Covenant Marriage Contracts Vs Gay Marriage

[Aloysius]

Absolutely we should keep in place laws that protect minors from exploitation, and contract law must explicitly allow only for the voluntary uncoerced agreement of free individuals, in the Church any coercion in state of life is illicit and would likely corrupt the intention of marriage to the point of nullity (ie it wouldn't be a real/valid marriage, the free consent of both parties is essential to the sacramental form)

as regards interpreting contracts differently? I suppose they'd have to be written correctly but I can't imagine it'd be too hard to write up something simple to establish the marriage contract as totally indissoluble, it's a straight forward enough principle, I don't think any state principles should interfere with that: a couple has the right to make the decision to enter into that type of binding lifelong arrangement if they wish it, all I would fear is the courts trying to let people out of such contracts when they change their minds: the point of recognizing/enforcing covenant marriage contracts should be that if you change your mind, you have no legal recourse to legally dissolve the marriage; unless there's something provable in the provisions of the covenant marriage that requires triggering a legal separation clause or an annulment is granted by the accepted authority (in the Catholic's case, the Church)

but yeah, some sort of legal "Catholic Certified Marriage" in the form of a covenant marriage contract with provisions the Church has approved or required for marriages in the Church would be the ideal way to restore marriage to the civil status it ought to be in. and I think fighting for that, even if it did coincide with certain undesirable precedents in other types of contracts, would actually gain the defense of marriage crowd more credibility. as it stands, there's a lot of public perception that the Church is only sticking their head out to squash the possibility of gay unions; personally I think we'd have a lot more consistency and integrity that could be respected if we were sticking our heads out demanding the right to have real indissoluble marriages.

Edited November 22, 2012 by Aloysius

[stevil]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1353619407' post='2514866']
as regards interpreting contracts differently? I suppose they'd have to be written correctly but I can't imagine it'd be too hard to write up something simple to establish the marriage contract as totally indissoluble
[/quote]
Common law is organic, its not prescriptive, the government cannot dictate on this.
I don't think that anything is simple when it comes to law, especially common law.

I feel a Catholic Certificate on marriage is a good idea but for the Catholic church to maintain control, they need to keep it out of the legal domain.

[Aloysius]

well the Church already has something outside of the civil legal domain, she already has the Code of Canon Law governing her view of marriage, canon law requires that the state's marriage license be simultaneously filled out except in extreme circumstances of secret marriages (if a state is oppressive or there is some other grave reason), but the Church has her own tribunals and canon lawyers to sort everything out. While canon law does grant rights to people, it is also governed by expert commentaries rather than precedents as in the civil law system, and also allows for hierarchical chief legislators to be the final word on what the law means, so at a certain level it is impossible for canon law to be interpreted in any way other than the way the Church wants it to be interpreted, the Apostolic Signatura and ultimately the Pope get the final say and sometimes for better and sometimes for worse the legal system of the Church is much more of a fiat justice than a blind mechanical justice.

honestly I think the point is that if someone signs such a contract and is of legal age to do so and was not under coercion, they should be held to such a contract. give us the right to bind ourselves in marriage for life, I don't think common law should in any way interfere any more than it should interfere in any basic contract between two parties; obviously the particularity here is that the contract is uniquely indissoluble. I suppose the legal question of whether one can really enter into such lifelong binding on a legal basis comes into play, because from some perspectives they would view that as being oppressive... personally I think it is liberating to have the capacity to engage in such a lifelong marriage contract, it is oppressive that such a contract is not currently enforceable. but there would be legal issues that would be hashed out by precedents eventually, for better or worse, because you'd have people who enter into it in the Church and then later claim they didn't know what they were doing or they've converted or changed their mind and the state must free them from the oppressive bond that they placed upon themselves earlier in life... yes, there would be legal questions. I wonder if anyone in one of those three states has attempted to break out of their own covenant marriage without one of the extreme conditions having been met, and what the courts have said if that has happened.

I could imagine an argument ad absurdum even being made about how one is not free to sign a contract placing themselves into lifelong slavery even if they freely chose it at a particular time. I think this is different but I could see where the snaffus would come up.

of course canon law governs what we see as real marriage anyway, even to the point of what non-Christian marriages we'd regard as natural unions, what non-Church Christian marriages we'd regard as sacramental, and all that, and none of that would change even if the covenant marriage framework did not prove as much of a restoration of the civil status of marriage bonds as marriage once was.

[4588686]

I don't like the idea. So an 18 year old gets married and then realizes that her and her husband are just fundamentally incompatible and she's stuck in the marriage for life? No. The Catholic Church already has its marriage ceremony and it's teachings. There's not reason to get the state to make sure that Catholics are good Catholics. If the threat of eternal damnation doesn't bother them then they aren't serious enough to merit being forced to remain married for the rest of their lives.

[4588686]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1353625927' post='2514908']
give us the right to bind ourselves in marriage for life,
[/quote]


You already have that right. What you're really asking for is the right to force the other party to remain in the marriage since otherwise the whole idea and silly and redundant.

[Aloysius]

the 18 year old has the choice to either get married in a covenant marriage or a regular marriage that has the out. she would only be requiring it of herself. I suppose my idea to require it by canon law might then make it less of a choice since they would have to do it if they wanted to get married in the Church, maybe going as far as to require it by canon law might be extreme... I actually envisioned people simply not getting married in the Church at all unless they were committed about it, but I guess that's not really what would actually happen since many people just view the Church's requirements as hoops to jump through so that they can please their families by marrying in the Church and having a pretty venue for the wedding. If she was too rash in her decision to marry, she can look into whether she can qualify for an annulment, otherwise her only possible option if there was absolute misery would be to separate but not have the option of marrying again, because of that decision that she made she would have that marriage hanging over her for the rest of her life. marriage is a permanent thing, so if you got married in a covenant marriage, you would know without a doubt that before the eyes of the law you will be married until death, you are supposed to be signing away your right to ever leave your spouse, this would just make that signing away official.

marriage is meant to be that contract that forces you to stay even through the times that you would not want to. why not have the ability to make a lifelong binding contract that cannot be broken? if two consenting adults wish to sign away their right to ever part in the future, the choice to do so should be recognized. the marriage contract is not supposed to be breakable except for extreme circumstances (the Louisiana covenant marriage, for instance, allows for it if adultery can be proven, or if a serious crime can be proven, or abandonment by the other spouse, the kinds of high standards that used to be required for divorces once upon a time. I envision that you could have your own provisions to it and then if you wanted to separate, you'd have to prove to the courts that those conditions had actually been met)

[quote]The principle is this: that in everything worth having, even in every pleasure, there is a point of pain or tedium that must be survived, so that the pleasure may revive and endure. The joy of battle comes after the first fear of death; the joy of reading Virgil comes after the bore of learning him; the glow of the sea-bather comes after the icy shock of the sea bath; and the success of the marriage comes after the failure of the honeymoon. All human vows, laws, and contracts are so many ways of surviving with success this breaking point, this instant of potential surrender...
If Americans can be divorced for "incompatibility of temper" I cannot conceive why they are not all divorced. I have known many happy marriages, but never a compatible one. The whole aim of marriage is to fight through and survive the instant when incompatibility becomes unquestionable. For a man and a woman, as such, are incompatible.[/quote] -GK Chesterton

The point is that we should be able to make an unbreakable vow and have that unbreakable vow enforced like any contract (since we don't have magic that would make you die if you broke your unbreakable vow). right now the state will not enforce an unbreakable vow, it will allow it to be dissolved even if you sign off that you agree never to dissolve it, I think you should have the option to sign it up to never be dissolved; and then if the Church were to actually require that, we could warn away all those who want to be married with the possibility of a future 'out' that they'd better not get married in the Church, because Church marriages cannot be gotten out of easily. It would still be the couple's choice to make, it's a choice that you can't change your mind on, the freedom to be able to make a choice that you can't change your mind on is not currently granted because the state currently views marriages as something that you can change your mind on.

[4588686]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1353650116' post='2515147']
the 18 year old has the choice to either get married in a covenant marriage or a regular marriage that has the out. she would only be requiring it of herself. I suppose my idea to require it by canon law might then make it less of a choice since they would have to do it if they wanted to get married in the Church, maybe going as far as to require it by canon law might be extreme... I actually envisioned people simply not getting married in the Church at all unless they were committed about it, but I guess that's not really what would actually happen since many people just view the Church's requirements as hoops to jump through so that they can please their families by marrying in the Church and having a pretty venue for the wedding. If she was too rash in her decision to marry, she can look into whether she can qualify for an annulment, otherwise her only possible option if there was absolute misery would be to separate but not have the option of marrying again, because of that decision that she made she would have that marriage hanging over her for the rest of her life. marriage is a permanent thing, so if you got married in a covenant marriage, you would know without a doubt that before the eyes of the law you will be married until death, you are supposed to be signing away your right to ever leave your spouse, this would just make that signing away official.

marriage is meant to be that contract that forces you to stay even through the times that you would not want to. why not have the ability to make a lifelong binding contract that cannot be broken? if two consenting adults wish to sign away their right to ever part in the future, the choice to do so should be recognized. the marriage contract is not supposed to be breakable except for extreme circumstances (the Louisiana covenant marriage, for instance, allows for it if adultery can be proven, or if a serious crime can be proven, or abandonment by the other spouse, the kinds of high standards that used to be required for divorces once upon a time. I envision that you could have your own provisions to it and then if you wanted to separate, you'd have to prove to the courts that those conditions had actually been met)

-GK Chesterton

The point is that we should be able to make an unbreakable vow and have that unbreakable vow enforced like any contract (since we don't have magic that would make you die if you broke your unbreakable vow). right now the state will not enforce an unbreakable vow, it will allow it to be dissolved even if you sign off that you agree never to dissolve it, I think you should have the option to sign it up to never be dissolved; and then if the Church were to actually require that, we could warn away all those who want to be married with the possibility of a future 'out' that they'd better not get married in the Church, because Church marriages cannot be gotten out of easily. It would still be the couple's choice to make, it's a choice that you can't change your mind on, the freedom to be able to make a choice that you can't change your mind on is not currently granted because the state currently views marriages as something that you can change your mind on.
[/quote]


You can make it official without incurring state coercion.

You should be something you can change your mind on. You get one life. There is no God and there is no heaven. Most people know, or maybe it would be better to say sense, this even if they still go to church. Forcing somebody to share their life with somebody against their will is just barbaric. Ok. Ten years ago they were in love. Now they're not. That was ten years ago. Why in the world would you use the state to force them to remain based on their choice ten years ago?

[Aloysius]

if people look at marriage the way you do, they should not get a covenant marriage. it is they that are forcing themselves by signing onto the contract, the state's just enforcing a contract.

[4588686]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1353651749' post='2515156']
if people look at marriage the way you do, they should not get a covenant marriage. it is they that are forcing themselves by signing onto the contract, the state's just enforcing a contract.
[/quote]


You're skirting around the issue which is unlike you.

Why should the state enforce it? The state is forcing somebody to share their life with somebody they no longer wish to. They no longer wish to share their life with somebody. Why do you, as an adherent to numerous libertarian tenants wish to force somebody to remain in an association against their will? How would you punish somebody to force them to remain in a loveless marriage? Jail time? Fines?

[Aloysius]

no jail time, no fines, nothing like that at all; you simply don't qualify for a divorce and thus are not able to ever get married again. you can separate of course, but there remains the legal attachment to your spouse for the rest of your life. you have to deal with the reality that the other person is your lifelong spouse in the eyes of the law, which even if you separate will still follow you around in all kinds of financial and legal matters.

I believe that the state should enforce contracts, and I believe this is a particular kind of contract that you should be allowed to sign onto for life. if you sign onto a covenant marriage, you are agreeing to be entangled with that person for better or worse for the rest of your life (certainly with provisions to sever those ties in cases of abuse and such). the state enforcing that for life is the state respecting your free choice to bind yourself then at that moment, I see no conflict with freedom there. this is in no way granting the state more power, it's granting people the power to make a binding lifelong contract that the state will recognize as such.

Edited November 23, 2012 by Aloysius

[stevil]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1353652953' post='2515174']
no jail time, no fines, nothing like that at all; you simply don't qualify for a divorce and thus are not able to ever get married again. you can separate of course, but there remains the legal attachment to your spouse for the rest of your life. you have to deal with the reality that the other person is your lifelong spouse in the eyes of the law, which even if you separate will still follow you around in all kinds of financial and legal matters.
[/quote]
Sounds wonderful.

People will be married to one person, but living with and enjoying life with a different person. Their marriage will mean nothing to them. Marriage in general will be meaningless.

[Aloysius]

marriage in general has already become quite meaningless with the high divorce rates (and high annulment rates which shows it as quite more meaningless as so many marriages are being deemed to have not been valid at all because people didn't have the proper intentions etc)

the covenant marriage contract would be much more meaningful, not less. in the case of separation that person will still have to file joint taxes and will be connected by the finances and credit scores et cetera of their actual spouse and still have to deal with them as their spouse on a regular basis, for better or worse till death do they part. of course, if there's an adultery clause like there is in the Louisiana law then someone who separated and was living with someone else, the other spouse could likely prove adultery and get a divorce in that instance (there's no no-fault option, the adulterer who split and started living with someone else would be at fault in that divorce and thus would likely end up with a raw deal there)... but if there was a separation and no adultery clause triggered, there would be a constant reminder that despite separation, you're still legally married and cannot marry anyone else. It would make real marriage actually much more meaningful while doing away with a lot of fake re-marriages that should not be real marriages anyway (this is all among those who choose to do the covenant marriage route)... I'd bet divorce rates among those who went that route would be quite low, because the legal contractual connection cannot be severed so you have more incentive to just work it out. separations would likely only occur in extreme circumstances.

[Papist]

Al, I get and appreciate your efforts. I believe what you are saying will benefit the common good. But it needs to start before the marriage. I believe too many couples act/play married before they are actually married.

[Norseman82]

In another words, go back to the days in which we did not have the "no-fault" divorce laws and one had to show reason to divorce.

[beatitude]

I don't understand this. If you and your husband/wife want to 'opt out of modern liberalised divorce laws', then the solution is simple enough: just don't get a divorce. I don't need the state policing my religious observance for me by making it extra difficult for me to obtain one.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Norseman82' timestamp='1353699905' post='2515310']
In another words, go back to the days in which we did not have the "no-fault" divorce laws and one had to show reason to divorce.
[/quote]
in so many words, yes, it's a particular way to undo the no-fault divorce laws. when people talk about "defense of marriage" and such, all they're talking about is keeping gay people from getting the same dissoluble marriage license contracts from the state as straight people get. as if the greatest threat to marriage and the family is that the already destroyed system of civil marriage (that can be easily dissolved simply for irreconcilable differences" or some such nonsense)... when marriage licenses are so easily dissolved, civil marriage has already become relatively meaningless. if you want to defend the pride of place of marriage in civil society, you're going to have to restore it first.

[homeschoolmom]

I wish "no fault" divorces were called "I'm sick of you" divorces. At least that would be more accurate.