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

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

[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.