THE EFFORT to legalize same-sex marriage achieved another significant victory yesterday with the California federal court ruling striking down Proposition 8. In light of this development, it is time for traditionalists to consider civil disobedience in the realm of marriage.

In short, the State’s role in marriages is tyrannical, forcing couples to participate in an institution that strips them of their property and civil rights in the event of divorce and that may no longer resemble traditional marriage in the most fundamental way. The State is a third party in marriage and it views the marriage contract essentially as a commercial transaction between individuals. Given that marriage has long been defined by the State as a commercial agreement, it makes sense that no one should be excluded from forming such a bond in a way that alters its non-commercial aspects. Two pieces, here and here, explore the idea of couples declining to obtain civil marriage licenses as an act of resistance and self-protection. In the American colonies, no one was required to obtain a state marriage license. This is a return to our historic roots.

                                            — Comments —

Robin writes:

I have read both links you provided and I am fascinated. I had no idea what freedom we were sacrificing to the State under the State-sanctioned marriage license. This is such an eye-opening piece of information as I do not believe we will ever “win” this battle against gay “marriage” by simply condemning those seeking such a union. Obviously, this bears little fruit as those in California now know: their votes were apparently utterly worthless! Rather, just as in opposition to feminism, it appears that the way to victory lies in unplugging from the Matrix and allowing others to see the truth and subsequent fruit in our daily lives, our marriages and our children.

Laura writes:

Yes, just as in education, the key is not in fighting the public education system but in unplugging from it and creating an alternate system of private choices, the future of marriage may lie in creating marital authority outside the State’s jurisdiction for as long as the State is guided by principles of radical individual autonomy. But this is a complicated matter and the idea is new to me as well. Some authority obviosuly must fill the vacuum. As I understand it, in some states, a common law marriage is recognized in family courts and in others, it is not. In the latter states, “divorces” between non-married couples could end up hypothetically in civil court instead of family court under palimony guidelines. Resolving marital disputes outside the State’s jurisdiction altogether requires strong communal bonds and religious authority.

Robin writes:

I would certainly be inclined to believe that those seeking this type of unplugged existence in marital union (by refusing to subject themselves to a State marital contract) would be more likely to be adamently opposed to no-fault divorce in the first place, as well as much more likely to be under the authority of Godly leadership at their local congregations. It would seem that people who would choose this type of marriage documentation would be more likely to homeschool and more likely to be “anti-establishment” in terms of vaccination laws, etc. Although I am quite aware that the published divorce statistics for Christians do not vary greatly from those of the worldly community at all, I believe that the statistics may lean toward those who are Christian in name only, and not truly followers of the Word at all, since the Church in America tends to be quite Laodicean at the moment. Perhaps if a couple desired to enter into a marriage under pastoral leadership, without involvement from the State, said couple would agree to bring any marital conflict before the church as in accordance with Scripture, before thinking of bringing such conflict into the secular courtroom arena. A different breed of cat would choose this option to begin with, in my opinion. What an example they would be to others; I am curious to know how many couples have married under such conditions and the longevity of their marriages to date.

Laura writes:

Yes, I would imagine very few would seek divorce but that couples would still have to recognize some authority for resolving disputes. My own personal view of divorce is the traditional Catholic one and that is that separation, not divorce, is the only Christian option in the event of rare and very serious marital division.

Michelle Bell writes:

My husband and I were very wary of the idea that the state could confer upon us the status of “being married.” It seems as if the state should have very little to say in whether or not I am wife to my husband. We looked into forgoing that portion of legality and would just wait it out until we were “common law married” — a piece of paper from the state no more makes us committed to one another than a drawing makes the moon. When we looked into the legalities of our particular state, we realised that the same legislation that defined marriage between one man and one woman also stripped couples of the avenue of common law marriage. We were NOT the only state that has had that option removed from public life in the attempt to circumscribe state-sanctioned marriages. So in the end, we signed papers so we weren’t legal strangers after our wedding (which seems quite odd to me).

So how would civil disobedience in this instance work? Specifically, I’m wondering how you’d suggest couples considering the same thing to be able to ensure their “rights” to their spouse — if marriages aren’t legally recognised then spiteful family members could separate a couple during times of hospital stays or hospice (when truly spouses should be as intertwined during these moments as throughout the rest of life) or take over care in a manner that does not respect the wishes of the spouses. We draw up living wills and have preemptive power-of-attorney directives? We recede from (public or private) health care, corporate work, etc. etc.?

I’m very much interested in your readers’ insights.

Laura writes:

It seems that some authority has to fill this vacuum and that this can only occur in communities with very strong bonds, where ostracism by religious or civil authority is the consequence for violation of marital vows. I don’t know if couples could protect their bonds legally without a state marriage licence and without this strong alternative community. I’d be curious to know how the Amish handle marital disputes.

Jim Wetzel writes:

Interesting post. I’ll have to admit that I’d never really thought about the problematic nature of establishing alternative structure of authority for governing marriage; for a long time now, I’ve simply thought that the obvious proper authority was simply the church. But the church is full of unbelievers, and the church’s offices harbor numerous unbelievers as well, making it rather dubious, I suppose, what effect church discipline might have when applied by those who don’t really believe in it, to those who probably don’t much care. 

Since it seems that the young seem almost universally to “play house” these days, rather than be married even under the auspices of our pagan state, maybe it doesn’t much matter. In my own case, I was married more than thirty-five years ago, when I was twenty and not of an age, perhaps, to have done a lot of thinking about the state’s “authority” and its proper relationship to my life. So, while I was married by the church, it was with the state’s license. The only thing about my marriage that I now regret is the acquisition of that license. I really, really wish we had searched, if necessary, and found a pastor who would have married us without the involvement of the worldly regime. 

Anyway, your post reminded me that I had blogged about essentially the same subject, four years ago. Nothing ever really changes, does it?

Paul V. writes:

A traditional Catholic would be very hard pressed to find a Catholic priest to officiate at a marriage without the required license. Not now, or probably ever. Civil resistance is not a Catholic option unless the official Church is directly under attack or one is being required to perform a sinful act. And even then it is permitted only with great reluctance and after every other avenue has been exhausted. At least this is my understanding. If I am wrong, I would be very happy to be corrected. Very happy indeed.

Laura writes:

If same-sex marriage is legalized, the state marriage contract would seem to be inherently sinful, if it is not already. How can the Church require people to participate in this institution?

Vanessa writes:

It’s only illegal for a priest to conduct a civil marriage [without a marriage license] if he is acting as a justice of the peace. If he relinquishes that status, then it is a purely private ceremony, like a baptism. There is no law requiring priests to act as justices, it is merely a tradition and convenience for the couple. It might become necessary to do this, if there becomes a law stating that all justices of the peace must marry homosexual couples, for instance.

If the couple wanted to have a civil marriage license, as well, they would merely have to go down to city hall to get one themselves.

Paul V. writes:

Same sex marriage is sinful, the law permitting it, like the law permitting abortion, is therefore void; assuming the legal means to change the law have been exhausted, where does that leave us? Obtaining a marriage license that also permits, or is applicable to, same sex marriage, does not seem to me involve participating in, or assenting to, same sex marriage in any respect, as right, institution, etc. The marriage contract is between the two (still!) parties getting married; in the Catholic sacrament, the ministers of the marriage likewise are the parties getting married. That is the institution. The priest merely acts as witness for the Church (that all aspects of the bond conform to Church precepts), society in general, and I presume the state. By obtaining a license, do we participate in the degradation of the institution of marriage, which is the effect of the law? I really don’t see how; it doesn’t imply our assent, though getting married before a JP who services anybody with a license certainly comes close. Besides trying to change the law, I think the best approach is to refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of such alliances in any respect, including (as you advised in the case of the baby stroller) anything more than common courtesy. In fact, a mixture of real common courtesy with a refusal to budge on the principle in the slightest respect seems to me the best approach, very awkward to retaliate against. My grandson recently explained to a very attractive, very intelligent participant in a lesbian something or other who was having an in vitro that he thought what she was doing was wrong. Being a sensitive, caring individual with a high opinion of herself, what could she say? You’re a bigot, or something? When the in vitro failed, she decided not to try again. I can’t help but think the straightup words of not the most articulate 17-year-old played a little part. (Would I have done as well?) But notwithstanding civil resistence or principled shunning, the law must be defeated. Civil resistance has no teeth unless it has the support of the press, universities, etc.; you end up in hock to the media. Take it from someone who’d been through the Sixties.

Laura writes:

This wouldn’t work purely as a gesture of civil resistance;I agree with that. It would only be worth pursuing if it was also a way of bringing down the State’s authority over marriage and creating alternative authorities in families, communities or the Church. 

It seems that the state marriage license does force couples to symbolically accept the state’s definition of marriage. If the same license is used for two women as for a man and a woman, then by obtaining a license you are participating in an institution (the state institution of marriage) that is immoral. If the State enforces the contract, doesn’t that make it a party to the agreement?

Paul V. writes:

If one could get the Catholic Church and a large number of Protestant demoninations to go along with it, an excellent idea. The best idea I’ve heard on the subject. And the idea is quite sensible, not really civil disobedience since no laws are being broken. But are the Christian churches willing to make such a strong statement against homosexuality? It’s not the state, but the knife in the back we are dealing with. Still, it’s a very good idea with ramifications for statism in general. The home schooling movement may be a harbinger. I hadn’t thought of it in terms of denying the state an authority it doesn’t have anyway.

Laura writes:

As I said, it’s not just the same-sex issue that is relevant, but no-fault divorce laws and child custody rulings.

Jim B. writes:

Interesting discussion of the history of marriage licences.  It is all part of the long term project of the State to makes things “visable” – codifying and regulating what had been ancient practices.  I would recommend to any of your readers James Scott’s “Seeing like a State”, which is about the history of such schemes.

I myself was married in Massachusetts, and so had to go through indignity of filling forms with spaces for “Party A” and Party B”.  I suppose our priest wouldn’t have married us without it – but he may not have that option for much longer.  After our Judicial overlords have made SSM the law of the land, the next frontier will be the stripping of tax exempt status (and eventually, all freedom of
association) for any Church that does not recognize these State sanctioned unions.  In fact, in my more conspiratorial moments I think that – and not the freedom of some gays to pretend to be married – is the point of the whole exercise…

Please follow and like us: