Catholic Obama Campaign Adviser Wants to Replace All Legal ‘Marriages’ with ‘Civil Licenses'

[struggle4progress]

Wednesday, May 27, 2009
By Pete Winn, Senior Writer/Editor

(CNSNews.com) – ... “As awkward as it may be, I think the way to untie the state from this problem is to create a new terminology that they would apply to everyone--straight or gay-call it a ‘civil license,’ said Douglas Kmiec, a law professor at Pepperdine University and author of “Can a Catholic Support Him?’

“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,” Kmiec said ...

“One of the possible outcomes that would be good in this case, would be if the state got out of the marriage business, did their licensing under a different name--which, of course, would satisfy the state’s interests for purposes of distribution of taxation and property, but then the question of who can and cannot be married would be entirely determined in your voluntarily chosen faith community ...

"Because, as we all know, from a standpoint of religious belief, the couple is not just making a promise to themselves, or even to their local community or their state, but they are making a covenant between themselves and their Creator. That’s something that is differently expressed in different religious traditions, but we shouldn’t lose the value of that, and this is an opportunity to heighten the value of that in order to help the State of California out of the corner it has worked itself into” ...

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=48652

[Why Syzygy]

1. Too sensible.

Emotion prevails.

[TreasonousBastard]

2. I've been saying this for years...

"marriage" has historically only been to confirm paternity, so something else is in order for modern relationships.

There was an old French custom (can't remember the name now) of assigning someone as your legal partner-- sex or children weren't considered, so it could be your next door neighbor, sibling, lover, best friend... That person had all the rights and responsibilities that marriage confers now.

Such a system of "civil union" applying to EVERYONE would solve the legal problems, and "marriage" would no longer be a legal state, but a religious one. Or something else for those not particularly religious but liking the idea.

[regnaD kciN]

3. Same here...

I remember sometime back in the '60s, when there was a wedding in the royal family of some minor European country. On their wedding day, the couple first had to stop the procession at city hall, go in, and have a civil ceremony, then proceeded on to the cathedral for the "church wedding." It struck me as an eminently reasonable arrangement, rather than making a cleric the arm of the state, and vice-versa.

[MichellesBFF]

6. That's how modern day marriage is done in France

Not just for royals, for everyone. City Hall first, then a church if you want.

[silverweb]

9. Ditto.

It would end the equality issue and put the religious aspect of marriage back where it belongs -- with the churches.

Of course, the hard-core fundies still won't be happy, but any howling they do will be completely impotent and meaningless.

[hedgehog]

10. That works very well for me, especially since there are a lot of people

in non-sexual relationships who never-the-less are family to each other. Imagine the widowed mother of an old friend. This could lead to people being exploited , of course, but what else is new?

[rug]

4. Catholic Canon Law already makes this distinction.

Canon 1059 Even if only one party is Catholic, the marriage of Catholics is governed not only by divine law but also by canon law, without prejudice to the competence of civil authority concerning the merely civil effects of the same marriage.

[TexasProgresive]

5. I concur

Since Marriage has such a strong religious connotation the word should be stricken from the law and the use of civil union or whatever on the license. The civil unions should require the couple to obtain a license which is signed by the couple and a judge without ceremony. Then if they wish to have a religious ceremony that would be done afterward with as much pomp and ceremony as they wish.

[zipplewrath]

7. We're getting there

That's where we are headed. The semantic nature of it may not ever be quite this stark, but for all the bluster about gays "undermining the sanctity of marriage" the heterosexual community has been doing that quite nicely for a few centuries. Western European "marriage" has a long and strange path to where we are today. There were times that "commoners" couldn't even get married in any particularly "legal" sense. It was an institution of nobles. The church of course became interested in marriage for a wide variety of reasons (FWIW, priests haven't always had vows of celibacy), but the sacrament became quite political very early on with marriages between royal families basically representing the equivalent of modern mutual defense treaties. Henry the VIII is probably the most famous royal to politicize marriage, creating a whole religion just so he could get divorced. But over the centuries we have found ways to reduce the religious nature of marriage, and turned the whole institution over to the lawyers. Now we have "quickie" marriages and divorces in some states. The whole institution has been industrialized. You only have to go back about 2 generations to find a time when most women didn't buy a "traditional" wedding dress, and men just wore their "best" suit. And in the process we organized our property law around this institution.

Now we are at a place where tremendous numbers of people don't feel nor see a need to get married. "Single" parenthood is up. Children borne "out of wedlock" is increasing to numbers upwards of 40%. This isn't happening because the concept of "coupling" is on the decline, but merely because the legalities of marriage don't particularly appeal to nearly as many folks. We probably all know at least one couple that got married merely for the legal convenience, long after that had been living together and sharing property for years. In some cases it was "for the kids" that were already born. "It's just a piece of paper" people will say.

Society has an interest in marriage type laws. It handles property law quite well in a society where property defines so much. As such, we have an interest in helping and encouraging as many people as possible to organize themselves around these unions. Which is why we will make it easier and easier for people to form them (and ultimately UNform them as well). Gays will get to marry soon, it's already started actually. And I'm glad for them. But the reality is that by the time they do, it will mostly be because we have so diluted the institution that it won't be what it was. It will really be more of a "civil union". Basically another bit of property law with contracts and filing fees.

And that will be a good thing really. A marriage really should be what WE bring to it, not what government does. We would all do well to come to conclusions about what we think our own marriages "should" be, not try to conform to Disneyfied concepts put forth by an industry with a profit motive. Go ahead, have a ceremony, have two, I don't care. Have one every year. Work with your church if that is what will inspire you. And when you're done, if you want some legal arrangements made, come on down to the court house, we've got some papers for the two of you to sign.

[Strong Atheist]

8. Sounds good to me. nt.

[DeSwiss]

11. Let's do it!

- NOW!!!!

K&R

[struggle4progress]

12. GLBT thread on this topic from Nov 2006:

3rd poll finds voters want civil unions, not marriage, for gays
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=221&topic_id=43949

[sakabatou]

13. Civil licenses for all sounds good

But it must include the same benefits as marriage does today.

[JerseygirlCT]

14. Exactly. And it highlights the fact that the bigots have no legal

standing for their position. Civilly, there is absolutely, positively no reason to deny gay people civil rights. There is no non-religious argument to be made.

So let that go to the religious groups, and we'll each fight that part of the fight from within. (I think my church will get there sooner rather than later, for instance).

But legally? Two people entering into a contract. Doesn't matter in the least whether we're talking about two men, two women or one of each.

[annabanana]

15. Yup. .get the State out of the "marriage" business...n/t

[and-justice-for-all]

16. I am down with that...

just as long as the church has absolutely nothing to do with my marriage...

The license should be issued by the state and if you so choose, you could go to a church and have a ceremony.