We assume the good and the government keeps its mouth shut, assuming a fruitful union. However, even going out of our way to assume the best, a same-sex civil partnership is not and cannot be a marriage, and the state, which should not care at the level of action whether adults are emotionally and sexually gratified, has no authority. Therefore, this will either devalue children, the result and reason for the State to interfere at all, or make children even further a thing to have for the sake of your own fullness.
In general: While I will relish the opportunity to sharpen my understanding of what the Church actually teaches, and even if it does improve some marriages, this is the silver lining of a very dark cloud. We mustn't cheer the lightning.
Posted by: The Ubiquitous | Jan 9, 2012 2:33:44 AM
"We assume the good and the government keeps its mouth shut, assuming a fruitful union."
Bull puckey. Unless you wish to argue that the government "assumes the good" among perfectly legal unions of couples aged 70+ who are far to old to have children.
Even ignoring that rather inconvenient fact, if marriage was all about children, then it is rather curious that the law never mentions it, nor ever makes an attempt to make sure that marriages fulfill this so called central purpose.
"However, even going out of our way to assume the best, a same-sex civil partnership is not and cannot be a marriage"
Only if you assume a priori that marriages without biological children aren't real marriages. Which again begs the question why you, and the Catholic Church don't oppose marriages including post menopausal women, or advocate the forced legal annulment of marriages that have proven to be barren after, oh, ten years.
Posted by: MrRoivas | Jan 9, 2012 3:00:38 AM
A same-sex couple can never be married to each other because they cannot exist in relationship as husband and wife.
Posted by: Nancy D. | Jan 9, 2012 7:08:19 AM
Which is why we can know through Faith and reason, that only in a complementary relationship of Love, between a man and woman, united as husband and wife in Marriage can two become one body, one spirit in Love, creating a new family. We are all called to Holiness. God desires all Marriages be Holy.
Posted by: Nancy D. | Jan 9, 2012 7:21:24 AM
Nancy,
You say: "two become one body"
"One flesh" does not mean "one body." Not even the most orthodox of Catholics maintains that a married couple becomes one body.
Posted by: David Nickol | Jan 9, 2012 9:19:55 AM
It seems like three important points are being missed in these discussions:
(1) As Helen Alvare and others have noted, the Supreme Court's own decisions have expressed the state's interest in marriage as the bearing and raising of children. It is simply inaccurate to state that marriage has no inherent relationship to children.
(2) As Catholics we should be looking at how the law can further principles of Catholic social teaching rather than merely accepting the prevailing attitudes of the time. The fact that many people consider marriage as a mere private contract with no relationship to children, for example, is irrelevant. We should be discussing what the law should be.
(3) Too much of this discussion confuses the Catholic Church's view of the religious aspects of marriage with the Church's view of the civil aspects of marriage. It is unfortunate from an advocacy or legal perspective that the Church has a teaching on a sacramental marriage. When we talk about the need to not recognize same-sex relationships as marriage, people inevitably think that we hold this position solely for religious reasons.
The Church's position on same-sex marriage has very little to do with her teaching on sacramental marriage. It has more in common with the Church's teaching on worker associations, the universal destination of goods, the right to health care and education, subsidiarity, and solidarity, and the like. Even if the Church had no theology on sacramental marriage it would oppose same-sex marriage as being contrary to the natural law, the common good, and the need to respect and foster children and families.
Posted by: ctd | Jan 9, 2012 10:38:40 AM
"As Helen Alvare and others have noted, the Supreme Court's own decisions have expressed the state's interest in marriage as the bearing and raising of children. It is simply inaccurate to state that marriage has no inherent relationship to children."
It has also expressed in the past that its okay to have separate accommodations for people of color, that a minimum wage law violates employer contract rights, and that its okay to lock up Japanese citizens without cause.
Can you point to anywhere in the legal definition or requirements of marriage that concern children? Anywhere?
"As Catholics we should be looking at how the law can further principles of Catholic social teaching rather than merely accepting the prevailing attitudes of the time. "
It already has. Unless you can point me dozens of millions of dollars spent on advocacy on banning divorce. If they are actually are attempting to institute Catholic theology as law, and not just trying to gay bash.
"When we talk about the need to not recognize same-sex relationships as marriage, people inevitably think that we hold this position solely for religious reasons."
Lets just say that's its a rather curious thing then that polls consistently show that the more openly religious you are, the more likely you are to oppose gay marriage and consider gay people nasty sinners.
Just a coincidence I'm sure.
Posted by: MrRoivas | Jan 9, 2012 10:59:55 AM
The Church's position on the essence of Marriage has everything to do with her recognition that Marriage is a Sacrament, not to mention the fact that The Catholic Church recognizes God is the author of Natural Law and thus God defines what is Good.
David, if you understood that being in communion is not a matter of degree, you would understand that a Catholic is a Catholic.
As to what the Law should be regarding Marriage, it should be grounded in truth, if a couple cannot exist in relationship as husband and wife, a couple cannot be married.
Posted by: Nancy D. | Jan 9, 2012 11:22:13 AM
Nancy,
You say, "As to what the Law should be regarding Marriage, it should be grounded in truth, if a couple cannot exist in relationship as husband and wife, a couple cannot be married."
Does this mean divorced people with living spouses should not be able to get legally remarried? I would appreciate a straightforward answer. It would seem to me that if marriage is indissoluble, legally divorced people with living spouses are incapable of living with another partner as a husband or a wife, unless polygamy is accepted. So may I assume you believe divorced people with living spouses should not be allowed to enter into second marriages?
Posted by: David Nickol | Jan 9, 2012 11:36:32 AM
Nancy,
One further point. Do American Catholics have to take into account that not all Americans are Catholic? Or must Catholics try their best to see that all laws reflect Catholic thought? Should contraceptives be illegal, for example?
Posted by: David Nickol | Jan 9, 2012 11:38:41 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/santorum-defends-earmarks-past-statements-004038986.html
"I don't believe that everything that is immoral should be illegal. The government doesn't have a role to play in everything that people of faith or no faith think is wrong or immoral,"
Not everything. Lets give him that. But of course, he declines to specify just what his criteria are for deciding what is immoral and should be banned and what is immoral yet should not be banned.
Makes one think that what he considers rightfully banned is somewhat out of step with most of the public.
Posted by: MrRoivas | Jan 9, 2012 12:07:08 PM
That was for another thread.
Posted by: MrRoivas | Jan 9, 2012 12:07:41 PM
Nancy D.;
You wrote that “As to what the Law should be regarding Marriage, it should be grounded in truth, if a couple cannot exist in relationship as husband and wife, a couple cannot be married.”
Unfortunately, that “truth” is actually only an opinion. There is no reason to deny someone their unalienable Rights (as God endows us all) because of an opinion that some people hold.
sean s.
Posted by: sean m. samis | Jan 9, 2012 1:17:09 PM
Oh no Sean. You see, Nancy has a direct line to God. Direct. So she knows the Truth, with a capital T. She knows his opinion on everything. So she is, err, God is right on everything. No need for any of that silly will of the people nonsense. Not when you got God whispering in your ear.
Posted by: MrRoivas | Jan 9, 2012 1:19:12 PM
The fact that a father and daughter, mother and son, brother and sister, two children, two men, two women, one man and two women, one woman and two men, cannot live in relationship as husband and wife, is not just a Catholic belief, it is a self-evident truth.
Posted by: Nancy D. | Jan 9, 2012 1:39:34 PM
Not to mention that the fact that we live in a Republic as One Nation, Under God, and thus indivisible with Liberty and Justice for all, as long as God remains in this equation, we are not talking "silly-willy nonsense".
Posted by: Nancy D. | Jan 9, 2012 2:01:21 PM
So nice to have you confirm that you feel no need for anything like logic or evidence or in your arguments. Tis all self evident, and only heathens who hate God disagree, even as they are convicted in their hearts.
That sound about right? Well, you can sit your self evident butt over in the corner and lap up all the calm superiority you need. Us evidence based arguers will be chatting elsewhere.
Posted by: MrRoivas | Jan 9, 2012 2:02:18 PM
Nancy D.,
It is not self-evident that a same-sex couple cannot live together married. Whether they are called “husband and wife” or just “spouses” is irrelevant, they can call themselves anything they want and still be married. It is senseless to deny people their unalienable rights based on nothing more than semantics; that is a self-evident Truth.
sean s.
Posted by: sean m. samis | Jan 9, 2012 3:16:19 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
