I Don't See One Single Reason Government Needs to Be in the Marriage Business...

Social recognition does not equal state recognition. Pennsylvania, for instance, did not require a marriage license until 1885. Yet certainly everyone recognizes the marriages that occurred here in the colonial period.

The license formalizes the reality. It may have been practically possible to dispense with the formality in 1885 Pennsylvania, but such is no longer the case. In 1885, no one mistook two men "in love" as married, nor two relatives, or one man and three women, etc.

Nor would people have stood by and allowed two known homosexuals to adopt children.

Voting to remove laws regarding marriage, making possible the adoption of children by homosexuals, makes one a material cause of a grave evil.

Eliminating state recognition of marriage does not mean marriage will go away. Christian and Jewish marriages will still occur. Even now, many people from the lower classes (who, unless religiously compelled) generally don't bother with civil marriage and will often refer to the "husband" as "my man" and the "wife" as "my lady." And society understands that to mean a long term relationship similar to a marriage.

Historically these have been regarded as common law marriages.

Yet the couples don't marry because that would cause them to forfeit whatever monetary gains are to be had from remaining single. I believe it's possible MORE religious marriages would occur with the monetary incentive to remain single removed.

Very likely.

I'm not an expert in history, but hasn't polygamy been widely recognized throughout history? Marriage has not historically always equalled one man and one woman.

Polygamy and polyandry are the exceptions that prove the rule. They represent a distinctly minority position. The natural law argument against them is obvious. Some people are denied the possibility of marriage.

I just don't understand why you are placing so much importance upon civil marriage.

Civil marriage recognizes the natural law reality. People of every religion, no religion, and even atheists marry. Until the last decade, the reasoning was obvious. Marriage is simply the lifelong commitment of a man and women to each other for their own good, and concommitantly, the begetting and raising of children. Law has always recognized this.

Since you've taken a CHurch Doctor as your screen name, I'm assuming you're Catholic. If one of your children had a civil only marriage, would you consider them married? Or would you believe them to be living in a sinful state?

Grace builds on nature. Christian marriage is superior to natural marriage, in that the purpose is supernatural. The object of the spouses is to prepare each other, and their children, for heaven. To do that, the wife must selflessly serve her husband, and the husband must love his wife as Christ loved His Church, that is, he must be willing to lay down his life for her --mutual self-sacrifice for the spiritual good of each.

Obviously, the Church doesn't consider natural and sacramental marriages as equal. However, the Church presumes the validity of civil marriages as natural marriages, if the conditions of a natural marriage are met, that is, if the spouses intend a lifelong commitment to each other, and intend to have children, at least at some time during their lives. Nowadays, many, if not most civil marriages, do not represent natural marriages, since most people enter marriage with the intention to stay married, as long as they're "in love." And many secular couples do not intend to have children.

And obviously, a sacramental marriage is preferable. But many people are ignorant of religion, and cannot be faulted for foregoing sacramental marriage.

Found these links from the old Catholic Encyclopedia. Very interesting reading.

History of Marriage

Civil Marriage

Sacrament of Marriage

You put the cart before the horse. The welfare programs are a good portion of what destroyed marriage, They were not created in response to the dissolution.

How you can imagine that the entity which destroyed the institution is the savior of it, befuddles me.

Welfare programs are not a must. People have existed without them in the past. In fact their lack of existence would strengthen marriage because people would understand from firsthand viewing of the perils of ditching such time honored standards.

Now if you wish to make a case that people are such that we stuck with those welfare programs in perpetuity. That may well be the case because of the level of indoctrination which the Left has managed by taking over the halls of education.

Destroying the institutions of western society has been a long term plan of the Left and much of it has been coming to fruition. Unless we can make a case which can strip away the power that the Left is using to tear us down, we’re doomed. Taking over that power for a short term is no solution. The power itself has to be dissipated. People generally like to be left alone, and that is about the most appealing case we can make.

So what do you make of all those links? I’ve scanned them and they seem to imply that civil marriage is a Protestant invention. ;)

I saw this same bizarre logic in the local paper. Let’s get the government out of the marriage business and redefine marriage legislatively. Well...which one do you want? Government out of it and therefore changing nothing or government involved and redefining the entire foundation of our culture.

Keep reading.

The entry on civil marriage is the least interesting. The history of marriage is very good, as is the entry on sacramental marriage.

We are on the same page, what I’m really trying to do is get away from this issue forever... sick of hearing about it

All the patriots when our country was born were fighting for rights that was "already lost" according to you. They should have given up by your logic.

Secondly, "Big Government" - you are joking. Filing out a simple form and a paying a very nominal fee is the epitome of small government which we should all be for. If only the rest of government was so "Big".

Secondly, if government gets out of the business of marriage then how in the hell are the going to prevent brothers marrying sisters and procreating or other seriously deviant forms of frankensteinism. Our society will not stand by capitulating to moral relativists. This is why I am not a libertarian.

Mark 8:36 - "How is a man the better for it, if he gains the whole world at the expense of losing his own soul?"

So a government granted permission slip is the only barrier to brothers and sisters shagging and welping out a litter?

If you can’t function without some bureaucrat telling you who you can and can’t marry, at least do it at the state level if your state’s constitution gives it that power. But that power was not granted to the federal government.

“You put the cart before the horse. The welfare programs are a good portion of what destroyed marriage, They were not created in response to the dissolution.”

Well, for what it’s worth I was there (and I do remember SOME of what happened in the Sixties).
Heck, most of us didn’t even know of welfare then. There was plenty of good jobs and easy money.

We wanted freedoms- and easing divorce was done in that context. Governor Reagan signed the first no-fault divorce law and the country cheered and followed.
I don’t like the term “unintended consequences”, I prefer the more straight-forward “results of stupidity”.

” the power that the Left is using to tear us down” is the media. Kruschev boasted that we would sell him the rope to hang us- today’s collectivists can boast that our newsmedia will say whatever most excites their advertisers “young and/or female” demographic- who will then insist the government provide a solution.
Ir the media didn’t make so much money stirring these people up perhaps the desire to be left alone would predominate but I don’t see that ever happening.