Posted on 03/26/2004 9:50:17 AM PST by 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...
A woman has been a victim of female circumcision and closure at a very young age by her parents. She meets a man's whose privates were damaged beyond function by a land mine while serving in the military.
They fall in love and court one another. They share affection, love, trust, honor, committment. They hold a ceremony and declare thus to their family, friends, chuch and God. They spend their entire lives together in fidelity and mutual economic, emotional and spiritual support, and even adopt and raise several children.
But they didn't ever do the nasty, so they were never married. Right.
But they didn't ever do the nasty, so they were never married.In essence, no they were not.
If a government's license is required to be married, and this being a democracy, should a sufficient majority agree with you and pass a law, such an exemplary and deserving couple would be SOL.
One more reason government should be out of the picture.
State-licensed marriage is not merely a contract between a man and a woman; it is a contract between the man/woman and the state, for the purpose of having, rearing and educating children.
Marriage is not a private act. The survival of the community is at stake in every marriage. Thus the community has the right to regulate said marriages.
Indeed, it claims that it and it alone possesses the power to make two people married. Such arrogance!
You exaggerate. If that were true, church weddings would be outlawed.
The solution to bad marriage law is not no marriage law, but good marriage law.
The benefits of marriage do not come from the state.
Some do, some don't. Stability, for instance, comes from both the vow itself and--if one is wicked--from fear of punishment for breaking that vow. So such a benefit is partially prior to the State and partially a consequence of state involvement.
The state is not society. The state (allegedly) serves society, which predated and created the state.
State-licensed marriage is not merely a contract between a man and a woman; it is a contract between the man/woman and the state, for the purpose of having, rearing and educating children.
Why would you want the state to rear and educate your children? Can't you do that yourself? Do you like the idea of Democrats instilling their *family values* into your kids via the state? Does the state know better than the citizens it purports to serve how best to effect our happiness and well being?
As for the state's benefit from marriage, I think of that as the 'farmer's theory': The state owns the great big "farm" (country) you're living in. We're its cattle, who exist to serve and enrich it. Naturally it wants us to reproduce. And be healthy and incur as little expenses to it as possible, which is why we shouldn't smoke/eat too much/not wear a seatbelt, etc...
Church weddings hold no legal standing. The endorsement of the state is required, or the state does not consider you married. The fact that church weddings are utterly irrelevent to the state is seen in the fact that the state doesn't care in the least where or who performed the ceremony so long as that person is certified and empowered by the state.
So the state won't outlaw church weddings, it merely ignores them.
The solution to bad marriage law is not no marriage law, but good marriage law.
"Communism works, but the wrong people have tried it..."
Stability, for instance, comes from both the vow itself and--if one is wicked--from fear of punishment for breaking that vow.
Staibility comes from neither. The vow itself most certainly does not make for stability. If it did, there would be no divorce. And those lacking vows wouldn't mangage to stay together.
And the punishment of breaking the vow? "Hmmmm... I'm bored and that other guy sure is cute. I suppose I'll sleep with him, and my hubby can find out when his stuff is on the lawn, my attorney slaps him with a restraining order, I get to own the house he's paying for, the car he drives, and a good portion of his future earnings, all courtesy of the state."
Stability comes from within the husband and wife, and in some cases the support of their family, friends, church and God.
The state (allegedly) serves society, which predated and created the state.The basic human society is a man and woman, and we are in 100% agreement that this basic human society predates any other conceptual ordering of society, including statehood. In the context of survival per se, a state's interest in its own survival is identical with the basic society's interest in survival.
Why would you want the state to rear and educate your children?
I don't. Just as the marriage contract between the man/woman and the state implicitly acknowledges that the marriage act is between the man and the woman, so too does it (or at least, it should) acknowledge that the rearing and education of the married couple's issue is their responsibility, not the state's. The state owns the great big "farm" (country) you're living in. We're its cattle, who exist to serve and enrich it.
The argument that the basic society exists to serve and enrich the state seems to contradict the argument that the state exists to serve the basic society.
That's the point.
We're not animals on the plantation. We're free men and women, dammit. We tell others including the state that we're married, not the other way around.
And if such doesn't serve the state, TOUGH! It's here to serve us, not the other way around. For too long the servant has been the master. Now it's even playing God and socially engineering people to its own ends.
And look at the results. Government is more involved in family matters than any other time in our history, and Generation X and Y are literally running away from marriage. They're marrying later, or not at all, or several times. They aren't having children, and for good reason.
An entire industly of lawyers, social workers, and courts have sprung up to feast on the disaster they have created. What sane person would voluntarily venture into such a cannibalistic feast of intrusion and gluttony?
Government's meddling in marriage is the single worst thing to happen to it in recent history. And who can be surprised, with its record of education, housing, health care, retirement care and on and on. Government is only good at spying, killing people and breaking things which makes it well suited for defense, and entirely ill suited for micromanaging marriages.
We tell others including the state that we're married, not the other way around.Marriage as a natural state -- which is where our conversation started -- predates both the institution of marriage and the state. On this, we agree.
The state does not exist to serve one basic human society but to regulate the competing interests of the multiple basic societies it comprises. The state cannot competently regulate these competing interests unless it has the power to regulate the basic society from which the competing interests flow.
Agreed.
The state cannot competently regulate these competing interests unless it has the power to regulate the basic society from which the competing interests flow.
Sure it can. The state upholds the rights of the 'basic societies'. When they aren't bothering others, they are left alone.
For example: A state needn't issue marriage licenses to prosecute theft.
Do you have any examples that back your theory?
The state upholds the rights of the 'basic societies'.... For example: A state needn't issue marriage licenses to prosecute theft. Do you have any examples that back your theory?If it weren't for the fact that the genital union of a man and woman is presumptively fertile and that children need to be weaned, reared and educated, the state would have zero interest in recognizing their relationship. So I'd have to say, then, that these are the fundamental marital rights that the state agrees to protect and which it can do competently only if it has the power to say whether an underlying marriage exists.
The Pot of Gold at the end of the alternative life style rainbow.
Bad idea if you're a fiscal or social conservative and I'd be happy to explain why if you are interested.
Alas, not everyone is as clever as I in drafting contracts, and thinking through all the issues that might come up, if and when things go wrong. And that's a fact. Also, not everyone can afford or has the inclination to hire lawyers to do it for them. Thus, couples would often, and probably in general, end up without any contracts, or F'ed up ones. The beauty of a marriage license, is that it comes with an instant package or rights and duties, that have been thought out and litigated. It also comes with government benefits, such as social security survivor's benefits, and the like, which would be impracticable to vest in contractual couples, because it would be too difficult to review the contracts to see if their terms met government criteria, and if the parties met government criteria (opposite sex, no blood type problems, not underage, not already contracted to someone else, etc.).
The libertarian analysis is often fun to contemplate, but typically simply will not work well in practical application.
You mean it takes a village?
Please do, as I am a conservative through and through.
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.