Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Do We Really Want To Redefine Marriage?
Flopping Aces ^ | 08-11-10 | Vince

Posted on 08/11/2010 9:01:11 AM PDT by Starman417

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-33 last
To: Starman417

Do we want to?

Me personally? No, it’s worked for me. Society itself - yeah, I think the fact is that a significant segment wish to revist this, so fair play to them.


21 posted on 08/11/2010 9:40:51 AM PDT by Androcles (All your typos are belong to us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
There is no debate, the supermajority of the country does not want to redefine marriage. case closed.

The trouble is, that's not the debate: the debate today is about government involvement and the right of law... and unless a "statesman" emerges to put this in proper context, the traditionalists cannot win this battle in the long term.

I will explain...don't flame me yet.

Marriage has been a Christian religious bond, and one adopted in one form or another by most other religions of the world for the purpose of ordaining and establishing The Family. This is simply a historical fact - it's not the point of debate I intend to raise here.

The problem in this country arose when the state got involved: establishing laws on who could and could not marry (underage, close relatives), plus licensing the practice. Next came taxation differences: IRS rules treating people differently depending on whether they were married. Add to this insurance differences, adoption practices, inheritance, and much much more: we talk about the "slippery slope" for many issues -- government involvement in marriage is the very definition of this. We truly now have two classes of people: those who can marry and financially benefit from that institution, and those who cannot. This is undeniable, and has been established now more by government than by God.

The result? Like it or not, this California judge has accurately pointed out that the laws are treating people differently, and the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment should indeed apply. The barn door has been thrown wide open, and it's because the church (in whatever form you prefer) has embraced/allowed/tolerated government intrusion into its business. Now we're paying the piper, and there's no going back.

Well, maybe.

In my view, there's only one chance left to recover marriage in its current form. And that requires a communicator with a national voice, an undeniable reputation, and a common sense message. That message should be as follows: "It is in the compelling best interests of the United States that marriage be preserved and encouraged in the form of one man and one woman united to form a family. This family unit is the basis for all economic development, child creation and development, education, defense, and protection for this nation. It provides the year-over-year bonds of family that stabilizes us, establishes civil order, encourages careers, and ultimately provides a future that we can count on in this country."

While one can argue that there are people in the form of "life partners" or others who can establish that they can successfully achieve these high marks themselves (and certainly there are married families that likewise fail to achieve them), one cannot argue that over time, these points are better achieved through married families than any other entity. It is for this reason that the ideals of the 14th amendment must rank below the compelling interests of the United States to support, protect, and defend marriage in its current form. But because we have allowed the government to (already!) redefine marriage, we have likewise ceded the means of control. And based on current Constitutional law, I believe this kind of argument I've outlined here is the only means of rescue for marriage... and then only partially, for we frankly still have the government in control of it regardless.

I don't know that we have such a statesman who can sell this, but we need one quickly. It is nearly too late already.

22 posted on 08/11/2010 9:43:48 AM PDT by alancarp (Please don't tell Obama what comes after "trillion")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: alancarp

I think you make some good points, but, I’m unclear on the 14th amendment “equal protection” argument.

Everyone is already treated equally under current marriage laws. Any eligible man can marry any eligible woman. We’re all limited to one partner at a time. We all are limited to an opposite sex partner. The fact that a homosexual man doesn’t want to marry a woman doesn’t negate the fact that he has the same right to do so as anyone.

Further, homosexuals are not a protected class under federal civil rights laws. The laws classify us all as men and women. There is nothing about gay men and lesbian females in the federal law, thus, there is no legal basis to say that they are treated unequally somehow in marriage laws. At least there is no legal basis unless a judge decides that homosexuals “should” be a protected class.

We can all make policy arguments for and against same-sex marriage, but, clearly the judges are bending the law to rule for same-sex marriage. If homosexuals were a protected class under civil rights laws, then the argument under the 14th amendment would be much stronger.

To me, the place to make all these arguments is in the legislatures, not the courts.


23 posted on 08/11/2010 10:08:51 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Neoliberalnot
This is a left-wing and homosexual movement to undermine the family

Their motive is envy. Envy is an unhealthy form of competition which doesn't seek to have what others have but to destroy what they have. Envy is a race to the bottom rather than a race to the top. Envy is evil and should be fought.

24 posted on 08/11/2010 10:53:10 AM PDT by Reeses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Reeses

Agreed. Envy and ingratitude are hallmarks of liberalism.


25 posted on 08/11/2010 11:47:53 AM PDT by Neoliberalnot ((Read "The Grey Book" for an alternative to corruption in DC))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego
Everyone is already treated equally under current marriage laws. Any eligible man can marry any eligible woman. We’re all limited to one partner at a time. We all are limited to an opposite sex partner. The fact that a homosexual man doesn’t want to marry a woman doesn’t negate the fact that he has the same right to do so as anyone.

That is exactly the problem: we have reached the point at which the equal protection argument is tearing up ALL of the limits you mention. Yes, gays have the right to marry the opposite gender, but they don't want to do so. Yet they want the financial and legal benefits of marriage, so they have now successfully argued that the 14th amendment should protect that option on an equal basis of opposite-gender marriages. They have worked around the protected class argument and gone for a straight 14th amendment victory.

So my point is that we have lost this argument and must therefore develop another approach (previously outlined). Your points seem to be exactly what was lost in this California decision. Common (gender) sense and tradition have no rational legal standing any more. Religious practice was ceded once the government and states got involved in licensing marriage. Once this hits SCOTUS (and wins), I expect that the only limits left regarding marriage will be that of 'consenting humans of age'... two or more.

26 posted on 08/11/2010 12:17:00 PM PDT by alancarp (Please don't tell Obama what comes after "trillion")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: alancarp

I think you are right about “consenting humans, two or more”. The same arguments being made in favor of same-sex marriage can and will be made in favor of polygamy or group marriage.

Already some talk about “triads” or “polyamory”, in which groups of people live together. I’m “libertarian” enough to say let people live how they want, but, just because consenting adults live a certain way, doesn’t mean that our social policies need to approve of or give legal status to how they live their lives.


27 posted on 08/11/2010 1:22:40 PM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Starman417

Yes, of course. To be progressive is to reject everything that controls. All ethics and behavior that have a shred of confining religious pretext must be damned. In the Utopia of Progressive America there will be total equality of wealth, of gender, of education, of everything.

Marriage is of no real value in a society of total freedom and no rules. The wealth of accumulated civilizing knowledge is actually poverty. The precepts of civilization are chains.

To solve the progressive problem there must be a revolution and massive blood in the streets. Otherwise, it will never end. It can not be eliminated by any other means.


28 posted on 08/11/2010 1:34:12 PM PDT by bert (K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 ..... Greetings Jacques. The revolution is coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alancarp

marriage has existed long before christianity.

The argument to protect marriage can and must be made WITHOUT ANY RELIGIOUS REFERENCE.

it is only the foolish who think religion is really part of this debate.


29 posted on 08/11/2010 1:53:22 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

abandonment cases and bigamy dropped.

you can’t have it both ways.

women would threaten to make accusations against the ability of their husbands to perform...with women. It was not pretty and it was often petty.


30 posted on 08/11/2010 1:56:16 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
Two clarifications:
1. Yes, I misspoke - I place the origin of marriage in the Biblical account in Genesis... obviously pre-dating the Christian era. That statement was merely for context. However... you gotta read the rest, because...
2. My argument is that marriage in the religious context has been co-opted by secular law, and thus my main point is in agreement with you: we must make the argument to preserve marriage without bringing religious, historic, or "tradition" considerations to the table. It's the law or nothing. And I suggest that we do this by bringing the "compelling national interest" argument to the table.

Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.

31 posted on 08/11/2010 2:08:54 PM PDT by alancarp (Please don't tell Obama what comes after "trillion")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Starman417

placemark.


32 posted on 08/11/2010 4:50:00 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Starman417

I hate this argument. It’s as if polygamy is any worse than gay marriage. It’s clearly not.


33 posted on 08/12/2010 9:54:11 PM PDT by CaspersGh0sts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-33 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson