Concerning the Separation of Church and State: Civil Unions Edition.

[ 20 ] July 18, 2012 AD |

Every once in a while, tiny thoughts pop through my brain and I wonder if I’m not quite mad. The most insignificant thing in the world will set it off. A smile, or a blink, or for that matter a slightly extended silence.

And there there are the times when something quite loud and significant runs through my head and it usually come from loud and significant things. You’ll have to decide which of these is present in what follows.

In this country, we are given certain rights by the government, and I don’t mean Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, though some might say that these have been granted to us by that great man Thomas Jefferson. No, I mean things like the right to own a house, if you have the deed, the right to drive a car, if you have a license, the write to speak out against evil in a peaceful way, the right to bear arms. We also have the right to choose our own beneficiaries, our own room-mates (unless you’re a first semester student at Notre Dame, but can you blame them? And anyway, they’re not the government, thanks God.) and our own clothes. We basically have the right to do whatever we want with anyone as long as it’s not infringing on the rights of others.

There is this debate raging about the meaning of marriage. Some say “Marriage is between one man and one woman” and other say “No it’s not.” To all of them, I would say “Marriage is a sacrament between one man and one woman. Everything else is a social civil construct invented by the state for the purposes of keeping track of its citizens and their activities.” Are constructs bad? Of course not always. In fact, as an architecture student, I am particularly fond of constructing things. But we have to remember whose construct it is. It is the state’s construct and thus the state has a right over it.

We can, and should, argue that it is not “marriage,” but it is hard to see where it would be either useful or proper to tell the state “You can not establish any consent based contracts between adults concerning mutual rights and responsibilities.” In fact, it comes right down to that word, contract. A civil union (which all state “marriages” are) is not a sacrament but a contract and has, as I said before, a civil function. Its use is to make sure civil society stays…civil. The Sacrament of Marriage is a state of life entered into by two individuals according to the allowance of the Church in order to grow closer to God and to, in short, have fruitful sex. Nothing in “legal” marriage says anything about sex. It does not decree “Once you enter into this contract, you have an obligation to approach each other in a sexual manner.” In Marriage, though, it is quite part of the Rite itself and the tradition of the Church says that a husband and a wife ought to have intercourse, else their marriage is not valid. Not so for the “civil union.”

We are talking, then, of two very distinct things, though they have been conflated and confused and placed side by side for so ling that it’s hard to imagine them without each other. In “A Severe Mercy” by Sheldon Vanauken, Sheldon and his wife Jean are married by the town clerk, but then insist on going to find a minister though they themselves have no use for Christianity at the time.

For a man and a woman who want to dedicate their life together to God and the raising of children, the Sacrament only makes sense. For anyone else, the Sacrament is at best pretty and at worst irrelevant. It is impossible to dissolve the bond of Marriage, but a contract can always be broken. This is, of course, why divorce is so common among Christians…they confuse the two. They think that because legal “marriage” (or civil union) is a contract that can be broken (though not without cost), so too is “church marriage” whether they consider it a sacrament or not.

Because of all of this, this separation between the civil union and the marriage is necessary if we are to save marriage. If we try to draw our Sacramental understanding on the etch-a-sketch of the law, we risk our Sacrament being erased by the tremors of society. We must see our Sacrament as something unique, quite distinct from a “civil union.”

But this also means we have to avoid saying that a “civil union” must only be between one man and one woman. If two men want to dedicate their lives to a common cause and hold a common bank account and care for children, it is not up to the Church to say “No, they can not do that civilly.” It is up to the Church to say “Do not sin, it may very well be hard.” By right, Church adoption agencies can refuse to let them adopt children if they suspect that they will harm the child’s upbringing in any way, but that is surely what all adoption agencies do. It’s just that the Church has different criteria. But it is not enough to say “These two men have everything in common and have a legal contract that gives them the right to visit each other in a hospital etc. etc. and so we can not let them have children together.” We must say “These men are involved in a lifestyle that is harmful to children.”

And yet, the State does not have that responsibility. Since the contract and the situation of the contract is neutral when it comes to the question of sex and the raising of children, the State does not say “You have signed this contract, therefore you can’t have children.” It says, merely, nothing.

Of course, this is not to say that we should not promote a culture where sin and disorder are frowned upon. It is our duty to be a light to the world and to tell the world where it is wrong. One way it is wrong is to enter churches and tell us that our sacraments must coincide to its contracts. We must indeed work to heal division wherever it is and to strive toward personal holiness as well as the holiness of our society.

 

Facebook4Twitter5Google+0Reddit0Pinterest1Email

Category: Relationships, Sacraments

About the Author ()

is a 20 year old architecture student at the University of Notre Dame. His architectural preference is the Gothic and also listens to anonymous 12th Century polyphony. However his listening habits are not merely medieval. He also enjoys Baroque music, 60s Rock and Christian Punk Pop. He is also an avid reader and a part-time philosopher. He is an idealist and also occasionally gives into his monarchist tendencies. He reflects on life at holyintheworld.blogspot.com and blathers on about important irrelevancies at theamericancommoner.blogspot.com
  • richard

    Marriage goes way back in time; long before considerations of “Church and State”.

  • http://tjburdick.com TJ Burdick

    Great piece, made me think. Only one worry pops up though: if the government allows for gay marriage to be legalized, will they then be able to send any Catholic Church to court who refuses to marry the couple? It seems like that is kind of where the world is heading to. Just a thought.

  • Narrator

    That is exactly the idea, Richard: the state is not competent to dictate – for better or for worse – the terms of a cultural institution far more foundational than the state itself.

  • http://listeningfortheshepherd.blogspot.com/ Thomas

    Nathaniel I find many of the things you have to say to be quite compelling and well-thought-out, however, i think there is a fundamental flaw. Marriage is a Sacrament, yes, and marriage is also a contract, yes, but marriage is also a natural institution. The rights of marriage consist in the granting of a kinship status, or a family relationship, to those with a relation that creates common family. A heterosexual couple has the kind of relationship that creates a family, same-sex couples do not. People can have all kinds of contracts, yes, but while contracts can govern a family, they cannot make a family out of those who are simply unable to become one.

  • http://virtuouspla.net/ Nathaniel Gotcher

    Richard: As the Narrator said, yes, the state itself is not involved in the institution of marriage nor should it be.

    TJ: My point was that it isn’t “gay marriage” at all. It’s just a contract that the state made up. The state wouldn’t be able to force churches to “marry” gays because our religious ceremonies are not in their jurisdiction and aren’t necessary for the state contract.

    Thomas: This is exactly what I’m saying though. The state contract that I am proposing is quite irrelevant to “family.” It’s merely a legal partnership that can be between, really, anyone of legal age. Perhaps even numerous people. If a tight knit group of friends wanted to enter into a legal contract that would allow them visitation, common accounts, and tax breaks as a community, why should the state not be set up for this? The fact that this would also allow “gay” couples to enter such a contract is pretty much irrelevant since the state doesn’t ask us if we plan on having sex after the contract is signed. We as a church ought to know when such contracted communities or couples are prepared to adopt children according to our standards, as I said, and thus really “create” a family.

  • http://listeningfortheshepherd.blogspot.com/ Thomas

    Nathaniel, I think you’ve got a point, but I think you misunderstand the real point. What’s stopping same-sex couples from forming such contracts now? Surely, for example, one can grant power of attorney to whoever they like.

    The thing is, what many (most?) advocates of same-sex marriage really want is for the government to declare that their relationship is the kind of relationship that creates a family-connection, that grants kinship-status. This simply isn’t true. Family relationships are meant to be a permanent and inalterable bond.

    A marriage is a family relationship because it is the kind of relationship that creates a permanent, inalterable bond: parenthood of the same children. This is why marriage must be contracted without an intent to not produce children if possible. This is why a valid marriage cannot be ended, because it a family relationship, and you can’t stop being related to your family.

    In our times, divorce, contraception, abortion, euthanasia, and now same-sex marriage are all communicating the same message to our culture: you can throw your family away if you want to, and that message is false and evil.

  • http://virtuouspla.net/ Nathaniel Gotcher

    I think what I’m proposing doesn’t concern families. I’m not advocating for gay marriage and just calling it “civil unions.” I’m noticing that we already have civil union type contracts and that it makes sense for the state to not say “if you are two men, you can’t grant each other power of attorney or share a bank account or things like that.” And if such people want to take on dependents (whether or not, according to the Church it’s an ideal situation), then they should get tax breaks for those dependents whether or not they are two women, two men, one man and one woman or five people who want to care for children. But because of this, the state also can’t call this “marriage” because that’s not what it is. Separation under this state contract wouldn’t be divorce, it would just be a break in contract,or, if the terms of the contract were only for a certain time, the fulfillment of the contract.

  • http://listeningfortheshepherd.blogspot.com/ Thomas

    It does concern families. Marriage is about family, marriage creates families, marriage grants family-status. Giving the rights of marriage to those who are not married doesn’t make sense because marriage rights are family rights, in fact, they are family rights that take precedence over the rights of other types of family relationships (as was clearly seen in the Schiavo case, her husband’s rights to determine terri’s fate trumped the rights of her parents and siblings to do the same – although Terri’s right to life should’ve trumped all).

    The problem still remains that what is really wanted is the creation of an artificial construct that elevates same-sex relationships to the status of family, despite the fact that same-sex relationships are by their nature contrary to the creation of family. Same-sex marriage or civil unions is an attempt to create family out of that which cannot create family.

    By granting family-rights to relationships that are not and cannot be family relationships, governments illegitemately seize the absolute power to define family relationships (rather than just recognizing what actually exists). In such a move, governments elevate the status of same-sex relationships by lowering the status of marriage, and therefore all family relationships by association, to a mere civil construct that exists only at the will of the government and may be terminated at will. Family relationships are real, they are not artificial constructs, they do not exist by will of the goverment, and they cannot be terminated.

  • Marian

    Nathanial, you make very cogent arguments. I think where it gets murky is when you look at the funding of organizations such as Catholic and state adoption agencies. The state adoption agency gets funding from everyone through taxes. The Catholic adoption agency has historically received funding through taxes, because it is deemed that these agencies are doing a service to the entire community (i.e. adopting Catholic and non-Catholic children alike to Catholic and non-Catholic parents, as long as those parents are heterosexual married couples who pass the vetting process). Now the state says, if you want our money, you have to follow our guidelines and cannot follow your own (i.e. you must adopt children to same-sex and non-married couples). So, what do we do? Ideally, the Catholic populace could provide enough money through donations to sustain the adoption agency. But here again we have a problem, because we are paying to support both the state agency (through our taxes) and the Catholic agency (through donations). That is (forgive the pun) taxing on us! And, by further removing ourselves from any involvement in the public sphere, I would argue that we are doing a disservice to our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ and fellow citizens. Instead of dialoging with them about why we believe it is healthier for a child to be raised in a stable home with a mother and a father and informing their worldview, we’ve taken our marbles and decided to play our own game. And then we practicing Catholics become increasingly marginalized… etc.
    I don’t know what the answer is. These are just my own observations and thoughts that might contribute to the big picture. While the argument that the secular state can allow civil unions for same sex couples while the Church can maintain her own moral positions in performing marriages seems on the surface like a beautifully simple and even in some ways a compassionate compromise (i.e. being considered family and able to visit your loved one in the hospital), I’m still not sure it’s the best answer.

  • http://virtuouspla.net/ Nathaniel Gotcher

    Thomas: I think the idea that’s bouncing around my head is a bit different from what you think it is and probably because I didn’t particularly express it well. It’s not that Civil Unions should be just the State equivalent of Marriage. That’s the current situation. A woman and a man who want to be legally recognized as married have to sign a legal contract. Now, of course those who are sacramentally married will want the legal protection afforded by civil union laws and thus we would have to include marriage as one of the relationships that civil unions apply to.

    However, if two brothers want to dedicate their life to a certain cause (such as promoting the gospel through evangelization to the cities of America) and they live together, work together and wish to have all things in common (joint tax filing etc.) why should the state say “No, since you are not married, you can not be in a civil union.”

    What I’m trying to say is that I’m not saying that civil unions should look like they do now nor that it is just a cover for homosexual encounters. It’s merely a legal structure for anyone to have all things in common. It become much more general and becomes something quite separate from our idea of marriage. Is it not true that some rights that married people have (the right to a fair trial) are also granted to single people? Married people ought to have no more rights according to the law than anyone else who is taking care of children.

    That, of course, is not to say that they ought not to be shown respect in society or in the Church because of their dedication to modeling the Trinity. I happen to be a particularly big fan of Marriage qua sacrament which is why I find it an absolute travesty that “civil unions”, the legal marriage of our time, are called “marriages.” If currently our civil unions aren’t marriages, why should we not let gays sign such a contract?

    Marian: Your point about adoption is of course right. But isn’t that a problem of the State when the state can say “You can’t follow your beliefs when ministering to the people?” That’s exactly what the HHS Mandate issue is. It applies to the adoption question as well. The state has its own idea of civil union which must be, pardon the expression, divorced from our idea of marriage. Because of this the state has no right to tell a Catholic adoption agency that it must consider a civil union the same thing as a marriage, since it isn’t.

    Right now is a time to separate ourselves from worldly things and especially from connection to political and societal fads and ideas. We shall be an astounding witness if we refuse to give in to the idea of civil union=marriage. Marginalized? Perhaps, but stronger for taking the stronger position. People do not flock to a Church unwilling to make distinctions and separate itself from the crowd. People flock to a Church that calls them to something different. If we can’t show the citizens of this country that we have anything to offer besides the normal political issues of the day, they will get bored and evangelization has lost an opportunity. Our evangelization must happen one person at a time.

    We will never leave the dialog and play our own game of marbles. We will always meet the culture head on, but we can only do that if we can disentangle ourselves from its confusing its laws for our sacraments.

  • http://listeningfortheshepherd.blogspot.com Thomas

    Nathaniel, thanks for the interesting post and for responding so thoroughly to my comments. Obviously, I disagree with your conclusions. Considering your points has helped me further clarify mine though, and I will continue to consider your points and clarify mine. I don’t want to further hijack your post, so I’m not going to continue to respond at this point, though I’ll probably use what I have personally written in the comments as the basic text of a post on my own blog (probably next week and you’re welcome to comment). I hope that my comments at least helped you further clarify your own thoughts, much as yours did for me.

  • http://virtuouspla.net/ Nathaniel Gotcher

    Thomas, thanks for the great discussion. It’s great when greater clarity can be found through discussion of hard topics. You helped me understand my position and yours much better. Could you link me up to your blog?

  • http://listeningfortheshepherd.blogspot.com Thomas

    Click on my name; or go to http://listeningfortheshepherd.blogspot.com. I have posted on this topic in the past month or so, but I feel it could be done better now thanks to the greater refinement my thoughts have received from our discussion today; so I hope to post again soon on this topic, hopefully next week.

    Thanks for discussing this topic with me with charity and insight, especially despite our disagreement.

  • Nicole

    Have we talked about this at all Nate… I can’t remember ever discussing it but, reading your post sounded eerily similar to what I was talking to my sister and cousin about earlier in the summer.

  • Pingback: Asia Bibi Civil Unions Mother Church Nanny State | Big Pulpit

  • http://catholiceconomist.wordpress.com Buster

    “Everything else is a social civil construct invented by the state for the purposes of keeping track of its citizens and their activities.”

    Though part of it may be a social construct. Everything outside the sacrament of matrimony is not a social construct invented by the state…it is marriage.

    Neither State nor Church has authority over marriage, both should recognize a marriage, that is what is outside of marriage. Gay “marriage” would be a social construct by the state. However, a marriage license is not. It is the states recognition of a marriage and benefits given to that marriage.

  • Micha Elyi

    In this country, we are given certain rights by the government…, I mean things like the right to own a house, if you have the deed, the right to drive a car, if you have a license….

    This is but one example of the author’s confusion.

    If an action requires a license from the State it’s not a right, it’s a privilege. I suggest the author (and editor who let this pass) review ones state’s driver’s handbook if one is unclear on this concept.

  • http://listeningfortheshepherd.blogspot.com Thomas Fuller
  • RayG

    There is a basic flaw which compromises the author’s otherwise nice article. The government does not “give” us rights, they are inherent with the human person. The government guarantees that our rights are not infringed upon.

    If the basis of one’s logic is untrue, then the logic that flows from that error will be logically correct but untrue.

    The discussion about whether or not there is a separation of Church and state is concerned must be based upon the good of the object, in this case marriage. Marriage is a natural institution that predates government and any attempt to circumvent the natural order that marriage is between a man and a woman by calling it a contract does violence to the institution. Calling it a contract turns the two parties (or more) into things and not persons. Sexual relations then become an activity between the parties separated from the natural meaning of procreation of the species. The parties are now acting out of animalism instead of human persons. We must be able to embrace our sexuality in its proper manner.

    Love is wanting the good for the other person without expecting anything in return. Contracts expect something in return. Jesus is God and God needs nothing as he is perfect but he does not need us. It is his example of wanting the good for us that true love is expressed and that is how we are to love. he made man, both male and female to reflect his love and this is why same sex “marriages/contracts” are not appropriate.

    The attempt to get along by calling it a contract instead of a marriage does a disservice to what is trying to occur.

  • http://virtuouspla.net/ Nathaniel Gotcher

    RayG, I think that was my point though. The “government sanctioned” contract doesn’t mean what the sacrament does. Contracts are something else entirely and can be between anyone. If the State were to recognize marriage as something else entirely as a natural and sacramental reality, then all this “contract” business could be more of just a part of the logistics, as it is in any contract.

    As to rights, there are some inherent rights and some that are “privileges” (which, btw, is defined as “special rights granted to a certain group of people”). The rights I was talking about that the government gives us are of the second variety.

«
»