To Save Traditional Marriage, End State Involvement in Marriage (Bingo)

Townhall.com ^ | March 20, 2013 | Ben Shapiro

[Kaslin]

Within the next few months, Justice Anthony Kennedy will likely rule that same-sex marriage is mandated by the Constitution of the United States. The ruling will offend both common sense and Constitutional law. But it will nonetheless become the law of the land. With it, states will be forced to recognize same-sex marriages; same-sex marriage will enter the public school lexicon; religious institutions will be forced to recognize same-sex marriages or lose their tax-exempt status. Religious Americans will be forced into violating their beliefs or facing legal consequences by the government. The First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty will largely become obsolete.

There is only one way to stop this development: Get the government out of the business of marriage. Right now.

States and localities originally gave tax benefits and crafted specific legal systems in order to incentivize Americans to get married and have children within the context of marriage. But those legal institutions have been undermined over the past several decades by a culture that degrades marriage and child rearing. Incentive structures that used to provide the cherry on top of good moral decision-making no longer matter enough to drive such decision-making.

That gap between culture and the legal system has led to a cycle of defining deviancy down, with government taking the lead. The view of the value of marriage in American life changed in the 1950's and 1960's; the left used that cultural shift in order to legitimize no-fault divorce laws, legal custody and child support arrangements that incentivized divorce and social welfare systems that incentivized unwed motherhood.

The last bastion of the old value system was the state's approval of traditional marriage. But thanks to a decades-long cultural shift away from marriage, the left is now in position to use the levers of government to redefine the institution once and for all -- and in the process, destroy the American religious culture that under-girds American freedom.

Unlike the movement to retract laws restricting sexual behavior, the same-sex marriage movement has never been about freedom in any real sense. The push for same-sex marriage is not about wanting freedom to copulate; same-sex copulation has been effectively legal in this country for decades, and formally legal since Lawrence v. Texas (2003). The push for same-sex marriage is not about wanting legal benefits available to heterosexual couples; same-sex couples are largely able to make contractual arrangements to achieve those benefits, and in many states, civil unions equate legally with marriage.

The push for same-sex marriage is about placing the power of government in direct opposition to traditional religious viewpoints.

And conservatives cannot stop that push unless they are willing to restrict government power. Conservatism has always been about preventing the power of government from invading the lives of citizens. Leftism has always been about using the power of government to restrict the behavior of others. It is time for conservatives to recognize the reality of their situation, realize the dangers inherent in their insistence on government interventionism and act quickly.

Getting the government out of marriage would mean voluntary lifestyle arrangements governed by contract -- a practice that has roots stretching back millennia. Religious people would not be forced by the state to approve behavior they find morally problematic. They would not have to worry about their children being taught about such behavior. Conservatives would be forced to rebuild a culture of marriage rather than focusing on a crumbling legal bulwark.

Conservatives lost the culture. Then they lost the law. They can only regain traditional values by removing legal coercion and incentivization from the table -- the left will never hesitate to use those means -- and focusing once again on the raising and production of children within a culture of traditional morality.

[GeronL]

the abolition of marriage is the goal of the left

abolishing marriage isn’t a winning strategy for us

[highball]

When did I say I wanted to abolish marriage?

[xzins]

I do not have a right to force someone to marry me, so it is impossible for me to have an individual right to marry. What you’re calling a right is actually premised on the actions of someone other than me. Therefore, it can never be an individual right.

I have a right to protect myself. It does not involve my getting someone else’s permission or agreement.

I have right to speak my mind. Again, it does not involve my getting someone else’s permission or agreement.

I’m pinging a lawyer who might have insight into what I’m trying to say (and maybe not saying real well.) :>)

[privatedrive]

Stupid? Name-calling is what people resort to when they know their ideas don’t hold water. Your circular, nonsensical argument seems to say that our Constitution is written so that we can make laws that are unconstitutional. Hmmmm...

[privatedrive]

So it would be okay if the government criminalizes divorce, or mandates marriage? For the good of society as a whole. I’m sure you do see where this leads.

[highball]

I understand exactly what you’re trying to say, I just don’t think you’re correct based on my reading of the SCOTUS decisions.

But as a mere dabbler and layman, I will gladly accept the correction of a lawyer actually schooled in the Constitution. ;)

[supercat]

I do not have a right to force someone to marry me, so it is impossible for me to have an individual right to marry.

By that logic, there's no right to buy a gun, since buying a gun would depend upon the actions of the seller. In practice, one has the right to buy a gun from anyone who legally owns a gun and wishes to sell it to the prospective buyer.

[xzins]

I have the right to keep and bear arms.

I don’t have the right to force someone to manufacture them or to sell them.

If push comes to shove, then I make them myself, even if a club or a rock.

Additionally, I don’t have to contract with either the manufacturer or the seller to be with me the rest of my life using those guns with me.

Therefore, marriage is uniquely the involvement of 2 people where buying an item (any item) from a seller is not.

[supercat]

Therefore, marriage is uniquely the involvement of 2 people where buying an item (any item) from a seller is not.

The fact that marriage requires the consent of both parties is analogous to the requirement that for someone to buy a gun, someone else must sell it. Someone who cannot find someone willing to sell, trade, or give a gun to him, and who lacks the skill to make one himself, has no fundamental right to "have" a gun unless or until such time as he can either make one himself or find a willing supplier.

There are some significant ways in which marriage is different, but they actually relate to the fact that it's not just about two people's relationship. Many institutions, companies, and individuals engage in a wide variety of generalized reciprocity with married couples; they assume that providing various benefits to such couples will promote the widespread existence of stably-married couples, which will in turn improve society in a fashion that will end up benefiting those providing the benefits). A marriage is not only relevant to the husband and wife, but also to anyone who would consider providing benefits to them on the basis of that marriage.

[WOSG]

I’m sorry, you are surely an intelligent person,
and smart enough I hope to realize that the statement I reacted to and called ‘stupid’ really didn’t make sense.

Of *course* we want our laws to conform to the Constitution. I never said otherwise. There is however nothing in the Constitution saying “dont let your personal views be used to make laws”. that insinuation is what I call(ed) stupid.

Too often the failed claim of ‘you cant legislate morality’ or ‘you cant do X’ ... well,read the 10th Amendment. The states have the power to make their own decisions according to that.

[WOSG]

“So it would be okay if the government criminalizes divorce, or mandates marriage?”

Since marriage as an institution is created as a contract between procreators for the benefit of the children issuing from that marriage/procreation, the answer is readily apparent:
- As marriage is a contract, it must be voluntary. sometimes things happen where procreators are induced to marriage to make it honorable for the children aka ‘shotgun wedding’,
- Divorce involving children perhaps should be more difficult than modern law allows, and in the past was a lot harder; today its easier to divorce than break a car lease. Many children have been harmed by divorce and family breakup; the statistics are very clear on that. btw ‘criminalize divorce’ is a non sequitor - its a contract, there’s nothing criminal about it. However, divorced men who fail child support can get wages garnished or arrested. Which is odd because deadbeats are not technically criminals. So note, divorce or no divorce men are STILL on the hook. Thus, what no-fault divorce does is diminish a man’s right to see his own children.

SSM just further pushes the concept of marriage away from being an institution for furtherance of the next generation and more a ‘gimme bennies’ about tax breaks. etc.