“This is an extraordinary moment in history,” Gavin Newsom, mayor of San Francisco told a cheering, standing-room-only crowd at City Hall. “I think today, marriage as an institution has been strengthened.”
These were the words that rang out from the news coverage but, what does he mean “marriage as an institution has been strengthened”? Is it because a greater number of couples can now be married?
As couples lined up to purchase marriage licenses in California, did anyone bother to ask what this is really all about? The state handing out “permits” to marry is one issue, but the other is: What is marriage anyway?
In the past, you didn’t need a permit (license) in order to solemnize your marriage. A priest or pastor (or civil official) along with two friends or members of the family witnessed the exchange of the couple’s vows. All the parties would then sign a marriage certificate, which constituted proof that a marriage had taken place. The marriage certificate — like any other important document that had public implications — was taken to the courthouse and filed, usually with the register of deeds. But, this activity was only about registering marriages — not getting permission to marry.
In today’s world, as engaged couples prepare to marry, they will find information like this posted on their state’s web site: “The marriage license permits a marriage to take place. The marriage certificate indicates that a legal marriage has been performed.” (This statement comes from the State of Hawaii’s web site.)
Decades ago, state legislatures enacted marriage codes that would require a license from the State in order to be married. There were multiple reasons for this new law, including trying to prevent teenagers from marry. Another purpose was to control who married whom during a time when inter-racial marriage was not allowed in some states.
In 1884, the official marriage certificate form in Wisconsin included twenty questions that had to be answered, including “color of the parties.” The form also included questions, like “name of the father of husband,” and “name of the mother of husband,” and likewise for the wife. These questions were asked in order to clearly identify the parties who were marrying.
In 1906, a new ‘model’ law was proposed by the American Bar Association’s drafting arm, the Uniform Law Commission. This law, called the ‘Revised Marriage Code’ prescribed “the manner of contracting marriages” and “providing for the issuing of marriage licenses.”
The ‘Code’ was drafted by the same organization of lawyers that, in 1970, created the blueprint for “no-fault” divorce in this country which overturned a century of law by eliminating all previous grounds for divorce and installing a new ground called ‘irretrievable breakdown.’ The problem with this new term was that it was given no legal meaning by the authors of the new law and the term subsequently slipped into the legal lexicon and found its own definition over time. A Florida Supreme Court ruling essentially said that was “okay” and since then, the term covers a multitude of sins for the person wanting out of the marriage. The marriage-exit is a given for the person filing because the State backs up the person filing by using the state’s police powers if need be.
Another way to say this is that religious authority over marriage was replaced by the State — insidiously and without much outcry. Organizations that lobby for the Catholic Church typically have either been silent on this issue or have gone along with legislation that tightens the grip of the state.
A precedent can be found in 1917 during the Bolshevik takeover in Russia. New law nullified the role of religious authorities in marriage, replacing them with the State. Religious marriages were no longer considered valid. Marriages performed by a civil authority were the only ones recognized that would receive the so-called ‘benefits.’ The corollary of no-fault divorce was Russia’s Post Card Divorce which operated essentially by notification. One party filed and the other received a form in the mail.
The fight over marriage now is centered around the right to get a marriage license. Do we need a “permit” to marry — which puts marriage in the same category as handguns that also need a permit in some states to “conceal and carry.”
How would it look if we eliminated this vestige of state-control over our private relationships? Maybe we need to turn back the clock to the time when marriages were simply registered, and authority was not automatically vested in the state.
June 24th, 2008 at 4:36 am
THIS is what was meant by the first activists to promote “free love” — that the State ought not to regulate our personal relationships. And given the racist restrictions that they used to put on marriage, making love a matter of liberty is clearly a worthy goal.
June 24th, 2008 at 7:31 am
Marriage an Incarnation
by Donald F Hudzinski
Marriage by its very nature is incarnate. This is its definition defined by God with the birth of His Son. The first Adam’s marriage was incarnate until it fell and he and his wife left the garden. Marriage is a one flesh union, but who became your flesh, the answer is the Incarnation.
A man does not become the flesh of a woman nor does a woman become the flesh of a man, so if marriage is a one flesh union, this can only be achieved through Christ, through the Incarnation.
Have you not herd men say, “I did not what to did like my dad, but I am just like him” or a woman say, “I did not want to be like my mother, but I am just like her”. How come we are not saying, “I did not what to be like Christ, but I am just like Him”? Could be that our marriages are not Incarnate, but how can this be. Maybe it is because “I love you” is pagan and comes from romance novels.
What should we say, when our children ask, “Do you love mommy’? What about saying, “Mommy loves Christ and I love Christ and we all love Christ”. The first commandment say, “We love the Lord Our God with all our minds, all our heart and all our strength and the second is like it, we love our neighbor as ourself” This is not a counter diction because of the Incarnation. We love each other because of our love of Christ, not in spite of that love.
The Incarnation is the marriage of man and God, this is true marriage, and sets the standard for all marriages, as does the marriage of Saint Joseph and Mary, the first incarnate marriage since the marriage of Adam and Eve. This is why we must see Saint Joseph and Mary as the the new Adam and Eve because all our marriage need to be Incarnate.
All of our marriages need to be Incarnate, and this accomplished by God through the Eucharist which is the Incarnation of our marriages.
June 24th, 2008 at 7:43 am
Do you not see how the story of Adam and Eve repeats itself in the nativity story? Eve brings Adam fruit and he eats of it and we have a guard, who fell with his wife, and death entered. Mary bring Saint Joseph the fruit of her womb and he guards it and we live again.
June 24th, 2008 at 9:03 am
While some of the blame for the re-definition of marriage can be pinned on activists and lawyers, I think the more interesting question is why was there no outcry in 1906 to the revised marriage code and why is there basically (despite all the chattering about the marriage issues on sites like this one) no outcry from the general public now about what happened in Massachusetts, California, etc. How were the people in 1906 affected by the Comstock laws passed in the late 1800′s banning the distribution of information on contraceptives? How are the people of today affected by the pervasive availability and acceptance of contraceptives? I find that well meaning Christians (Catholic or otherwise) who use contraceptives cannot give a coherent and persuasive defense of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Is their ability or even desire to speak clearly on this issue in any way related to their justifications for using contraceptives? The activists and lawyers will get away with what we the people let them. Maybe those who are alarmed by the redefinition of marriage need to ask why the general public is so passive about this issue (and I don’t think it has anything to do with the war in Iraq or the lousy economy). Honestly examining that question might be a little more enlightening than just trying to blame the redefinition of marriage on lawyers and activists.
June 24th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Interesting article.
I agree that the phenomenon of the state gaining a preeminent role in licensing and issuing permits for marriage doesn’t make much sense from the sacramental point of view.
On the other hand, the Marriage Tribunals of so many dioceses which investigate petitions to grant statements of nullity find that many Catholics have not been entering into marriages sacramentally either.
Like the chicken and the egg — which came first?
Interesting comments posted as well.
Don’s showing the connection between the Garden of Eden and the Cave in Bethlehem is fascinating.
Hanley18106′s comment that contracepting Catholics have a difficult time articulating a coherent defense of marriage strikes a chord as well.
June 24th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Interesting comments. This will cost me a trip to confession, but…Gavin Newsome is a complete idiot to state that the institution of marriage has been strengthened. That ranks as one of the most narrow minded, self centered comments I have ever heard. All he cares about is saving/promoting his political skin. For his “eternal” well being he would be much better off spending some time with his nose in the Bible learning what the institution of marriage “really” is. Because I guarantee you it does not include a supposed bond between two men or two women. They can try and fool themselves all they want on earth, but ultimately there will be no fooling the final Judge. It looks like I need to pray for these lost souls to find their way. This is pathetic….what a crying shame.
June 24th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
The problem here is semantics. The “state” can’t really marry anyone. The state can only issue license for civil unions. The idea of a “marriage” is inherently religious, and means whatever a couple agrees that it means and is administered by whatever person they feel has the authority to perform it.
I was legally married in the state of Pennsylvania, by a protestant minister. I was married(convalidated) by the Catholic Church some years later. When was I married? In many states men and women obtain “common law” spousal status after two years or cohabitation and filing tax together. When were they married?
The answer in my mind to eliminate the idea of marriage from the “state”. Calling civil unions a marriage is really to insult the spiritual sacrament some people choose to make. We should ask for our spiritual customs to be respected. I doubt they want the connotations of our meanings anyway. Perhaps then less Christians and Catholics will be confused about the validity of civil unions to their spiritual alignments.
June 24th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Civil Union Vs Marriage
Marriage is a sacrament that is defined by the church to be between a man and a women. Our society is correct and incorrect in some aspects of this issue. Strictly observing this from an American the state has not right to force marriage or even define marriage unless to really define a civil union. I do believe that marriage is a holy sacrament that god made between man and woman. Given that I also believe as a U.S. Citizen that civil union should have all the rights that a married couple has in the eyes of the government. I am saying that neither state should dictate church doctrine nor church should dictate state matters. We can also observe the fairness of allowing Civil Unions to have all the rights of marriage while protecting the sanguinity of marriage. It is unfair for the state to reward people that are in a religious institution being either catholic or any other religion while not provide equal treatment that do not follow. In general, I do not agree with same sex marriage, but do agree with same sex civil union. I do not believe the state can define marriage since it is not a religious institution. Thus, protecting the idea of marriage, by separating both civil union and marriage to were the institutions can choose those definitions.
Catholic Chump
Http://www.a–optic.com
June 25th, 2008 at 5:59 am
Catholic Chump
Civil Unions lead to poligamy. The first couple interviewed upon recieve thier license said they plan on getting other licenses, this is poligamy and thier is no way to stop it.
June 25th, 2008 at 8:02 am
DonHudzonski
I agree with you as a catholic, but from a state’s view polygamy should not matter. But if you go further like abortion and death penalty should be illegal because from a clearly ethical point a view not religious. People or children should not die at the hands of society. Society can only punish people and protect the innocent. America is here to help pursue life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Instead we show death, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, but today we have government in our business or religious factions telling the government what to do. Society is the government not religion. If society wants same sex marriage or polygamy then the society has the right to implement it. Its not for the few to tell the many what to do, but the many to tell the few what they should follow. That is why we live in a democracy (republic). Remember 25% of Americans are catholic non-practicing and practicing can vote not to mention other Christians, why are they not voting? Maybe because as I mentioned separation of church and state we left England because of persecution of many types of religions. We should not do the same if Mormons and there religion want polygamy we should not dedicate our position in the matter. We should follow the teachings of our own faith.
Catholic Chump
http://www.a–optic.com
June 26th, 2008 at 6:29 am
US history has brought the issue of polygamy to the courts before, polygamy loss, so there is a legal pressident. It is difficult to reverse.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Bruce Roeder
More reading on the connection between the Garden of Eden and the Cave in Bethlehem is fascinating.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_15081989_redemptoris-custos_en.html