This is just President Bush's feeble attempt at shoring up his base and can be largely ignored. I suspect the base's level of outrage (cause mostly by the amnesty bill) will not be touched by this.
Posted on 06/05/2006 10:00:29 AM PDT by kellynla
I think you miss the point. The legitimacy of marriage is something that no law can give credence to. But, to the extent it conveys legal rights and status it should be decided by the VOTERS not courts. That is what this issue is about.
Well said, Flip.
The thing is, married couples have rights that non-married couples don't have. They can adopt children, for example, or have legal protection to rent homes. And the government schools tend to promote "normal" marriage in textbooks, etc.
If gays can get the legal status of "married," then they can sue to have their "normalized" status promoted in school textbooks, they can sue landlords who don't want to rent to fudgepackers, they can adopt children, they can sue organizations that provide help to those wanting to escape the gay lifestyle, they can demand Christian charities accept their lifestyle, and so on.
It has real consequences.
I have to dust off the cobwebs in my head to reply to this, because I haven't studied this for a while, but if I recall correctly, marriage has always been considered more of a civil/social institution as opposed to a strictly religious one. The various religions have become involved in it but I believe that came from a time when a religion and a community were more closely-knit and closely-identified. Over time, elements of Christianity developed a sacramental understanding of marriage as a divine grace dispensed by the Church and consummated by the married couple, but others do not have this understanding, and so a wedding for them is a public testimony before the community, and with God's blessing, that this couple is married. (I think the idea that the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, etc. would try to impose their understanding of marriage on the rest of society is a moot point, since they don't claim that their laws apply to non-members, and certainly they don't offer their sacraments to non-members.)
If I recall correctly, Christian clergy did not get involved as functionaries of the state until well after Christianity because "official" in the Roman Empire, or what was left of it. But, at least according to marriage laws in the United States, no religious official is required to perform (or be primary witness to) a marriage, but some duly-authorized person (judge, justice of the peace) is required. (I don't know what Quakers do.)
Another thing that I think has made marriage more of a social/civil institution as opposed to a strictly religious one is the concern for all of the things that come along with a marriage -- the assertion that each spouse has legal rights that require protection if the other breaks the bonds of marriage; the concern that children are properly protected and cared for; the settlement of divorces; and the dispersal and disposition of property in the event of divorce or the death of one or both of the spouses.
Marriage is too complex an institution for it to be considered the simple sacred union of two isolated individuals. It is that, but it's also a lot more than that.
I know that I didn't answer your question as to why conservatives would support a government definition of marriage, but I did try to answer how and why government, whatever that might mean at any given time and place in human history, has had an involvement and an interest in the details of the institution.
The Constitution is supposed to be about government behavior, not personal behavior. The attempt to change/outlaw one form of personal behavior was thumpingly reversed in a little more than a decade. Why do you want to change the focus of the Constitution?
Same type of rope a dope that the rat's have pulled on black voters for years.
VERY well put
This is just President Bush's feeble attempt at shoring up his base and can be largely ignored. I suspect the base's level of outrage (cause mostly by the amnesty bill) will not be touched by this.
Why not pass it and let the PEOPLE HAVE A VOTE on it?
"BHUBANESWAR: A woman, who claimed to have fallen in love with a snake got married to the reptile as per Hindu rituals at Atala village of Orissa's Khurda district, 14 km from here."
I used to laugh when people claimed marriage between people of the same gender would lead to marriage with animals, but I now must bow to their superior wisdom. Even worse, I already have some friends who claim they are married to icebergs.
Whenever you are ready, we will welcome you back to reality from whatever dream world you are in.
I often wonder how I ended up with three kids. I guess it was before all this gay marriage talk. Actually the real reason I am against the amendment is more to do with government interference than gay marriage, but either way it does not bother me or my wife and somehow my three kids are surviving as well. I really feel horrible about some people who worry about it and stay up at night consummed with angst. I also laugh about the stories that doom is coming with the people marrying their dogs and cats and snakes and horses and even dolphins (someone posted a picture of the ceremony on our conservative site). I found it a hoot. Believe me, I am conservative as the next guy, but when you go to great lengths as that then I just have to laugh.
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.