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]

Two people declare their love for each other. Their "wedding day" is merely the day they begin to cohabitate.

I agree with your assessment. But I recognize that we are in the minority.

My plan is for those people who have specific opinions about marriage doctrine. Usually, this is related to religious doctrine. So I think we should create a legal framework for those people to get on with it.

In my view, many people who marry would wish to do so under the auspices of some organization, usually a church. But the legal status of these marriages is managed by the secular government. I would prefer our secular government to be uninvolved in the administration of religion.

DanZ

[AlAyeti]

In my view, many people who marry would wish to do so under the auspices of some organization, usually a church. But the legal status of these marriages is managed by the secular government. I would prefer our secular government to be uninvolved in the administration of religion.

Did you know that "Halleluyah" means: "Praise the Lord Yahweh?"

And of course Jesus (Yeshua) means: Yahweh saves!

Ah juliod (DanZ), if only you were a Christian.

[juliod]

There are so many things that the government does "because of the children", and there would be a whole new sub-class of children slotted into religious/non-religious.

I don't see why this should happen. Again, I am not talking about supplanting the existing structures, but allowing (or rather encouraging since it is already possible) people to establish contract obligations relating to marriage and children.

Let's say a religion were to want their member's children to attend their parochial school. It could be written into the marriage doctrine contract that any children of the marriage would attend this school. The parents would agree, ahead of time and with full freedom, that the church authorities would be empowered by a guardianship clause that they could invoke to take full legal custody of the children if the parents fail to fulfill their obligations. The clause would also waive the parents legal rights.

This is perfectly possible under our current system without significant change. The state would still have the power (and duty) to intervene in cases where the parents and/or church neglect the children.

The reason this isn't done currently is that religions unaccountably defer to the secular government on marriage and child issues.

How does the state define what a church is? Branch Dividians? Heaven's Gate?

With no legal status of marriage, the government wouldn't be involved in defining religion in this context. People can form contracts with other people and organizations as the see fit. That's all that's required. The organizations involved with my scheme could be as small as the two people getting married, although I expect that most peoplewould seek an official church doctrinal contract.

would think one of the purposes of government is to help those who can't help themselves -- and children fall into this category. What about your plan wouldn't effectively make them wards of the church?

It's entirely up to the parents and the churches. Some churches would not wish to be involved in child-issues at all. Others would want total control. I accept that this is up to the parents. Government should only be involved in instances of necessity.

Parents can decide where their children go to school only if they have enough money to do so. This includes transporting their children to different schools if they so choose. Aren't you making this a test of available cash rather than a test of church attendance?

No, not really. For one thing, most churches can very well afford to run their own schools, if they choose to do so. Secondly, public schools would still be available. If a church wants their children to attend a special school they have to work out how it will be paid for. We'll NMP it. (Not My Problem)

DanZ

[Woody]

Hey AlAyeti,

One small point after you,

I choose to use The Urantia Book for learning about Jesus, and the UB reveals that Jesus' given name is Joshua ben Joseph (Joshua of-from Joseph) and that Jesus is a nickname for Joshua. English translations of course.

Thanks

[AlAyeti]

Hey AlAyeti,

One small point after you,

I choose to use The Urantia Book for learning about Jesus, and the UB reveals that Jesus' given name is Joshua ben Joseph (Joshua of-from Joseph) and that Jesus is a nickname for Joshua. English translations of course.

Thanks

You're welcome but please with all due respecdt, I am a skeptic and a free thinker (as opposed to freethinker) as well as a "Born-Again, Fundamentalist, Bible-believing, Christian." Whatever that really means.

I bought a copy of the Urantia book but I was a little put off. It seems kind of Oahspe/Mormonism/Dianetics to me.

I trust books - to a certain degree - where people claim to have written them.

Notice I stay out of the Urantia thread. Just as long as the free exchange of ideas is allowed, I'm OK with many things being discussed.

But, there is nothing wrong in opposing the redfinition and mutilation of marriage and family. I believe whole-heartedly in the slippery slope. It is usually very bad.