Save Marriage? It's Too Late.

Opinion Journal ^ | March 15, 2004 | Donald Sensing

[brbethke]

You can quit fishing without paying alimony or fingerling support.

[AnalogReigns]

Dang it! Like the author, I too am a traditionalist, and unlike him I'm one who will fight gay marriage. His point is that marriage for the last 30 years has become something that it's never been in Christian history, devalued and degenerate, by our society as a whole.

Historically, the Protestant first settlers (the Pilgrims and Puritans) of America, regarded marriage as ONLY as a civil institution (not even allowing weddings in churches...) --the logic well described in the first paragraphs of the article above.

The idea that marriage was just a religious thing, and the state moved in in just the last 100 years is just bogus. State regulation has greatly increased with marriage (as in everything) but marriage in American history...clear on back to colonial days, was more than simply a religious (and legally unenforceable) agreement. It's a universal, not only religious, institution.

Marriage was recognized by the state--and no matter what your religion was or wasn't, the state (provided it wasn't polygammy) regarded it as legitimate. Since divorce was pretty rare, the only time the courts would generally get involved would be over inheritance issues, hence formal licensing, massive family courts, divorce lawyers, etc. weren't seen as needed.

[Zack Nguyen]

That just isn't realistic. The state has to step in at some point in the marriage process. People divorce, and the courts must decide who gets what. Child custody is an issue. The government must enforce wills in the event of death of one partner. The government must enforce child support payments, if so ordered by the court. The government must enforce laws against bigamy.

And to do all these things, the government has to know whether someone is married or not. Therefore the government must define what marriage is or is not.

[AnalogReigns]

The laws of all 50 states have, going back to colonial days (of the 13), have always recognized civil marriage as just as binding as religious marriage.

Such is a principle well described in the first paragraphs of the article above--espoused by the earliest Protestant settlers. In Puritan New England religious ceremonies for marriage were even illegal--since they saw them as "Popish."

Marriage done in a church has never been regarded by the law as more binding that marriage done in a court house.

[Mamzelle]

I know libertarianism because I once was one. And I hung around with a lot of pure-reason types who worshiped their intellects so much that they hadn't any *sense* whatsoever. Vanity, vanity, thy name is libertarian.

As for those trailer park types, obviously we're not looking at them in my hypothetical of the Daughter. I'm talking about those who enter into civil marriage with a certain sensible understanding, only to find it all cave in around them. Think--property. It won't be hers anymore.

You won't be able to provide protection for your daughters--but you'll be able to have lots of intellectual chats about reason.

[brbethke]

Less binding, in fact, if the minister is not also a justice of the peace. Try getting married by a minister without a marriage license, and see what legal value that has in the courts.

[longtermmemmory]

You are wrong. as to your criteria under the law.

Marriage has always been with the following requirements

1. age of consent
2. not closer than first counsins
3. not married to another
4. One man and one woman, a breeding father/mother child raising pair.

Divorce has been permitted by many christian faiths all the way back to the begining. Even the code of Hamurabi contains provisions for divorce.

Tradtional marraige movemetns notion of permanent is absurd because the women's movement is using it now. Consider, how many IN marriage cheat, lie or outright steal from the marital relationship because the other partner "can't do anything about it." The wife/husband can have an outside sex parter because only the actuall money spent is an issue in distribution and then only sometimes.

The traditional marriage movement is going nowhere because it is not grounded in any reality outside of religion.

I am actually curious about "united methodist" religion, are they like the unitarians who do comitment ceremonies?

[SuziQ]

If society has abandoned regulating heterosexual conduct of men and women, what right does it have to regulate homosexual conduct, including the regulation of their legal and property relationship with one another to mirror exactly that of hetero, married couples?

Because there ARE some things worth fighting for! Mr. Sensing can give up if he wishes; I don't plan to!

[longtermmemmory]

newsflash, governement ONLY recognizes civil marriage. It has no recognition for any religion marriage.

The priest is acting in their capacity as a notary to solemize the relationship. The "ceremony" needs nothing more than signatures and a witness.

The issue is one of rasing children and inheritence, this is part of the "least" in governance that is required.

Your statements about a "sacrement" and governemtn have no basis in current reality for at least a couple hundred years.

[brbethke]

If you concede that the state has the power to regulate marriage, then you must accept that the "equal protection" clause applies to this area of the law as well as to any other.

If the state can license and regulate marriage, then it can no more deny a license on the basis of gender or sexual orientation than it can on the basis of race or religion.

[SuziQ]

What normal, red-blooded caveman would give up the prospect of multiple sex partners and sacrifice half of his resources for one nagging cavewoman and her whiny kids?

If the cave women decided "no tickee, no takee" and stuck with it, the men would have no choice. The problem is that women have made it easy for men to take advantage of them.

[brbethke]

Good. Now keep reading. And learn to spell.

[longtermmemmory]

no because you forget the religious vigilante police. They have the power to unilaterally punish sacrilidge.

Perhaps in 200 years women will be forbiden from driving as an environmentally way of helping the environment and complying with islamic law.

Perhaps in 200 years the fashion industry will be introducing the newest headscarfs after approval of the department of moral authority.

Seniors who preach herasy will have their social security/gov. pension halted permanently as punishment.

You cant project a uniquly american attitude onto a future islam. You have to project a uniquly taliban/wahabist future.

[brbethke]

I agree completely. See post #40.

[longtermmemmory]

your statement equates a private sexual behavior preference as equal to the skin color and the suffering cause by opinions of such an overt characteristic.

Perhaps pedophiles should be allowed to marry their victims. Perhaps that father of who had sex with his children and made more children should have been ablt to marry his daugters.

You are only spouting anarchist manure.

[Jim Noble]

You can quit fishing without paying alimony or fingerling support.

But at the end of the day, it's only little green slips of paper.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Perhaps in 200 years women will be forbiden from driving as an environmentally way of helping the environment and complying with islamic law.

Perhaps in 200 years the fashion industry will be introducing the newest headscarfs after approval of the department of moral authority.

Seniors who preach herasy will have their social security/gov. pension halted permanently as punishment.

Interesting predictions. Especially the last one. But some of that may be tempered by the coming separation of mosque and state, without which Islamic states will be unable to compete economically. That is the legacy of dying Western civilization, to force modernism upon the ascendant Islamic civilization.

[Jim Noble]

The problem is that women have made it easy for men to take advantage of them.

"Taking advantage of" is a concept from the Lost World (yes, I was raised in it).

If it's as easy as it is, how can it be taking advantage?

[Jim Noble]

. But some of that may be tempered by the coming separation of mosque and state, without which Islamic states will be unable to compete economically

Not everyone cares about "competing economically".

[NutCrackerBoy]

Not everyone cares about "competing economically".

True, but those who cannot compete come to a crisis. How well are the Soviets doing these days? It is good news for the futures of Iraq, Afghanistan, Cuba, and others. This and being unable to hold people in bondage when their people taste freedom.