Abolition of Marriage (Vanity)

My Own ^ | 26-MAR-04 | Core_Conservative

[Core_Conservative]

Some thoughts have been winding their way through the synapses of my brain. I know, it probably did not take that long.

Anyway, my thought was to have all government sanctioned marriage abolished, after all, it was originated a a church institution. If it were to be abolished, we would not be having any of the fights that we are having now. The Divorce Lawyers would be out of business, the government would not have to worry about tax deductions for married couples, everyone would be have to fill out their own tax forms, and the kids could be split between their parents, whomever they might be. If the church wants to marry people, then that should be allowed because it is seperated from government (by the supreme court) and it is a church ritual. That way is you want a divorce, you just have to go through the church.

Those are my thoughts, what are yours...

[Core_Conservative]

Flame away - or take it as sarcasm, but it seems like a logical solution to most of the problems dealing with marriage.

[AppyPappy]

If you get rid of laws against murder, murder will stop.

[DLfromthedesert]

Yup; it will also get rid of our culture based on God and family.

[Publius]

In 1924 Congress passed a bill, signed into law by President Coolidge, that mandated the states to track births, deaths and marriages via certificates of same. This is the "source" of the government's involvement in marriage.

The prime mover for this law in 1924 was the Federal Reserve. (I don't know why.)

This law was concurrent with the Simpson Act which closed the floodgates of immigration for 41 years -- until Lyndon Johnson reopened them at the insistence of Wall Street in 1965.

I suspect that both laws were concerned with "consolidation" after the immigration floodgates were closed. There was a perceived need for government to track just who was and was not an American, although I'm not sure exactly why.

[freeeee]

it will also get rid of our culture based on God and family.

Yes, because everyone knows that God and family can't exist without a government license.

[freeeee]

If a meteor hit the Earth and wiped out government, when you and your spouse emerged from your shelter, would you still be married?

Answer that and you'll know why a marriage license is a sham.

Marriage is a natural state of being* for two people who have expressed their mutual desire to spend the rest of their days together and have declared such to their family, friends, church and God.

(* A natural state of being exists of its own accord. Examples are life and death. Licenses bear no significance to any of these - if you don't have a birth certificate, you're still alive. Government can no more make you alive or married anymore than it can legislate the weather. Such things simply are. It can make you dead, but that is an act of destruction.)

[Modernman]

Marriage, like many other relationships, should be treated like a contract by the government. Consenting adults (in whatever combination) would enter into a contract specifying their relationship, the terms under which the contract could be dissolved etc. In such a scenario, government would take no stand as to which contractual relationship was legitimate. The religious aspect of the marriage would be completely severed from the contractual relationship. If a church wanted to marry you, fine, but that religious ceremony would not create any legal relationship.

[Maceman]

the government would not have to worry about tax deductions for married couples, everyone would be have to fill out their own tax forms,

I think it makes a lot more sense to junk the tax code than to junk marriage.

[Dumb_Ox]

Government recognition of the family is a limitation on state power: strip away the legal protections and privileges given to the family, and you leave the individual even more naked and isolated before the power of the State. By abolishing such a vital mediating institution from public life, you will encourage dependency on the government, rather than on stable kin relationships. Further, non-religous and mixed-religious homes will lack the stability of law that state-sanctioned marriage provides--and that lack of stability will show in the moral and mental health of such unions' children.

Sure, couples of the same religion have many resources to maintain the benefits of the family without resorting to legal means. But the religious should not be the only ones able to benefit from marriage.

By and large, homosexual activists do not want to be married, they want to destroy marriage because they think it "patriarchal" and "heterosexist." Abolishing marriage because of the legal threat of deviants getting in on the act is a surrender--indeed, it is defeat. The battle's just getting started, why put up the white flag now?

[eastsider]

Marriage is a natural state of being* for two people ...

Assuming that the essence of marriage is the marriage act (coitus), then marriage is a natural state of being for two people of opposite sex.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Yep. I've been saying this for a long time. Free people don't need licenses from the government to set up households, much less do they need the government meddling in the financial and other details of the household. Let people enter into contracts of their own choosing, with or without the involvement of the religious institution of their choice. As for kids, a good default setting in the absence of a contract or an imprisoned parent, would be the girls belong to the biological mother and the boys belong to the biological father -- and no "child support" payments, unless both parents contractually agree to such.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Let's junk both!

[rogueleader]

If you are currently married and you support the legal abolition of marriage,

then why don't you get a divorce?

[freeeee]

Assuming that the essence of marriage is the marriage act (coitus)

Coitus is not the essense of marriage. How do we know this? Simple logic:

Two people can have sex and hold no defining characteristics of marriage: love, friendship, committment, loyalty.

Two people can be married by anyone's definition of the term and not have sex.

Hence, while sex is an important part of many marriages, it is neither exclusive to it, nor essential for it. Therefore it is not its essence.

[Rutles4Ever]

Is the Oregon county currently denying marriage licenses to anyone preventing the practice of religion in that county? I know I could not get married by the Catholic Church without a state-issued license -- aren't these Oregon officials opening themselves up to a "biblical" lawsuit? (Pun intended)...

[looscnnn]

That would allow plygamy (spelling?, I'm tired), afterall how would they know that you were not already married? Also, there would be freak churches that would allow such marriages as between a person and animal, groups of people, gay marriage, person and inanimate objects, etc.

Of course then you could have people get married to their gun(s). Then they could truely be taking the creed "My Rifle" to heart. "THIS IS MY RIFLE. There are many like it, but this one is mine. My rifle is my best friend. It is my life."

[Core_Conservative]

Because I enjoy being married - I love my wife and I got married in the Church - I really didn't care if the government sanctioned the wedding, as long as the church did. Does the government care that I'm married - not any longer. does the government care if I have kids - you bet - but do they care if we were married when we had them - nope.

[GovernmentShrinker]

That's the Church's requirement, which it is free to change at any time. There's nothing in the Bible that says a government license is a prerequisite for marraige.

[freeeee]

Government recognition of the family is a limitation on state power

It is precisely the opposite. Governments love to legislate, regulate and control. Government's intrusion into marriage allows it to project its power into the most sacred and private aspects of a person's life. Indeed, it makes governemnt itself a party to the marriage. Government dictates the terms of the marriage. It writes the contract for you, and would give you the choice of taking its terms or not marrying at all.

Witness the myriad of marriage laws. And the power of courts over married people and those who wish to leave marriage. Government will tell to wait 3 days or seek its council before it *allows* you to be married. It taxes you money (marriage license fee), for the *privilidge* of its almighty blessing. Indeed, it claims that it and it alone possesses the power to make two people married. Such arrogance!

Further, non-religous and mixed-religious homes will lack the stability of law that state-sanctioned marriage provides--and that lack of stability will show in the moral and mental health of such unions' children.

The state's involvement in marriage encourages women to leave their husbands for often trivial reasons, knowing that the state will order the husband to continue support. It absolutely will not enforce visitation orders. It encourages baseless restraining orders (often they are standard issue with the divorce) against husbands. The state's marriage apparatus has been instrumental for the femenist movement to drive a wedge between husbands and wives, and between fathers and children.

But the religious should not be the only ones able to benefit from marriage.

The benefits of marriage do not come from the state. The state may grant priviledges to married people, but these are exceptions to rules the state is responsible for in the first place. And state's legal deference to married couples in economic matters is a form of socialism.

[eastsider]

A marriage is not a marriage without the marriage act -- i.e., coitus; therefore, coitus is the essence of marriage.