What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Dual Track Civil Marriage

I can't remember where I heard this idea, but someone once proposed a dual track system of civil marriage: one track would be indissoluable along Catholic lines; the other could be whatever everyone else wants. This could be implemented state-by-state. The result, one hopes, would be an increase in social prestige and incentive for the permanent marriage track.

Anyway, would the liberals have any objection to this? Live and let live, right? What's not to like about it? Or would they see this as horribly unegalitarian, creating "first class" and "second class" marriages?

Comments (34)

This may be what you are thing of. I believe a couple of other states also have enacted covenant marriage laws.

http://clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/marlic.asp#Covenant%20Marriage%20License%20/%20Requirements

Terrible idea. Even with indissoluble marriage you have to have an allowance for annulments. I don't want/trust a civil group to properly handle annulments.

Annulments are already available in civil law, because you can form (or, actually, appear to form) a civil marriage with someone to whom you cannot legally be married. If you sign a marriage license with someone who turns out to be your sister, you would get a civil annulment.

What civil courts do not do is get into the fairy-tale world of the validity of consent that occupies so many canonical tribunals ("I was over-excited about the dress, so I lacked the power to exercise free will when I took an explicit oath before God and His minister! Poor me!"). In order to escape in a civil court on those grounds you basically have to prove that you were 1) so drunk you didn't know where you were, 2) literally unconscious, 3) coerced by some outlandish and credible threat of physical harm (and that won't always cut it), or 4) not actually there (i.e. that the person who made the agreement was impersonating you without authorization).

The affair is much less problematic than it might seem, Brian.

I like this idea at first glance, but I seriously doubt it will appease the egalitarians and homofascists. If covenent marriage is inherently heterosexual, they will do their best to ensure that it is either equally available to homosexuals or available to nobody. Egalitarian liberals only adopt a "live and let live" approach when they don't have the power to impose "fairness" on society at large.

Jeff, what would be the point? What would the state purpose or goal for making a new class of contract when that new class would not be treated differently under law than the old class? I can see some sub-groups wanting the new class of contract, but unless they can sell the notion based on a state-oriented good, how do you justify the change in law?

I guess the difference in treatment under the law is that there are much heavier limitations on the basis for ending the marriage. But here's what I predict: the very same modus by which we undermined the ordinary marriage law will come into play for the covenant form, and judges (and future legislators) will water it down so that the difference is insignificant.

The underlying problem with marriage law is not that people can "get out" of it too easily, so we need a law to correct it. The underlying problem is a much more deeply rooted problem: people no longer think that someone outside themselves has any right to mention, or insist on, or bind, a person to an obligation that they wish to be free of. That goes for both the state and for the Church. It is a problem of basic immaturity as well as other mental, spiritual, and emotional defects.

I would like to see (a) how many people actually apply for covenant marriages in AZ, and (b) how many of them that later want to get out of such marriages actually succeed. (Like, move to a new state and get a divorce in that new state. And other methods. Not to mention just walking away.)

coerced by some outlandish and credible threat of physical harm (and that won't always cut it)

Really? I would think that, "My father told me he would beat the tar out of me if I didn't say the words" or "He pointed a gun at me" would do the trick, esp. if accompanied by some other evidence to that effect. (E.g., You ran away as quickly as you could afterwards and went to the police. You've brought charges against your father for threats and abuse. You were kept imprisoned and no one saw hide nor hair of you for some time after the date of the "wedding.")

I sort of hate to use a novel as evidence, but in Sherlock Holmes I find a 19th century British character saying, "You will find that a forced marriage is no marriage at all but a serious crime."

I don't think liberals would oppose this very much, you'd have to worry about left-wing "Gender studies" professors who think marriage is slavery.

Since covenant marriage programs often require pre-marital counseling (and might recognize religious counseling, the details escape me at the moment) then you'll run into problems with "principled" secularists, depending on the region.

There are always some groups who profit from marital breakup and not marital stability. Is it possible to keep these groups out of power?

Possibly covenant marriage would create a few bureaucratic positions with an interest in maintaining marital unions, not breaking them up. That's a start.

It's not clear to me why the second track, "whatever everyone else wants," would be considered second class.

Thanks for the link, Al. I got home from work and did a little more reading on it.

Tony, I guess the point would be, as I said, an increase in social pressure in favor of permanent marriage. And it would force every couple considering marriage to reflect a little more on what they are doing. I'm imagining a couple sitting down to decide which kind of marriage they want. Johnny says to Suzie, "Let's just do the regular marriage. You never know if things might not work out the way we plan." Suzie ponders his words for a moment, her mind racing, and begins to realize that her Johnny is already planning his escape. That's a romance killer, there, or so it seems to me. As Chesterton said:

"For the purpose even of the wildest romance, results must be real; results must be irrevocable. Christian marriage is the great ideal of a real and irrevocable result; and that is why it is the chief subject of all our romantic writing."

Also, it's just plain the right thing to do for the state to have laws which closely parallel reality. The law is a teacher of sorts, a standard-bearer. It would be best, of course, if the best marriage track were also legally privileged in other ways, but that's not what I had in mind for America 2011.

Anyway, it seems that I'm late to this party: what is called "covenant marriage" (a watered down version of Christian marriage but a step up from the present legal caricature) has been enacted in several states and has failed to attract many takers. According to one report:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Covenant+marriage+on+the+rocks.-a0147057308

"In 2005 Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, a Baptist minister turned conservative Republican, and his wife converted their thirty-year marriage to a covenant marriage in a Valentine's Day ceremony in Little Rock. On February 12, 2006, congregations across the South participated in Covenant Marriage Sunday to reaffirm God's role in their marriages. Otherwise, the covenant marriage campaign failed to convince couples to make marriages more difficult to escape. Some 112,000 couples were married in Arkansas in the first three years of the new law and only 800 of them, fewer than 1 percent, took advantage of the covenant marriage license. Fewer than 3 percent of couples in Louisiana and Arizona agreed to the extra restrictions of a covenant marriage."

I'm sure there are current statistics out there somewhere, but I doubt they are more encouraging. So here's the deal: I have a strong sanguine side, and I'm always looking for invincible ignorance in others. But it appears that Americans are consciously, deliberately, and overwhelmingly rejecting traditional marriage. No invincible ignorance for today's newlyweds! The vote has been tallied, and it's a landslide.

I like this idea at first glance, but I seriously doubt it will appease the egalitarians and homofascists.

Untenured, I thought maybe we could sneak in under the radar the way the Islamists are doing with Sharia law, setting up parallel courts and such. The egalitarians and homofascists don't seem to mind these.

I can't remember where I heard this idea, but someone once proposed a dual track system of civil marriage: one track would be indissoluable along Catholic lines; the other could be whatever everyone else wants.

I think the level of criticism this proposal would face from the left depends on what you mean by "along Catholic lines."

Presumably, the benefit of having civil marriage law reflect aspects of Church law is that there would be legal consequences, penalties, and punishments for violating the law. Is that really what's best? Catholics who choose this option would stay in their marriages, not because of their faith, but because they fear the power of the state?

I've read suggestions that Catholics and like-minded people of faith could (and perhaps should) forgo civil marriage altogether and enter only into sacramental marriages. If a movement to do that developed, it could be a striking statement of faith.

Except in danger of death or state punishment, a Catholic must get civilly married, Phil.

Two-tier marriage is a silly rationalization for cowards. Marriage is an act for the brave, not the hedonist. If you can't imagine being married for a lifetime, then you can't rightly imagine being married for a minute. Get a geisha.

Untenured, I thought maybe we could sneak in under the radar the way the Islamists are doing with Sharia law, setting up parallel courts and such.

That's one problem right there, because I'm going to oppose those sharia courts, and as you know, Jeff, you're never going to get any agreement even among conservatives that the law should give more deference to Catholic canon law courts than to sharia courts. Nor would I want Muslims to set this up for themselves w.r.t. marriage, because many of their marital ideas are wrong (e.g., they don't seem to have a problem with forced marriage of girls).

If you want to propose a dual track, the best way to do it would be a generic version of the "track along Catholic lines," where decisions about it, if they had to be litigated, would be litigated in secular courts using legal concepts and language that are not explicitly religious and that were part of that "track" as accepted by the state legislature.

Let me add, though (and I'm sure you'll agree), that there should be _no_ track that includes homosexual "marriage." Just relegating that to "one track over here" isn't going to neutralize its totalitarian effects and other bad effects on society. We've already seen that in practice with civil unions. As I often remind conservatives who think it's conservative to favor homosexual civil unions, we have seen terrible legal decisions arise directly out of civil unions--e.g., the Lisa Miller case. The same would definitely be true for second-track homosexual "marriage," especially if lots of heterosexuals were choosing that track too because they didn't want to go with the "covenant marriage" track.

I don't think there is ever going to be a time where Christian conservatives can simply _not care_ what happens with civil marriage or even with a particular track of civil marriage. Marriage is too much of the warp and woof of society. It's not even like television or the movies. One can't abandon it and say, "We're over here. What happens over there doesn't matter." I think the same is going to be true of trying to divide marriage into "tracks."

Presumably, the benefit of having civil marriage law reflect aspects of Church law is that there would be legal consequences, penalties, and punishments for violating the law. Is that really what's best? Catholics who choose this option would stay in their marriages, not because of their faith, but because they fear the power of the state?

I've read suggestions that Catholics and like-minded people of faith could (and perhaps should) forgo civil marriage altogether and enter only into sacramental marriages. If a movement to do that developed, it could be a striking statement of faith.

Isn't it strange that the marriage contract, entered into with terrible vows of lifelong fidelity and tremendous impact on all involved for generations to come, carries less legal weight than the license agreement you don't read when you upgrade your Adobe Flash Player? If your wife leaves you for another man, why can't you at least get a $150 early termination fee like your cell phone company? Yes, there should be heavy legal penalties for desertion and adultery.

Except in danger of death or state punishment, a Catholic must get civilly married, Phil.

That may well be true. Can you point me to a Catholic document that expresses this requirement? Is it in the Catechism? (I'm not trying to be argumentative; I did a quick search and couldn't find it, but I think it is likely that you are correct.)

Yes, there should be heavy legal penalties for desertion and adultery.

But doesn't it matter at all, from a Catholic perspective, whether a person makes a choice to do the right thing (versus having no other realistic choice?) Couldn't a Catholic couple, under the current status quo, in which there are no heavy penalties for desertion and adultery, contract with a lawyer to mutually agreed-upon penalties? And wouldn't that be a more meaningful demonstration of their values, beliefs, and faith, than automatic state-imposed penalties?

And wouldn't that be a more meaningful demonstration of their values, beliefs, and faith, than automatic state-imposed penalties?

But the point of marriage policy should not be "meaningfully demonstrating my values." It's about keeping the glue in society.

Think about this in relation to other things: "Wouldn't it be a more meaningful demonstration of our values if my husband/friend/employer agreed to pay a penalty if he beat the tar out of me than if there were automatic state-imposed penalties?"

We conservatives aren't all about creating new, boutique ways in which we can personally demonstrate our values meaningfully. Nor is that what society in general should be about. At the risk of sounding a tad melodramatic, we're trying to save Western civilization, here.

At the risk of sounding a tad melodramatic, we're trying to save Western civilization, here.

This is like the Dramatic Chipmunk wearing a Darth Vader mask while rickrolling Mega Shark and flying under a Double Rainbow.

Sadly, those memes do signal the collapse of Western civilization.


Let me add, though (and I'm sure you'll agree), that there should be _no_ track that includes homosexual "marriage."

Yes, of course, I do agree and will always fight this.

Just relegating that to "one track over here" isn't going to neutralize its totalitarian effects and other bad effects on society. We've already seen that in practice with civil unions.

Absolutely true.

One can't abandon it and say, "We're over here. What happens over there doesn't matter."

Well, many would say that the dual track proposal is simply a recognition that we've lost the fight: it's a last ditch effort to save what's left of marriage in American society. The majority doesn't want anything resembling Christian marriage anymore, but maybe they'll be generous and let us preserve a little pocket of sanity for those who do. At the same time, by forcing all couples to consider the option, it could be a witness that provokes some reflection.

I'm not saying I'm all for it. But I'm wondering whether it might be of some value once it becomes clear that social conservatives have been completely routed on this issue (if it isn't clear already).

Let's keep in mind how the Left wins all of their battles. They keep unpopular issues on the front burner, year after year after year, until the public finally gets used to their perverted ideas. So, why can't we do this in the other direction? Why not keep real marriage on the front burner, keep it in the public eye, force couples who want to marry to confront it, etc., rather than settle for compromise after compromise until there's nothing left but homosexuality and worse?

I think that marriage is a kind of contract that everybody should decide for himself if wants to participate or not.

David,

Marriage is not a contract. Marriage makes an ontological change: two flesh becomes one. There are no longer two flesh, but one. Anything else is a fraud of marriage.

Can you point me to a Catholic document that expresses this requirement? Is it in the Catechism?

Civil divorce is a matter for the state. As St. Paul said (paraphrasing), if possible be at peace with the local authority. Getting. Civil divorce is a form of keeping peace with the state. This requirement may not be universal, but vary from diocese to diocese. Here is what Wikipedia has to say:

An annulment from the Catholic Church is independent from obtaining a civil annulment (or, in some cases, a divorce). Although, before beginning a process before an Ecclesiastical Tribunal — it has to be clear that the marriage cannot be rebuilt. Some countries, such as Italy, allow the annulment process to substitute for the civil act of divorce. In many jurisdictions, some of the grounds the Catholic Church recognizes as sufficient for annulment are not considered grounds for a civil annulment. In such cases, the couple will often need to be divorced by the civil authorities to be able to re-marry in the jurisdiction. Once the Church annuls a marriage it would generally prefer that the marriage be subsequently annulled by the civil courts. However, should this not prove feasible, a civil divorce is acceptable.

The Chicken

David,

Okay, I might have been a little harsh. The Church recognizes two species of marriage: sacramental and natural. Sacramental marriages are ratified and consummated by vow and martial intercourse between a baptized man and woman and are irrevocable. Merely natural marriages are a type of contract and may be dissolved.

The Chicken

Jeff, after we get covenant marriage firmly ensconced as a legal category, can we then come up with a new name for it that combines "covenant" and "marriage" into one word?

And then start translating the Bible using that one word in most of the places that are now translated as "marriage", though leaving out (conspicuously) the places where we use "marriage" to say that Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines, etc?

Then we can start agitating to restrict a few, oh so few, of the statutory benefits of "marriage" to covenant marriage. You know, the places where the statutory benefits only really make sense in a life-long commitment.

Here is the booklet on Arizona Covenant Marriage:

http://www.supreme.state.az.us/dr/pdf/covenant.pdf

What's interesting about it to me is the resemblance it bears (if I'm not mistaken) to _all_ civil marriages prior to the introduction of unilateral no-fault divorce. It even allows divorce with mutual agreement, in the absence of the other factors, which some call "no-fault." The only thing it doesn't allow is unilateral divorce.

I would be inclined to say that this is a step in the right direction but that the solemn preface to the Covenant Marriage ("We understand that this is for life," etc.) sits oddly with the allowance for a mere "mutual agreement" divorce.

In general, though, I approve of the emphasis elsewhere in the law on there having to be definite serious fault in order for a divorce to be initiated by the innocent party. That as at least a necessary condition seems like a no-brainer and used to be assumed.

Merely natural marriages are a type of contract and may be dissolved.

Chicken, I don't think that quite captures the concept. Natural marriage is the kind of marriage God designed and put in place in creating Adam:

Male and female He created them...
a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh...
what God has joined, let no man set asunder...

Natural marriage is for life, ends at the death of one of the two parties. The sacrament does not change that underlying nature of marriage: it ennobles the contract, provides a supernatural aspect to the union, and provides graces to make the marital union more realizable in the concrete. Jesus Christ got after the Jews for doing divorce not because Jesus was about to initiate the sacramental form of marriage, but because doing divorce was contrary to the way it was "in the beginning".

The only reason a natural marriage can end before death is on account of a superior power (compared to the natural powers that make marriage its own reality) coming along and dissolving it. That's what happens with the Petrine Privilege: a new marriage that has the sacramental bond dissolves the prior natural marriage. But even this is not allowed unless in the pre-existing natural marriage the non-Christian spouse won't live in peace with the now Christian spouse. In saying that a superior power can come along and dissolve the natural marriage is NOT to say that it has any sort of internal readiness for being ended before death, or is subject to that ending by any natural power. (We say that the soul of man is immortal because it has no INTERNAL capacity to die: it is not *composed* of parts that can be separated under any natural operation. But God can annihilate a man's soul if He so chooses. So, even though the soul can be annihilated, we still call it immortal.)

There are two problems with such a "dual track" approach.

The first being that once you allow for a "Catholic" and "Everyone else" legal marriage state then why not add legally specific marriages for other religions as well (adding Muslim, Jewish, Scientologist, Hindu, Mormon, Baptist, Wiccian, etc...).

More importantly it would lead to government interference in religious practices... as it would place the government in a position where it had to judge on religious matters

It is also important to note that there are no laws preventing people from following religious specific marriage practices. For example, even though two people can get legally divorced the Catholic Church is under no obligation to allow either party to remarry within the Catholic Church (the only legal obligations on the Catholic Church would stem not from religious practices, but from an employment standpoint such as the Catholic Church offering health care to an employee).

The same goes for us as individuals. If two Catholics get a civil divorce then the only obligation we have is to treat their divorce as true in a legal sense (again, employment benefits would be a good example)

Thanks, Tony, for fleshing out the concept of natural marriage. I would not use Pre-Fall Adam, only post-Fall Adam, as the exemplar of natural marriage, since Pre-Fall Adam had certain preternatural gifts that should have rendered his taking of Eve as his wife to be even more perfect a form of marriage than mere nature allows.

The (Masked) Chicken,
I was not asking if Catholics must seek civil divorce in addition to annulments. I was asking if Catholics may enter into a licit Catholic marriage without seeking civil marriage.

Can two Catholics fulfill all of the requirements to undergo the sacrament of marriage and also _choose_ not to seek to include the state in their union?

Does God care about the powers "vested in me by the state," as the saying goes, or is it sufficient to follow _only_ church law, provided the couple is not violating civil laws?

Totally okay with it, provided that you stipulate that having children together with a person constitutes an indissoluble bond. Parents may in that case separate, but not become romantically involved with others.

The propagation of the species, after all, is what human sexuality is all about. It exists for that purpose, and the bonding between parents and all the associated family ties are an elaborate support system built up to maximize offspring success, not merely in an immediate way, but over civilizational lifetimes.

A stable home environment exists not just for the children in their youth and puberty, but for the grandchildren. It's important not only to not ruin the kids' childhood, but to not complicate the grandkids' sense of healthy normalcy. And the great-grandkids'. And the neighbors', and their kids'.

Sane family life also makes the upholding of other cultural institutions easier. I think everyone by now has experienced (with sadness or frustration or annoyance or resignation) how divorce and remarriage ruins Christmas and Thanksgiving with the needless introduction of unrelated new squeezes.

In short, the progeny (children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren...) have rights, too. Indeed, theirs supersede the parents'...or, well, that is not the way to say it. Better to say that by copulating with a person you are immediately, instantly, voluntarily transferring some of your own sovereignty to the future humans who may emerge from your loins. You are contractually agreeing to a high number of sacrifices of your own self-interest, including 100% of your romantic interests in any person other than the person with whom you're having intercourse, in favor of the family needs of your progeny.

If no progeny emerge, it doesn't mean you didn't sign the contract; it just means that nobody will show up to complain about your non-compliance if you leave that sex partner for another.

But if you have any kids with that person, you are morally obligated not to violate your agreement with those progeny...and because it is a matter of contract fulfillment, you ought to be legally obligated as well.

Can two Catholics fulfill all of the requirements to undergo the sacrament of marriage and also _choose_ not to seek to include the state in their union?

Ordinarily, no, in order to keep the peace. However, the governing Law within a marriage is Canon Law, not Civil Law:

Canon 1059 The marriage of catholics, even if only one party is baptised, is governed not only by divine law but also by canon law, without prejudice to the competence of the civil authority in respect of the merely civil effects of the marriage.

That bring said, the civil law may be so corrupt that it is possible for a Catholic couple to separate themselves from the governance of the civil law and yet be married in the eyes of the Church. This is explicitly spelled out in Canon 1071.1.2 by deduction:

Canon 1071.1 Except in a case of necessity, no one is to assist without the permission of the local Ordinary at:

Canon 1071.1.1 a marriage of vagi;

Canon 1071.1.2 a marriage which cannot be recognised by the civil law or celebrated in accordance with it;

Thus, ordinarily, a marriage should be able to be recognized by civil law, but the case of a corrupt civil law would constitute a case of necessity and the marriage could proceed with the permission of the Ordinary, or in danger of death, by the couple, themselves, assuming the permission of the Ordinary, as per Canon 1116:

Canon 1116.1 If one who, in accordance with the law, is competent to assist, cannot be present or be approached without grave inconvenience, those who intend to enter a true marriage can validly and lawfully contract in the presence of witnesses only:

Canon 1116.1.1 in danger of death;

Canon 1116.1.2 apart from danger of death, provided it is prudently foreseen that this state of affairs will continue for a month.

Of course, I am not a Canon lawyer, so this is merely the law as I read it. Others, better qualified, should be approached if a more definitive answer is sought.

The Chicken


Marriage is for breeders and cowards.
People who selfishly want to procreate even though the world is already overpopulated. People who want to force children to have them as their parents. How arrogant.
People who are afraid to live by themselves and have to take full responsiblity for their own life. People who are afraid to find out who they really are. Once you are married you can't learn and grow and evolve as an individual. If you do, you become a different person which is grounds for divorce. Marriage is a way to escape reality and hide in another person.
Marriage is also a way to control another person. If it's very difficult to leave someone (divorce is a giant pain) then they are a lot more likely to put up with all of your crap. You take them for granted...they resent you...eventually, no matter how lovingly and respectfully the marriage started...it turns into an exchange of sex for money. The woman is terrified the man will leave her and she'll end up living like a poor person so she puts out. It becomes prostitution.

If marriage was really about love and honesty and life-sharing and commitment there would be no need for signed documents and laws. Government wouldn't be involved at all. If two people love and commit to eachother...what does that have to do with anyone else??? The fact that marriage is considered an institution and something that is defined in laws and legal documents proves that it is not about love and commitment. It's about money and control. It's for cowards.

Troll alert.

I dom't know, Lydia. I think Jennifer deserves an answer. She seems angry. She seems not to understnad marriage as anything other than something of legal sanction. It is to be pitied.

The Chicken

People who selfishly want to procreate even though the world is already overpopulated.

That means there are too many people. I wonder if Jennifer is one of the too many who should never have been born.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.