Returning marriage to the religions.

[juliod]

This is an idea that I came up with several years ago, and I've been meaning to post it here for some time. I'd like to have some debate on whether this is a viable/practicable solution to the "gay marriage" problem.

In short, I seek to return authority over marriage to the religions, where I believe it belongs. In my view it is erroneous for religions to defer to the secular government on the question of marriage, and that it is this error that leads to the issue of "gay marriage". In my view, secualr marriage serves no useful function and there will be several tangible benefits to returning it to the religions.

Below are some specifics of the plan.

1) The plan would be to strip marriage out of the secular legal system and give the various churches freedom to define, manage, and adjudicate marital issues as deemed proper by their doctrine. There are few cases where marriage is relevant in out modern system, and in those cases the issues end up in court anyway when there is any controversy. The status of marriage fails to simplify anything.

2) Tax: The main use of marriage is in the tax code. We should just do away with this, simplifying the tax code and having each person pay tax on their income without bias. Exemptions for dependants would remain the same.

3) Inheritance: Marriage would cease to be counted for inheritance. The default would be by strict blood relation. It would be essential to establish wills, but then it is already essential. In any case, regardless of wills, marriage, or other arrangements, if there is a dispute it ends up in court. The only change would be that spouses would not automatically inherit. It is my view that one of the services provided by the churches would be to prepare legal wills for the marrying couple along the lines of their official doctrine. Some churches may want to enforce male-line inheritance, and this would be a meas to do so.

4) Living wills: This would be handled the same way as inheritance. Power over medical decisions and power-of-attorney would be determined by legal documents with a default of blood-relation. Churches could at this stage pre-empt decisions that my violate doctrine (such as euthenasia).

5) Divorce/annulment: This is one area where major change would come. These issues would be adjudicated by church authorities. Each church would specify it's doctrine on divorce, would establish the procedures, and would have the power to enforce the rulings. These powers would be established by the doctrinal statements signed by the marrying couple at the outset. If the religion has a no-divorce policy, then there would be no divorce option available.

6) Enforcement: The churches could not physically force people to remain in the family home. But they would have the power to garnish wages and seize property. So for example, if a man were to leave his wife and kids, the church authorities could take 100% of his income, and his car and any other assets he tries to take with him, and deliver them for the use of his family. This would not require any court procedings since the power to do this would have been established at marriage. This is a benefit that we can never have in our secular system with it's ponderous court procedures.

7) Child welfare: In the case of divorce, churches would have suthority over child custody, etc. They can settle these issues as determined by their doctrine. As for child welfare in the home, churches can be pro-active where secular government can not be. As with divorce, churches would be empowered to investigate and adjudicate on these issues. If there is a suspicion that abuse is taking place the church would have full authority to investigate, to remove the child or other persons from the home, or to place monitors in the home to support the interests of the family.

8 ) Definition of marriage: Without the need for a secular government to heed special interest groups like homosexuals, religions would be free to exclude them from marriage.

9) Recognition of marriage: No church would be required to accept or recognize the marriages performed by other churches. They could negotiate among themselves as to mutual recognition. But any marriage offensive to a church doctrine (for example a hindu marriage to a christian church) would not be recognized. One complication is that when a family moves from one location to another there would need to be a change in authority over the marriage from one church to another, as agreed by the chruches and the family. This would only be a problem for small churches that don't recognize other marriage doctrines.

There are many other issues that we can deal with as they come up. In short, this program give religions the authority over marriage that they seek, and simplifies our tax codes and government. As an atheist support this fully. Why should my taxes go to subsidize the administration of religious ceremony?

DanZ

[ENIGMA]

Two questions/concerns:

What about inter-faith marriages? Which church gets authority, or do the couple have to choose one and only one church to get married under?

Also, what about churches which are complicit in child abuse?

[AlAyeti]

Homosexuality should just be defined as a religion. That would solve many problems. In fact it is a super"natural" belief system anyway.

[ENIGMA]

Homosexuality should just be defined as a religion. That would solve many problems. In fact it is a super"natural" belief system anyway.

The police should install car bombs that detonate on ignition of the car engine in cars that are parked at an expired meter. That would help solve the problem of illegal parking.

Now that we both have presented an idea that is profoundly inane and not on topic for this thread, perhaps we can get back on topic.

[AlAyeti]

E,

Religion and marriage IS the topic.

The homosexual agenda would find all of its conclusion in just following their own logic. They have the history, the doctrine and the dogma to become a new religion. Look at the fanatical followers of the movement to become a new culture and community. . . all of the trappings are in place.

[juliod]

What about inter-faith marriages? Which church gets authority, or do the couple have to choose one and only one church to get married under?

Of course, this would be up to the religions. But I would think that in cases where the doctrines are compatible the couple could pick either church. But I doubt that is what you meant.

I am presuming that most organized churches would not support the concept of "inter-faith marriage". I mean, a christian marrying a hindu would be a blasphemy if the christian took his or her religion seriously.

Also, I presume that churches like the Unitarian Universalists would be happy to marry anyone, but that most other churches would ignore their marriages. That would be their right, on both sides, and the government would not be forced to adjudicate.

what about churches which are complicit in child abuse?

That would be handled by law enforcement in the same way it is now. I don't think this aspect of our society would change. But "good" churches would be able to take action without needing probable cause.

DanZ

[juliod]

The homosexual agenda

So, Al, no thoughts on my proposal?

Wouldn't you like your church to be restored to the power and importance that your doctrine claims? Wouldn't you feel good if your church did not defer to the secular government on marriage?

DanZ

[ST88]

In my view, secualr marriage serves no useful function and there will be several tangible benefits to returning it to the religions.

If marriage is a strictly religious institution, then all individuals must be treated as separate entities by the government. It would have to treat marriage as an extra-legal institution, not unlike a Christening or a Baptism. So assigning power to churches to garnish wages is out.

Child Welfare
Church adjudication over child welfare would dramatically change our society at large, as non-religious relationships that result in children would be completely off the radar. The government would have to acknowledge that it isn't interested in the raising of children. There could not be, for example, a government-sponsored child welfare system that serves only non-religious people. It's either everyone or no one. Serious questions could be opened up about public education.

Next of Kin
One damaging effect on society at large is the next-of-kin issue. Right now, spouse tops the list of next-of-kin for hospitals, police, and other government institutions. This is because it is assumed that the person you assign as your spouse is the person you would trust to make decisions in your absence. I.e., you choose your spouse partly on the factor of trust. Your blood relations are so virtually by accident. You have no choice in who your family is -- it is by many measures an arbitrary distinction to determine who gets to make decisions for you because of the DNA similarities you share. However, by choosing your life partner, you are stating that there is a person who you trust with these decisions.
You may say that there could be a separate legal contract for who that person might be. In fact, there could be a number of different legal contracts that would cover all of the benefits that marriage provides, including child custody, visitation rights, notification rights, etc. There are probably a good number of such rights. Or we could just roll them up into one -- saving time and money -- and call it marriage.

Taxes
You may have a point here. Marriage is treated oddly under the tax code.

If everyone was treated as an individual financial instrument unto themselves, the tax code would have to be changed drastically. Consider the single-income household. One person is taxed, and the other person is off the radar. New sections of the tax code would have to be written to cover the non-working household partner, however many there might be.

Simplify the tax code, it wouldn't. The main complications in the code are not marriage related, they are related to corporate capital.

Consider the dual-income, two-children household. Who gets the deduction? Only one? Both?

What if one parent makes $200,000 and the other parent makes $25,000? It would behoove everyone to make as much as they can because of Social Security benefits later in life. This would discourage housewifery, as someone with no income would get little or no Social Security upon turning 65. That's OK if that's your goal. But you should be prepared to deal with the consequences when the government has no interest in raising children, and the parents have a negative motivator for even having children. The entire Social Security & welfare systems would need to be overhauled.

In my opinion, the only way to resolve the gay marriage issue is to allow gay marriages.

[palmera]

Good post. Also, what about couples that are flat out denied by every church the go to. If there is no civil union, then those people who choose to live together, to have children together etc.. are screwed out of important tax breaks which might be the only things enabling them to realistically support a family in the first place. Giving churches the sole power of marriage is a dangerous proposition. All the couples that were denied marriage are then discriminated legally by an institution protected by the government, making the government complicit in their discrimination.

[Cephus]

1) The plan would be to strip marriage out of the secular legal system and give the various churches freedom to define, manage, and adjudicate marital issues as deemed proper by their doctrine. There are few cases where marriage is relevant in out modern system, and in those cases the issues end up in court anyway when there is any controversy. The status of marriage fails to simplify anything.

So what about people who aren't religious? Atheists can't get married now?

2) Tax: The main use of marriage is in the tax code. We should just do away with this, simplifying the tax code and having each person pay tax on their income without bias. Exemptions for dependants would remain the same.

Then where is the impetus to get married at all? If there are no financial benefits, why bother? Just breed with whoever you happen to be around and let the consequences be damned. In fact, this would seem to be a reason for people to breed up a storm because they get tax benefits for each unit they manage to pump out.

3) Inheritance: Marriage would cease to be counted for inheritance. The default would be by strict blood relation. It would be essential to establish wills, but then it is already essential. In any case, regardless of wills, marriage, or other arrangements, if there is a dispute it ends up in court. The only change would be that spouses would not automatically inherit. It is my view that one of the services provided by the churches would be to prepare legal wills for the marrying couple along the lines of their official doctrine. Some churches may want to enforce male-line inheritance, and this would be a meas to do so.

There's no way to prove beyond a doubt blood relations. You can only rule people out with DNA checks, you can't prove conclusively that someone is related.

4) Living wills: This would be handled the same way as inheritance. Power over medical decisions and power-of-attorney would be determined by legal documents with a default of blood-relation. Churches could at this stage pre-empt decisions that my violate doctrine (such as euthenasia).

I think you're giving WAY too much power to churches, sorry. I don't think 95% of the population would want to give any of these powers to their religion. It's utterly insane.