Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: freeeee
The only thing that keeps me from agreeing in principle with the idea of the states staying out of the marriage business is the state's/society's interest in survival, the seat of which is the marriage act.

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.

25 posted on 03/26/2004 11:36:56 AM PST by eastsider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]


To: eastsider
state's/society's

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...

28 posted on 03/26/2004 12:11:46 PM PST by freeeee ("Owning" property in the US just means you have one less landlord)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson