« Civil Unions for Everyone!! | Main | Veep Debate thread »

January 05, 2008

Civil Unions for Everyone - The Prequel

If we look at the dictionary definition of the word Marriage we find that it's entymology dates back to the 14th century. That of course predates by a century the schism with the Catholic Church which produced the Church of England... because the Catholic Church wouldn't annul Henry VIII's marriage to Catherine. Thus we see that the modern English word "marriage" has always implied Church authority. Indeed, Henry VIII didn't reject Papal authority so that marriage could become a civil institution, he merely sought a more mallable Church authority over what he, the King of England, saw as an inherently religious institution.

Turning to the Catholic Dictionary we find an implied Church authority over Marriage. We also find that Matrimony is synonymous with marriage and considered " a more appropriate term for legal and religious use."

Going back even further to the late 6th and early 7th centuries we find St. Isidore of Seville, considered the last of the great early Church fathers and one of the great scholars of the early Middle Ages. And as a scholar Isidore clearly understood Church authority over what we have come to know as marriage

Along similar lines we find American Catholic Bishops urging a Constitutional amendment to "protect marriage" during Bush 43's first term.

Ironically, we find the impetus behind the modern movement to use the legal contract of "marriage" to distribute rights and privileges in FDR's New Deal centerpiece - the Social Security Act. You can read about that and more in History professor Stephanie Coontz's OP-ED piece in the NYT entitled Taking Marriage Private.

Professor Coontz argues, as I do, for returning "marriage" to religion. But she also argues for a return to an earlier time when couples decided for themselves when they were married.

Possession of a marriage license is no longer the chief determinant of which obligations a couple must keep, either to their children or to each other. But it still determines which obligations a couple can keep — who gets hospital visitation rights, family leave, health care and survivor’s benefits. This may serve the purpose of some moralists. But it doesn’t serve the public interest of helping individuals meet their care-giving commitments.

Perhaps it’s time to revert to a much older marital tradition. Let churches decide which marriages they deem “licit.” But let couples — gay or straight — decide if they want the legal protections and obligations of a committed relationship.

Apparently she's arguing that the State ought to simply sanction these self-declarations rather than adopt a Civil Unions contractual approach.

The problem with her proposed remedy is that self-declared unions, also known as plight-trough marriages, are a pandora's box and partially explains why both Church and State were interested in exerting civil control over such unions.

I don't claim to be the smartest guy around. But it seems to me that formal Civil Union contracts avoid both the religious entanglements while also avoiding the pandora's box of self-declared unions.

Posted by Kevin at January 5, 2008 12:28 PM