Posted on 05/13/2008 10:35:21 AM PDT by bs9021
I am sure to ignite a Firestorm but here goes. The whole concept of Marriage in Colonial America was simple. A couple decided to get Married. Went to their Church did the ceremony, publicly posted their commitment. Government did not interfere, marriages were plentiful, Divorces were rare. Society was stable. Now we have Nanny Government. Which wants to read our Thermostats in the People’s Republic of Calif.
Hilliary is an expert at getting people to do her bidding. Bill even said so. Bill can kiss my hairy ass. Marriage and the West is dying. Italian Men are refusing to Marry now. Their Wives no longer cook, clean, or apparently want to raise children. They are not replacing their numbers.
This is happening everywhere Feminism has infected the culture and institutions. Get Government out of our personal lives and our Marriages. Stop the Indentured Servitude of men with the Child Support Scam.
The So called War on Dead Beat Dads is a war on Low income Fathers. One just died running from the Police, he owed back child support. Was unemployed, lived with his Mother and Step Father. One more Wage Slave running from the Slave Masters. What the hell has happened to America?
We need another Boston Tea Party. And a Declaration of Independence from nanny Government. I predict if this continues we can stop worrying about Insurgents in Iraq. And start worrying about Insurgents in the US fighting to restore our Liberties.
We have no borders effectively anymore. Where the hell is the GOP on this? Our prisons, Emergency Rooms, Maternity Wards, Schools are full of citizens of other nations here illegally. One party wants cheap Labor the other Voters. Forgotten is the $365 Billion tab to pick up the costs.
Why do American Men continue to tolerate this nonsense?
The professors are exactly right. The government’s job is to enforce legal contracts, not to define “marriage” in a religious sense. Leave marriage (as a sacred institution) to the churches, and leave government-enforced contracts to the parties who choose to enter into them.
>> forbidding polygamy, incest, young teenage girls in intimate relationships with much older men, etc.<<
So they skip the license and do it anyway. A license prevents none of this from being done. It’s all under the table.
Both the church and the secular state and society have an interest in marriage.
The state/society’s interest is that monogamous marriage of and adult male and female has proven to restrain the stupidity of men, protect females, and do the best job of producing large numbers of well-cared for children. These children grow up to be productive laborers and defend against enemies.
The church’s interest in marriage is that it is a reasonable compromise between God’s demand that we serve him alone, and man’s sinful proclivity to run from God to wide varieties of the flesh.
The state therefore rewards monogamous heterosexal marriage by OBLIGATING THIRD PARTIES TO RECOGNIZE AND DO CERTAIN THINGS TO THOSE CONTRACTED IN MARRIAGE. This is why marriage matters: the obligation to third parties not in the contract.
Note that any two or three or 500 individuals can contract for anything they want to contract for. They can be male or female. If they wanna call themselves Best Friends or Buddies for Life, and subject themselves to all sorts of obligations to each other, they can do it. But nothing they do obligates a third party to recognize or honor their contract. The state government makes marriage special by forcing third parties to honor this particular contract.
When considering homosexual marriage, or polygomous marriage, or interracial marriage, or marriage by children, or marriage to trees or beasts, please stop to consider why the state takes an interest in marriage in the first place. The state’s interest is not out of warm fuzzy feelings for the happy young couple. It wants wild young men to settle down, take care of women, and produce large numbers of healthy children.
Homosexual marriage might be doing homosexuals a warm fuzzy favor, but it is contrary to the state’s motivations for creating the special marriage contract in the first place. Ergo, it shouldn’t do it.
By the way... homosexuals complain about marriage on a civil rights, equal protection basis. This is a false argument. The homosexual has exactly the same rights under the law as a heterosexual: the man can marry any woman he wants, and the woman can marry any man she wants.
I may prefer to drive down sidewalks, as it is my preference as a sidewalk driver. But the state treats my driving privilidges the same as it does those who have a road driving preference. As a sidewalk preferrer, I cannot claim discrimination on an equal protection basis.
mb
Thank you!
i can describe the author of this article in one word...stupidfrigginjacka$$
Most states have removed the preexisting impediments to inheritance by natural children of intestate parents, but historically perhaps the main reason for marriage was to ensure inheritance by legitimate children.
One can argue both sides of the question if removing legal impediments against bastardy was a good or bad thing.
And why do you think it is done under the table? Because it is illegal. And by making it illegal, the government gives itself the right to prosecute those they do catch.
The whole argument is nonsense.
Homosexuals are not having any rights denied them, they are free to marry.. they just have to do it with someone of the opposite sex if they wish it state recognized. They choose not to do that, that isn’t an infringement on their rights.
The only reason the state has any interest in a marriage at all is because a true marriage can functionally produce offspring.. homomsexuals doing whatever they do to each other can do that all they want and will not get pregnant. A government/society does have an interest in the next generation so there is an argument for state recognition of marriage... For its own self propetuation. Gays cannot reproduce naturally by the same constructs, so there is absolutely no reason for the state to sanction or give a rats arse about their relationship.
Its a complete red herring, no ones rights are being trampled and there is no reason the state should give a care what 2 people are doing with each other.
You seem to think I’m talking about Homosexuals. I’m not.
My Dad died, my mom and I shared bank accounts, co-ownership in a house and cars. We were related and lived together yet, Sue and John next door had more legal rights because they paid the government to get a license.
And were divorced in two years.
> Went to their Church did the ceremony, publicly posted their commitment. Government did not interfere, marriages were plentiful.....
Colonial governments enacted laws protecting women in the marriage covenant. Look at deeds for land and you’ll see the woman’s signature. This was from law protecting the wife’s property interests. Governments weren’t entirely disinterested.
Otherwise, your post is well-taken.
But you could buy individual health insurance for her. So why is it necessary that you put her on your health insurance?
Probably because it's group insurance and is subsidized by your employer or it accepts preexisting conditions.
Sounds good on the surface, but society as a whole has a vested interest in protecting marriage and the family. Break down the family, and the society breaks down. (It’s happening before our eyes.)
Really?
A fifteen year old goes to the government financed Planned Parenthood and tells them that she is impregnated by a 28 year old man and the government does nothing.
People have affairs constantly. Some even have kids. You can call it an affair, or temporary polygamy. Ongoing problems
>>But you could buy individual health insurance for her. So why is it necessary that you put her on your health insurance?
Probably because it’s group insurance and is subsidized by your employer or it accepts preexisting conditions. <<
Mom, healthy woman, related to me, living with me, cannot be put on my “family” policy.
Dude I met up the street, got license, not even living with me yet on my health insurance.
Oh that makes sense.
It has certainly prevented it from becoming legally recognized.
How does the state punish an adulterer, then?
Throughout this thread, you bring up several points that are real concerns. However, eliminating government involvement in marriage won’t solve those problems. It will just make society’s problems worse.
You’re welcome, and you’re spot-on on this thread. I’ve said for a long time that the only good solution to the so-called “marriage debate” is to get the government out of the issue entirely.
Your words. They must mean something to you.
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.