Posted on 02/04/2005 6:49:42 PM PST by NativeTexun
I am interested in the history of government-sanctioned marriage. Apparently civil governments did not get involved in marriages in Europe until after the Protestant Reformation. Don't know what changed, other than the fact that there was no longer just one church that could bless marriages.
It seems to be self-evident that all government "licenses" are granted with certain requirements. What are the criteria for determining who can get specific licenses? For instance, one must be 16 in Texas and pass a test in order to get a driver's license. To get licensed as a teacher, one must go through four years of college.
What is the FUNDAMENTAL reason for licensing anything or anybody? It is NOT for the benefit of the individuals receiving those licenses but rather for the protection and security of the larger entity -- the society.
Thus one must get licensed to drive a car not for your own benefit primarily but for the safety of other people who will be on the road with you. If you were a hermit living on a thousand acre property, you could drive around there all day long without a license and the government would have no interest in you.
Same with teachers. They must achieve certain requirements in order to be licensed to teach the children of the society. Their license is not for their sake but rather for the purpose of protecting society. And so forth for all other licenses.
In regard to marriage, society (i.e. government) really has no business regulating or requiring anything from people in love if you think about it, other than for the purposes of keeping track of lineages for inheritance; for regulating procreation between close kin; for promoting the public welfare and that of future generations. Thus, the PURPOSE of a marriage license is fundamentally for the sake of the larger society, not the two people getting married.
I think that our society is so bass-ackward that we no longer even ask what is the true purpose of our institutions? You don't even have to mention God or religion to believe that marriage is a civil institution regulated and licensed for the sake of the SOCIETY primarily, not the individuals.
Society has a lot to lose when or if homosexuality is elevated in legal status to that of heterosexuality. Again, no need to even mention God or the Bible, just look at statistics and facts. Homosexuality is not procreative, it does not promote the general welfare. It is simply not in the best interests of society to license or dignify homosexuality. Of course, it is also very detrimental to children when the adult world starts calling deviation normal.
Right, that's the lesbian I referred to in my earlier post. She wasn't defeated, she stepped down to go lead a nation gay organization. She probably wouldn't have even faced a Republican competitor had she stayed in office. I don't think announcing her support of same-sex marriage would have hurt given that voters kept sending her back to Beacon Hill after she came out as a lesbian.
The seat is strongly Republican, and Brown won the special election. It looked like maybe that would foreshadow gains in November, but it never happened. Brown almost lost his seat to Jacques' doofus aide Angus McQuilken who never should have stood a chance in the first place. No legislator who supported same-sex marriage lost a race last year, and the only two who lost for supporting traditional marriage were conservative Democrats who lost in the primaries to more liberal Democrats. The issue totally fizzled. No one wants to talk about it any more.
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.