Why is marriage something the government has it’s hands in anyway?
Why do I need a licence like a dog? It isn’t like there is a test or something. It’s just a money maker.
If there is no marriage, then the children belong to the state.
Enforcement of contract law. Full Faith and Credit. Etc...
No, it isn’t just a money-maker. Governments don’t concern themselves with marriages just to sanction cultural traditions. Government derives a real benefit from marriages, including having a stable institution (ideally) to raise young citizens and gaining the stability of two unrelated clans being indissolubly joined in the DNA of the offspring. Due to this anticipated benefit to the government, that government has a legitimate interest in ensuring the proposed unions are best for that offspring in terms of age, mental capacity and gender. In the past, those safeguards for offspring included laws against miscegenation but is no longer an issue. Nevertheless, the licensing procedure is prelude to obtaining certain rights and benefits from the government for creating a relation to produce these stabilizing offspring. Now you can argue that other relationships can provide at least some of these stabilizing influences for government, and you would be right, but no other relationship, except legal marriage between the potential mother and potential father can do it all. This is why traditional marriage is favored all around the world and why it is worthy of being protected to the point of allowing it certain privileges and requiring certain safeguards as evidenced by the license. It is not equal to all other adult relationships and shouldn’t be treated as such.
Because our society is based on moral underpinnings.
Alimony. Community property. Child custody. Visitation agreements. Child support. Tax-free inheritance rights. Etc. Etc.
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