Civil law is best approach to marriage

Carol J. Wright (“Civil unions an assault on marriage,” Dec. 25) seems to be laboring under the misconception that the Catholic Church is entitled to determine the law of the land. Our constitution says it isn't.

In our legal system, a marriage is a lifetime civil contract between two persons, traditionally male and female, which can be dissolved either by the death of one of the partners or through divorce, whether adversarially or by mutual consent. In the United States, the law delegates to religious institutions the authority to establish the marriage contract by conducting a wedding. While the courts are legally obligated to recognize marriages performed by a church, they also recognize other marriages, for example common-law marriages or those performed by a judge.

In many other countries, especially in those of so-called civil law (based on the legal traditions of the Roman empire), the authority to perform marriages is exercised exclusively by civil magistrates. Religious institutions are entitled to perform ceremonies consecrating the basic contract. These are called weddings and have no legal standing whatever. A couple “married” only in church is not married in the eyes of the law.

The Catholic Church understands and accepts this without difficulty in countries such as France (where I lived for many years). The Church and the State each has their domain and they do not interfere with each other. If legal marriage between same-sex couples were established in France, no church could interfere with that; on the other hand, the State could not force the church to perform gay weddings.

The civil law system of marriage is much simpler and cleaner than ours, and we ought to adopt it here.

Per Flaatten

Warrenville