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

[juliod]

So assigning power to churches to garnish wages is out.

That power would not be given to the churches by the government, but agreed to by the couple and the churches. I'm evisioning prospective spouses signing marriage documents that specify the church doctrine, set out the powers being assumed by the church, and establishing wills, living wills, and other legal documents as necessary.

No one would be compelled to submit to a church, but if you choose to get married in your church you would have to accept their doctrine (and who wouldn't want to?).

There could not be, for example, a government-sponsored child welfare system that serves only non-religious people.

Right. I'm not suggesting getting rid of our current institutions. The load would be taken off them by allowing churches to administrate divorce and custody. The courts and other services would be needed in the case where there is a dispute within a church. But I expect this would lead to a massive reduction in caseload for the courts.

Serious questions could be opened up about public education.

But not new ones.

Or we could just roll them up into one -- saving time and money -- and call it marriage.

Yes, but there's a problem. When an actual dispute occurs between a spouse and the blood reletives, it always ends up in court anyway. Marriage doesn't really settle the issue, and my proposal won't either. But it would force people to make the decisions explicit, which is becoming standard practise anyway.

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

In my view I would have only one tax status, and everyone with an income would pay in that status. A dependant may be claimed by only one tax payer. OK, it wouldn't simplify the tax code much, but at least it moves in the right direction. In any case, we need to deal with the very many unmarried people who cohabitate. It would be best if the religious/married and the non-religious/cohabiting were treated the same for tax purposes.

The entire Social Security & welfare systems would need to be overhauled.

Those plans are already on the table.

DanZ

[juliod]

what about couples that are flat out denied by every church the go to.

That's not very realistic. I think the UU's would already marry just about anyone.

are screwed out of important tax breaks which might be the only things enabling them to realistically support a family in the first place.

Tax breaks for marriage should not exist in the first place. And of course, everyone should live withing their means, and not have more kids than they can afford.

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.

That's the logic that is leading to the conflict over gay marriage. Since marriage is administered by government, we cannot legally deny any group. This unreasonably takes power from the churches.

In my plan, any group that wants to regulate marriage can form their own organization and do so. So minor religions, atheists, and yes, homosexuals, can have their own policies and marriages.
Government would be uninvolved.

DanZ

[juliod]

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

Atheists could get married in any church that would allow it (and there are many). Also, I would expect that many churches would not want to have detailed oversight of the marriage. Atheists (and others) could also form their own marriage policy groups.

Then where is the impetus to get married at all? If there are no financial benefits, why bother?

Good question. You'll have to ask the married people to get an answer. I would like to know why we spend so much time and money administering a religious institution?

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.

Are you suggesting this isn't the way we live now? From my point of view, it is. My plan wouldn't change it. One problem at a time.

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.

You can do so to the satisfaction of the courts. It's done daily when money is at stake.

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.

That would be their choice, of course. I wouldn't sign up for my own plan, and I suspect you wouldn't either. But which theist here wouldn't want to give real authority to their church?

DanZ

[AlAyeti]

Quote:
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?

Though I have no doubt about the ulterior motive of this thread, I have stated many times that homosexuals should found their own "religion." My only concern is that same-sex marriage outlaws Christianity AND normalizes homosexuality as just another branch of "OK-ness." This of course means that more books like The King and King, would be pushed into kindergartens.

No Christian can "vote" for the death of marriage and family and normality as homosexual environments will force children into even more aberration and deviance, than is even currently forced onto children by hedonistic and licentious "parents" now. As soon as same-sex marriage is legalized, the homosexual agenda will descend on the school systems even worse than they are now. There will be LGBT and GLSEN sex clubs in pre-schools. No Christian can doom children to a life where sexual deviance is taught as acceptable.

If homosexuality is rightly viewed as a religion based on a belief system, then things would be in proper perspective.

Then government can have it.

You thread topic just proves my point that virtually every issue facing society today revolves around either forcing homosexuality on society or celebrating sexual deviance as a civil right. The intolerance of the progressive and liberal and homosexual agenda's permeates just about everything now.

[McCulloch]

... I have stated many times that homosexuals should found their own "religion." My only concern is that same-sex marriage outlaws Christianity AND normalizes homosexuality as just another branch of "OK-ness." ... If homosexuality is rightly viewed as a religion based on a belief system, then things would be in proper perspective. Then government can have it.

I am having problems understanding your point of view. It appears as if you are saying that if a separate religion were to be set up for and by homosexuals, then the government would grant that religion equal status with other religions and tolerate same-sex marriages. But existing religions (especially ones labelling themselves as Christian) and those without religion should be denied, by force of law, the rite of same-sex marriage.

BTW, allowing non-Christians to have same-sex marriage does not outlaw Christianity any more than allowing non-Muslims to eat pork outlaws Islam.

[juliod]

hough I have no doubt about the ulterior motive of this thread

Perhaps you culd let me know what it is. I think I've written pretty fairly and openly about it.

I have stated many times that homosexuals should found their own "religion."

So then you support my plan? People who support homosexual marriage could form their own churches and perform their own marriages. Your church would not be required to acknowledge these marriages. The government would not acknowledge or legitimize these marriages either. At the same time your chruch would regain the power to adjudicate over marriage that it has lost to the government. Good idea, right?

My only concern is that same-sex marriage outlaws Christianity AND normalizes homosexuality as just another branch of "OK-ness."

That's an absurdity within an absurdity. But in any case, doesn't my plan solve the problem? The problem is that marriage is defined by the government, not your church. My plan is to return this power to you and your church. Good idea, right?

There will be LGBT and GLSEN sex clubs in pre-schools.

Again, it's all about sex for you, isn't it? These bizzarre paranoid fantasies do not help the discussion of any topic, you know.

You thread topic just proves my point that virtually every issue facing society today revolves around either forcing homosexuality on society or celebrating sexual deviance as a civil right.

No, my plan does the opposite. It allows serious religious groups to define and regulate marriage as they see fit according to their doctrine. They would then have the power to deny homosexuals and sexual deviants the right to marriage. Currently, by defering to the government, your religion lacks this power.

DanZ

[Cephus]

Atheists could get married in any church that would allow it (and there are many). Also, I would expect that many churches would not want to have detailed oversight of the marriage. Atheists (and others) could also form their own marriage policy groups.

And if you don't want to get married in a church? I know I certainly didn't, I had no interest in it and wouldn't have, regardless of their beliefs.

Good question. You'll have to ask the married people to get an answer. I would like to know why we spend so much time and money administering a religious institution?

I am one of them and the only real reason to get married at all, as opposed to simply having a lifetime monogamous commitment to one person, are the financial aspects. If you take those away, why would *ANYONE* get married?

Are you suggesting this isn't the way we live now? From my point of view, it is. My plan wouldn't change it. One problem at a time.

No, married couples today get tax breaks just for being married, whether or not they have children.

That would be their choice, of course. I wouldn't sign up for my own plan, and I suspect you wouldn't either. But which theist here wouldn't want to give real authority to their church?

Any with a clue wouldn't. The idea that the church can take your property and money at a whim because they think they know better than you do is ludicrous. The idea that the church can decide what is best for your children if you act outside of their 'rules' is even more ludicrous.

Now personally, I don't mind the idea that the state get out of the "marriage" business and if churches want to rubber stamp their approval on state-sanctioned civil unions, that's fine with me, but the idea of giving any church power over people to that extent is just crazy.

[ST88]

So assigning power to churches to garnish wages is out.

That power would not be given to the churches by the government, but agreed to by the couple and the churches. I'm evisioning prospective spouses signing marriage documents that specify the church doctrine, set out the powers being assumed by the church, and establishing wills, living wills, and other legal documents as necessary.

Isn't this assigning the church a legal status and responsibility for which there is only precedent in pre-colonial times? In effect, you are turning churches (individual churches) into individual post-governmental administrative areas. In order to complete this transaction, you would essentially have to attribute to the church financial responsibility for the couple. You appear to be relying upon the church's administrative operations to carry out the results of a marital split (financially & custody-wise), and then having government take up the overflow for really contentious cases. If true, then the government would have to treat each marital contract, governed by each individual church (I think there are 300,000 of them in the U.S.), as part of separate jurisdictions which contain separate rules. You might have to create a whole new court infrastucture to take care of such cases.

My guess is that divorces would be treated as person-person litigations, with each party assigning the church as a mediator -- similar to what happens now in many contract cases. But the really contentious ones would have to go outside of mediation.

There is only one problem with this, and that is that the church is not an impartial party in this action. A traditional mediator will not have any interest whatsoever in the outcome of a case (having been paid by both parties beforehand). However, the church will definitely have an interest in the outcome of such cases, having each party as a member.

There could not be, for example, a government-sponsored child welfare system that serves only non-religious people.

Right. I'm not suggesting getting rid of our current institutions. The load would be taken off them by allowing churches to administrate divorce and custody. The courts and other services would be needed in the case where there is a dispute within a church. But I expect this would lead to a massive reduction in caseload for the courts.

I don't think you quite get what I mean. I am talking about child welfare services. By definition, government-sponsored welfare services would have to serve only those who have no religious affiliation, and would therefore be subject to Constitutional objection. If child welfare were assigned to religious institutions, then those not part of a religious institution would not have any protection.

The 14th Amendment contains the Equal Protection Clause, which would prohibit the government from treating persons differently -- under the law -- from others based on inherent or chosen characteristics.

This is from the Cornell Law website:

Traditionally, the Court finds a state classification constitutional if it has "a rational basis" to a "legitimate state purpose." The Supreme Court, however, has applied more stringent analysis in certain cases. It will "strictly scrutinize" a distinction when it embodies a "suspect classification." In order for a classification to be subject to strict scrutiny, it must be shown that the state law or its administration is meant to discriminate. Usually, if a purpose to discriminate is found the classification will be strictly scrutinized if it is based on race, national origin, or, in some situations, non U.S. citizenship (the suspect classes). In order for a classification to be found permissible under this test it must be proven, by the state, that there is a compelling interest to the law and that the classification is necessary to further that interest. The Court will also apply a strict scrutiny test if the classification interferes with fundamental rights such as first amendment rights, the right to privacy, or the right to travel.

Bold mine.

Traditionally, child welfare issues are under the state's jurisdiction (i.e., not Federal), so the above would apply. I believe the test of religion falls within this scrutiny. I don't know, it may not. But it seems to me that it should.

Serious questions could be opened up about public education.

But not new ones.

Not true. There would be a whole new set of conflicts that the government would have if they were to treat children of religious institutions differently from those who are non-religious (I guess I should say "not affiliated with churches"). This also falls under the Equal Protection Clause.

Or we could just roll them up into one -- saving time and money -- and call it marriage.

Yes, but there's a problem. When an actual dispute occurs between a spouse and the blood reletives, it always ends up in court anyway. Marriage doesn't really settle the issue, and my proposal won't either. But it would force people to make the decisions explicit, which is becoming standard practise anyway.

Ah, yes. The Schiavo case. The decision really was up to the husband, but the parents sued because they thought they could prove that the husband was trying to get out of the marriage (i.e., by killing her), and therefore was not legally able to make the decision to allow her to die. In other words, they had to prove that he no longer wished to be married, and so did not have the requisite marital rights.

I seriously doubt that this is as pervasive a problem as you make it out to be. I think that these are wild exceptions that should not invalidate the rule.

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

In my view I would have only one tax status, and everyone with an income would pay in that status. A dependant may be claimed by only one tax payer. OK, it wouldn't simplify the tax code much, but at least it moves in the right direction. In any case, we need to deal with the very many unmarried people who cohabitate. It would be best if the religious/married and the non-religious/cohabiting were treated the same for tax purposes.

I could not agree with you more here. The IRS rules on marriage "benefits" seem to be wrong-headed and in some cases bizarre. I would like to see at the very least a purge of all rules pertaining to marriage from tax law. And instead, make "co-ownership" the standard for certain tax dodges... er, I mean deductions.

The entire Social Security & welfare systems would need to be overhauled.

Those plans are already on the table.

Hold on there, ponyboy! By overhauled, I don't mean shifting piles of money from one column to another, I mean changing eligibility and monetary assignment rules such that the nature of these institutions change on a basic level. The whole idea with Social Security was that you get out what you pay in. Well, no more, my friend. Even if you were to pay nothing in, you would still have to be eligible to get something out.

[juliod]

And if you don't want to get married in a church?

Then don't. The government woudn't care either way.

If all you want is to declare your commitment while surrounded by beloved friends, then just do it wherever you want.

I am one of them and the only real reason to get married at all, as opposed to simply having a lifetime monogamous commitment to one person, are the financial aspects.

I believe that those financial benefits are unjust. Married people already get the benefit of shares expenses. Why give them further subsidy?

The idea that the church can take your property and money at a whim because they think they know better than you do is ludicrous. The idea that the church can decide what is best for your children if you act outside of their 'rules' is even more ludicrous.

It's called "religion". I won't call it ludicrous. Why would anyone belong to a church, much less get married in one, if they didn't intend to obey the church doctrine? And why would a church even exist if they didn't think their members should live by their doctrine?

but the idea of giving any church power over people to that extent is just crazy.

It would only apply to those people who freely enter into the commitment with the church and their spouse.

DanZ

[juliod]

Isn't this assigning the church a legal status and responsibility for which there is only precedent in pre-colonial times? In effect, you are turning churches (individual churches) into individual post-governmental administrative areas.

No, that's not my intent. The idea is that legally there would be no recognition of marriage. When two people go to court over some issue (property, children) it would not matter at all whether they were married.

My plan is that churches would sign the couple up with binding legal contracts that would enforce their marriage doctrine. To the courts it would be the same if an unmarried couple were bound by identically-worded contracts.

And since these would be freely entered into, by adults, I assume that 99% of judgements would be "That's what you signed up for, case dismissed!"

If true, then the government would have to treat each marital contract, governed by each individual church (I think there are 300,000 of them in the U.S.), as part of separate jurisdictions which contain separate rules.

No, the marriage contract would be viewed as any other contract between people and/or an organization.

My guess is that divorces would be treated as person-person litigations, with each party assigning the church as a mediator -- similar to what happens now in many contract cases. But the really contentious ones would have to go outside of mediation.

No, this isn't what is intended. There would be no "divorce" cases because the courts wouldn't be involved in the whole marriage business. I am also assuming that most christian churches would not authroize divorce at all. The contracts would have no provision for divorce, and thus no need for child support, financial arrangements or property division. Simple!

I imagine the courts would mostly see cases from people who decide later that they want out. In which case the result would be "That's what you signed up for, case dismissed!"

I don't think you quite get what I mean. I am talking about child welfare services.

No, I don't understand what you mean in this section. It's not my view that this plan would need any adjustment to the existing child-welfare practices. The difference being that a contract might be created that gives the church certain powers, such as the right to place monitors into the homes of their members. I don't envision that this would supplant or interfere with scular legal functions.

There would be a whole new set of conflicts that the government would have if they were to treat children of religious institutions differently from those who are non-religious (I guess I should say "not affiliated with churches"). This also falls under the Equal Protection Clause.

I don't see why you think there would be a difference here. Parents already can decide where to send their children to school. Under my pan they would not be exempted from this. They might be required to send their kids to a religious school if it specifies that in their marriage doctrine contract.

By overhauled, I don't mean shifting piles of money from one column to another, I mean changing eligibility and monetary assignment rules such that the nature of these institutions change on a basic level

Right. As I understand it, the current plans will take the Social Security money and give it to the rich and then... well, that's about it. So the issue is moot.

DanZ