Posted on 07/05/2003 9:44:48 PM PDT by Lorianne
It's going to get ugly. And then it's going to get boring. So, we have two options here. We can add gay marriage to the short list of controversies—abortion, affirmative action, the death penalty—that are so frozen and ritualistic that debates about them are more like Kabuki performances than intellectual exercises. Or we can think outside the box. There is a solution that ought to satisfy both camps and may not be a bad idea even apart from the gay-marriage controversy.
That solution is to end the institution of marriage. Or rather (he hastens to clarify, Dear) the solution is to end the institution of government-sanctioned marriage. Or, framed to appeal to conservatives: End the government monopoly on marriage. Wait, I've got it: Privatize marriage. These slogans all mean the same thing. Let churches and other religious institutions continue to offer marriage ceremonies. Let department stores and casinos get into the act if they want. Let each organization decide for itself what kinds of couples it wants to offer marriage to. Let couples celebrate their union in any way they choose and consider themselves married whenever they want. Let others be free to consider them not married, under rules these others may prefer. And, yes, if three people want to get married, or one person wants to marry herself, and someone else wants to conduct a ceremony and declare them married, let 'em. If you and your government aren't implicated, what do you care?
In fact, there is nothing to stop any of this from happening now. And a lot of it does happen. But only certain marriages get certified by the government. So, in the United States we are about to find ourselves in a strange situation where the principal demand of a liberation movement is to be included in the red tape of a government bureaucracy. Having just gotten state governments out of their bedrooms, gays now want these governments back in. Meanwhile, social-conservative anti-gays, many of them southerners, are calling on the government in Washington to trample states' rights and nationalize the rules of marriage, if necessary, to prevent gays from getting what they want. The Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist of Tennessee, responded to the Supreme Court's Lawrence decision by endorsing a constitutional amendment, no less, against gay marriage.
If marriage were an entirely private affair, all the disputes over gay marriage would become irrelevant. Gay marriage would not have the official sanction of government, but neither would straight marriage. There would be official equality between the two, which is the essence of what gays want and are entitled to. And if the other side is sincere in saying that its concern is not what people do in private, but government endorsement of a gay "lifestyle" or "agenda," that problem goes away, too.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.msn.com ...
If there were no governmental controls on marriage, people would be forced to choose their mates more wisely, and remain more committed then your average couple in society today. Most women love the power that the government has bestowed upon them in marriage, but they pay the price by finding fewer men ready to accept that kind of commitment.
There are already plenty of fictitious marriages arranged for immigration purposes, but imagine the situation if marriage had no meaning in the eyes of the law. Either there would be millions of phony marriages and millions of new immigrants, or the government would have to decide what constituted an official couple and thousands of sincere married couples would be separated. Legal marriage may not be perfect in regards to immigration, but it's certainly better than bureaucrats determining whether a relationship exists or not. There's enough baggage involved in a legal marriage that most people don't enter into it lightly.
In regard to children, it's pretty obvious that legal marriage is a key ingredient in providing a stable and financially secure home. The joint ownership of property and the legal rights and responsibilities involved with marriage make couples less likely to separate and more likely to prepare for the long term.
There's also the mentality today of, "well if it doesn't work, because we're just living together, we can walk away". I'm going through a separation and divorce right now, but the day I spoke my vows I was sure it was forever. I fought damn hard for that marriage but my spouse refused to meet me half way. I believe he wanted out all along. Needless to say, I will be quite gun-shy myself for a long time to come.
From the beginnings of recorded history, whether in a theocratic ruled tribe or nation ( the Hebrews/Israel ), or a governmentaly imposed set of laws ( anciet Egypt, Greece, and Rome ), there always was divorce, someone got the children and wealth ( back then and until only rather recently it was the man;now [i.e. the 20th century, starting in the late 20s )it is uaually, but not always, the woman. When the Catholic church took over the majority of the laws governing all marriages ( the early Middle Ages, or thereabouts ), they even made rules about when the couple could copulate ( not often ! ), who could and who could NOT marry, and divorce ( which were few and extremely difficult to get; not to mention EXPENSIVE and CORRUPT ! )and still, the man was favored. Early , middle and later Protestanism ? More or less the same thing.
Today's generation of young adults, brought up on a surfit of media garbage and left over " sexual revolution " garbage/propaganda, not only doesn't know how to commit, they don't understand what a marriage really is all about.
That women's power drivel is warmed over male stupidity and lack of understanding. Been hit hard by some woman/women, have you ?
Are you too dumb to realize you answered your own question?
Simple, secular, biological...
The legacy of no-fault divorce. When people continuously refuse to honor one another, what is a promise before God?
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.