Posted on 07/13/2004 8:11:13 AM PDT by presidio9
Two recent developments have returned same-sex marriages to center stage. At one pole lies the conservative effort to steer a Family Marriage Amendment, banning same-sex marriages, through Congress; and at the other, the implementation of the Massachusetts decision in Goodridge v. Department of Health, which requires equal treatment for same-sex marriages.
These two parallel episodes offer powerful evidence of an unhappy wedge between the majoritarian and libertarian wings of conservative legal thought. Generally -- and here the illiberal FMA is a jarring exception -- conservatives insist that most important structural questions in the U.S. should be decided through the democratic political processes, in the separate states. The libertarian wing regards democratic government as an imperfect means in service of the larger end of personal liberty, and thus strongly pushes the guarantees of individual rights to their logical conclusion. Both sides struggle to accommodate the rival impulse: All majoritarians recognize some limitations on government. All libertarians recognize that there are some inherently political decisions that no personal rights can trump. But how to draw the balance?
Conservatives regard the Goodridge decision as unprincipled meddling of the worst sort. After all, current canons of constitutional interpretation require judicial deference to legislation. The courts must uphold any statute, however unwise, as long as a rational basis can be discerned. But after Lawrence v. Texas last year, in which the Supreme Court struck down a longstanding Texas antisodomy law, social conservatives are right to ask why -- if such laws are struck down as unconstitutional -- the prohibitions on same-sex marriages won't be next on its agenda, notwithstanding the Court's own disclaimers on this explosive question.
Constitutional libertarians hold that the state must always put forward some strong justification to limit the freedom of association of ordinary individuals. Those justifications might include stopping pollution and cartels, but they cannot include the offense that the majority takes to practices they regard as contrary to public morals. Their remedy is to refrain from participation in the practices they dislike, not to stop others from doing as they please.
When President Bush, for example, talks about the need to "protect" the sanctity of marriage, his plea is a giant non sequitur because he does not explain what, precisely, he is protecting marriage against. No proponent of gay marriage wants to ban traditional marriage, or to burden couples who want to marry with endless tests, taxes and delays. All gay-marriage advocates want to do is to enjoy the same rights of association that are held by other people. Let the state argue that gay marriages are a health risk, and the answer is that anything that encourages monogamy has the opposite effect. Any principled burden of justification for the ban is not met.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Only ignorant people, anarchists, and anti-Christians do not know what a dictionary is.
Oh! I'm sorry --- neither do they know what the meaning of the word "IS" is.
It is time to put all lawyers out of the misery from their affliction of self-serving inhumanity - Maybe even throw in those activist judges who cannot read either.
True, but misleading. Many gay marriage advocates have stated that their ultimate goal is the destruction of the concept of marriage.
Personally, I am not opposed to gays getting married. What I am opposed to is the imposition of gay marriage on America by unelected, activist judges. Marriage is clearly defined in multiple states laws, and through the history of man as a union of a single man and a single women.
Where the US Congress to pass, and the President to sign a legislative action legalizing gay marriage that would be fine as that is the proper way for such things to happen in our country with our form of government.
"Marriage" of one man and one woman is the highest standard for the ordered procreation and rearing of children, as recognized by virtually every society, religion, government, and honest social scientist.
It's for the children.
Rights of parents mean diddly sqat. We are talking about the standard foundation for future generations. Shall the standard be modified in ways that are less advantageous to children?
One father and one mother is best. That doesn't mean it always works out, or that single parents or gay couples are destined to fail. Etc. This argument goes on forever.
My wife and I watched The Patriot again on July 4, and noticed that the pastor solemnizing the marriage of Gabriel Martin and Anne Howard did not say "by the power vested in me by the Colony of South Carolina..."
In my experience, they primarily want the health benefits first, and to force others' acceptance of their lifestyle. I believe that whether committed in monogamy or not, lack of "Association" among gays is not a key constraint.
Gay marriage proponents are decidedly liberal, and DO wand to to burden couples (and everyone else) with endless taxes.
A: Slippery slope perpetual downward revisionism. Either marriage is an immutable standard, or there is not standard.
A: Optimal continuance of the species. Is that strong enough?
While both disrespect of parents and gay sex is contrary to historic morals, they are both legal. Nonetheless, we do not sanctify disrespect of parents with ceremonies. Neither should we be forced by courts to confer our high rights and recognition to something of which we disapprove. I'm not suggesting we outlaw the behavior, but that we shouldn't enshrine it as our highest standard.
More of the libertarian "get government out of marriage" nonsense.
In a world where anti-social behavior was restrained by fear of disgrace, by fear of ostracism, by fear of "what the neighbors will say" civil society did not need the state to define marriage. We no longer live in such a world. We no longer live in a world where reputations last a lifetime and people spend all their lives in one place. Government defines the duties of marriage because society has no power to force men to shoulder familial obligations they have grown weary of. Government defines the duties of marriage because it has a societal interest in protecting women and children.
The true libertarian position with regard to this issue is not that "gay marriage" should be legally recognized by the state, but that the state has no business recognizing ANY marriages whatsoever.
I view homosexual unions as a moral (and perhaps a medical) issue and as such should be dealt with on an individual basis (one at a time) until the problem is resolved.
It is time that the main line churches take a positive position which is clearly based on Biblical principles.IMHO.
July 13, 2004, 8:59 a.m.
Marriage Matters
Why? & FAQ.
By Maggie Gallagher
I. Why Does Marriage Matter?
When their mothers and fathers don't get and stay married, bad things happen to more kids more often: more poverty, welfare dependence, child abuse, sexual abuse, substance abuse, physical illness, infant mortality, accidental death, homicide, premature and promiscuous sexuality, early unwed pregnancy, suicide, juvenile delinquency, educational failure, conduct disorders and adult criminality. Children suffer and whole communities pay the cost in crime, social disorder and high taxes as government steps in to deal with the needs created when families fall apart. Family structure matters and the family form that does the best job for kids is the child's own married mother and father.
Marriage is not created by government. It is older than the Constitution, older than America, older even than the church. It exists in every known human society and it always has something to do with bringing men and women together so that society has the next generation it needs and children have both mothers and fathers, as they need.
II. Top Five Reasons to Oppose Same-Sex Marriage:
1. Marriage is about affirming the ideal. And when it comes to children, science and common sense both say: Mothers and fathers both matter to children.
2. Same-Sex Marriage sends a terrible message to the next generation: alternative family forms are just as good as traditional families, children don't need a mother and a father, and marriage is about adult desires for affirmation or benefits, not about the well-being of children.
3. It's just wrong for the law to pretend that two men being intimate are the same as a husband and wife, especially when it comes to raising children.
4. Marriage belongs in the hands of the people. Four judges in Massachusetts have no business rewriting the moral rules our kids are going to live by.
5. Marriage isn't a special interest, it's a common good. Every American benefits from a healthy marriage culture. All Americans pay the price in increased taxes, social disorder, and human suffering when mothers and fathers fail to get and stay married.
III. Frequently Asked Questions
Don't homosexual people need the benefits of marriage?
If medical proxies aren't working, let's fix that problem. If people need health care, let's get them health care. Don't rewrite marriage laws in order to satisfy a small fraction of adults who have personal needs and problems.
Are you saying gays can't be good parents?
Two men might each be a good father, but neither can be a mom. Children are hungry for the love and attention of both their parents — their mom and their dad. Marriage is about giving children the ideal, and no same-sex couple can provide that.
Aren't laws prohibiting same-sex marriage the same as laws prohibiting interracial marriage? Aren't they discriminatory?
Anti-miscegenation laws were about keeping two races apart. Marriage is about bringing two sexes together. Having a parent of two different races is just not the same as being fatherless or motherless.
Why do you want to interfere with love?
Love is not an excuse for adults to do whatever they want and assume the kids will adjust. We need to get back to basics, including the idea that one major goal of marriage is to remind men and women that we have the obligation to do the best we can to give our children the protection of a married home in which they can know and love both their mother and their father.
What about older or infertile couples? If they can marry why not same-sex couples?
Every man and woman who marries is capable of giving any child they create (or adopt) a mother and a father. No same-sex couple can do this. It's apples and oranges.
Why are you blaming gays and lesbians for the problems of heterosexuals?
Judges are the ones rewriting our marriage laws. People who really cared about marriage and the suffering of fatherless children would not rewrite our marriage law to say that kids don't need fathers, and that alternative family forms are just as good as a husband and wife raising children together. That's the message of same-sex marriage. It's not kind or compassionate to children at all.
— Maggie Gallagher is president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy and co-author of The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially.
So because government welfare programs have destroyed the social compact in many areas of the country, we need more government?
Marriage without government would be a contract between two individuals, and one of the few proper roles of government is enforcing contracts. If a man fails to shoulder his contractually-defined familial obligations, he can be sued for breach of contract.
If gays want to get married, fine. They just have to make sure they have a mother-in-law (or is it mothers-in law). They should suffer just like everybody else./funny tag
Or at best, they are moderate anarchists.
talks about the need to "protect" the sanctity of marriage, his plea is a giant non sequitur because he does not explain what, precisely, he is protecting marriage against.
It's easy to understand what you're protecting marriage against if you know what marriage is for. (HINT: It's not for two couples to express their love for each other).
Marriage is a sociatal contract that ensures a society remains intact generation after generation. It protects children, and ensures that they will be raised by a stable family system. Like the human body is made up of cells, so are human societies made up of families. Marriage is the DNA of humanity. Tampering with it on a large scale is suicidally reckless.
Why? Because marriage is society's way of protecting itself from anarchy. It is NOT a public declaration of love, it's a declaration of responsibility. Two gay people, no matter how long they are together, will never procreate. They will never be as valuable to society as a married couple.
Is this fair? What about couples without kids? How are they different from gay couples? Simple. Even straight couples that say 'they'll never have kids' often do, which is why we still cover them under the umbrella of marriage. A small percentage never will, but there's no way to know that from a the inception of a straight marriage.
A gay marriage, however, is of no more consequence to the world that an abstinant hetero couple who are going steady. Certainly they can be in love, but that's an individual issue, and their love does not require our recognition, tax dollars, or approval.
And that's what gay marriage is all about. Recognition, money, and approval.
There are unintended consequences of destroying a 'one man one woman' marriage system. It opens the legal door to polygamy, polyandry, and anything else that 'freedom of association' could dream up.
If you think that there are people in America that would not marry their housepets, think again.
Destroying the sanctity of marriage will destroy any culture, no matter how powerful it weapons, or how rich its economy, or how enlightened its people. No tribe of humans has risen out of hunter / gatherer status without it. To think we can transcend it now because we're somehow more advanced as a species is to ignore human nature at its core.
Marriage doesn't exist without some form of authority to make it exist. It is not an individual act that exists without some kind of government.
Find me a society that has marriage, and I'll show you a tribe, nation, or belief system.
So really the question becomes "whose authority," and who recognizes that authority.
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.