Posted on 03/25/2013 4:12:22 AM PDT by markomalley
There is a hollow quality to the current debate over homosexual marriage. Socially conservative pundits argue that legalization of homosexual marriage would be destructive to the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage. But nowhere is it mentioned that the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage itself is rapidly becoming an antique, largely due to the proliferation of no-fault divorce laws beginning in the 1970s.
Prior to the adoption of no-fault divorce laws by states, a divorce was processed through an adversarial legal system. This meant that the marital party wanting the divorce had the burden of proving that the breakdown in the marital relationship was the fault of the other marital partner. The bar for grounds for divorce was fairly high and consisted of such things as adultery, abandonment, or felonious behavior by the other marital party. Simply falling out of love did not make the grade. A judge was required to sign off on the divorce decree and it was not unusual for a judge to decide that the grounds for divorce were not met, in which case the parties remained married.
No-fault divorce, on the contrary, is a divorce in which the dissolution of a marriage does not demand showing of wrongdoing by either party. A simple change of heart, as long as it is mutual, is enough to seal the deal and allow the two marital partners to go their separate ways. Of course, there are financial considerations, such as alimony and child support, which could make the process more difficult for some married couples. However, no one in today's America seriously expects couples to stay in a marriage which has become a source of disappointment, disillusionment, or emotional distress to them if they can afford financially to get out of it.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Pope Leo XIII wrote the following back in 1880:
Now, since the family and human society at large spring from marriage, these men will on no account allow matrimony to be the subject of the jurisdiction of the Church. Nay, they endeavor to deprive it of all holiness, and so bring it within the contracted sphere of those rights which, having been instituted by man, are ruled and administered by the civil jurisprudence of the community. Wherefore it necessarily follows that they attribute all power over marriage to civil rulers, and allow none whatever to the Church; and, when the Church exercises any such power, they think that she acts either by favor of the civil authority or to its injury. Now is the time, they say, for the heads of the State to vindicate their rights unflinchingly, and to do their best to settle all that relates to marriage according as to them seems good.
18. Hence are owing civil marriages, commonly so called; hence laws are framed which impose impediments to marriage; hence arise judicial sentences affecting the marriage contract, as to whether or not it have been rightly made. Lastly, all power of prescribing and passing judgment in this class of cases is, as we see, of set purpose denied to the Catholic Church, so that no regard is paid either to her divine power or to her prudent laws. Yet, under these, for so many centuries, have the nations lived on whom the light of civilization shone bright with the wisdom of Christ Jesus.
19. Nevertheless, the naturalists,[32] as well as all who profess that they worship above all things the divinity of the State, and strive to disturb whole communities with such wicked doctrines, cannot escape the charge of delusion. Marriage has God for its Author, and was from the very beginning a kind of foreshadowing of the Incarnation of His Son; and therefore there abides in it a something holy and religious; not extraneous, but innate; not derived from men, but implanted by nature.
Is It Time to Legalize Heterosexual Marriage? NEVER
A Libertarian would look over this and say that it’s not the federal gov’t or state gov’t business to manage marriage except as a union affair to protect assets and have a way later to split up property. A marriage, as far as I’m concerned....really only happens when you involve the church. The state’s job....if any....is to run the union side of it and have a orderly method of carving up joint property. The involvement of marriage into taxes is awful stupid and one of the reasons why we have such a corrupted tax system.
Where did the writer come up with this? Divorce is unilateral. If one party wants it, the wishes of the other party are not considered.
I agree. The use of the income tax code to engage in social engineering is deeply pernicious and destructive both to economic flourishing and personal life. We simply should not have it.
The lib judges can legalize it all they want. I sure as sh*t ain’t recognizing it.
As there are no longer any laws against having sex outside of marriage, it is pointless for the state to recognize marriage. Why should I purchase a state licencse to conduct an activity that is not illegal without the license? It defies logic.
People can say they are married to their dog for all I care, as long as I don’t have to be forced to agree with them, or pay for their dog’s benefits.
The religious will continue to marry as a sacrement, and the irreligious can pretend whatever they want.
For the state to impose homo marriage on an entire population is an act of totalitarianism that should not be tolerated, but resisted with every means possible.
NEVER
“Where did the writer come up with this? Divorce is unilateral. If one party wants it, the wishes of the other party are not considered.”
I caught that also. Wife takes off with the kids, makes some baseless claim against the husband, and then off to court to cash in.
I think everyone here knows this scenario all too well...which is why I married someone from halfway around the world, since families there don’t look at it as something to be proud of.
I don’t think this country can ever be ready to end no-fault divorce, even if it kills the country - which it’s doing now.
“The involvement of marriage into taxes is awful stupid and one of the reasons why we have such a corrupted tax system.”
As much as I understand the logic, a question one must ask is what exactly should the state do if the people simply decide to stop having kids? The easy answer is do nothing - and watch the population decline to the point where it’s unable to defend itself against outside attack. That is CLEARLY the direction that Europe and much of Asia is going in (Muslims taking over demographically in Europe, and simple population decline in Asia).
So based on the above...so my grandchildren will still have a country to live in, I am FINE with the state giving incentives to have kids. Can it be done in a better, cleaner way, yes, but it must be done if we are to have a country that looks anything like the America of 2013, in the (not-so-far) future.
As to why the West no longer has kids, or at least have them at replacement level, two factors - women in the workplace and birth control. No one wants to change those...so we the birth rate tanks.
I don’t know if we’re ready for straight pride parades and heteros kissing in public. This is not Italy.
take away the freebies and start peeling back the state. Then you will see traditional morality make a comeback. All of this idiocy runs rampant because it’s on somebody else’s dime. If you want to live like a heathen, live with the consequences.
Where did the writer come up with this? Divorce is unilateral. If one party wants it, the wishes of the other party are not considered.
Probably by considering the law in one of the several states. Some state "no fault" divorce laws require mutual consent, requiring cause in cases of a unilateral desire for a divorce.
Okay, thanks.
Libertarians, go away, and take your amorality with you.
Yup, Leo XIII saw the danger 130 years ago, in the context of civil divorce, and the conditioning of folks to think that marriage comes from and is defined by the state. It’s just a contract between any parties the state recognizes, and can be broken and resumed with the state’s leave.
If someone would have told him about state recognized ‘gay marriage’ his mitre would have shot off his head like a rocket. In another 130 years? It’s only limited by what judges, pols, or a majority think marriage can be at any one time.
Freegards
Some say homosexuals are making a mockery of marriage, but heterosexuals started it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.