Kmiec: Time to get government out of the marriage business (Rely on contract law instead)

HOTAIR.COM ^ | 5/28/2009 | Ed Morrissey

[Tribune7]

The advent of no-fault divorce, in which one party can abrogate the marriage contract without penalty or consideration of the other party, has completely destroyed the notion that the government plays a role in protecting “integrity and well-being of the family.”

He's right on that. You want to end the homosexual marriage debate, end no-fault (unilateral) divorce.

[wagglebee]

The danger (and I hate to agree with Kmiec) is that once gay marriage is the law of the land everywhere, two men can walk into a Catholic or Southern Baptist or Greek Orthodox church and demand to be married there.

Once the church refuses, it’s off to court to get the church’s tax exemption removed, using the Bob Jones decision as precedent. Many believe that this is the real agenda behind the gay marriage movement—to defund all conservative churches.

This will happen whether the government recognizes marriage or not.

[WOSG]

Comment on Hot Air: This canard of marriage is just a religious thing is a joke. If marriage came solely from religion then we would have many definitions of what marriage is as we have many religions. We don’t. Marriage as a man and a woman is universal across time, place and religion. From an anthropological standpoint one can only conclude religions co-opted marriage the same way governments did. The definition of marriage as a man and a woman is just as much cultural as it is religious. There is nothing illogical about an atheist being against calling the same-sex union a marriage than there is of him being against calling copper gold. This solution doesn’t “leave the definition up to their faith,”. It simply says the government will use their concept of marriage to apply to anybody and not what the “faith” or person of faith agree for their marriage.

[ansel12]

The danger (and I hate to agree with Kmiec) is that once gay marriage is the law of the land everywhere, two men can walk into a Catholic or Southern Baptist or Greek Orthodox church and demand to be married there.

Why would that be, no one can do that now. You and your girlfriend cannot require any minister or church or faith to perform a marriage ceremony for you.

[xzins]

Once the church refuses, it’s off to court to get the church’s tax exemption removed

Soooo....doesn't it make more sense to change tax law than marriage law?

[Coyote Choir]

If marriage is replaced by a civil license (and no doubt, a fee) issued by the state for the unchurched, couldn’t the state re-define the legal agreement’s terms after that point as it saw fit or as some disgruntled groups petitioned Congress, especially if the state no longer is bound by contract law, as in the Chrysler negotiations? And wouldn’t that god-like power prove too irresistible a temptation to wield over us, the people?

[Crim]

yes yes...and if you cut off your foot, you wont have to put up with ingrown townails....

Same logic...

[Crim]

Toe nails even....*grin*

[gidget7]

I see what he is getting at, but the author, the way he portrays this “contract” would not be taking govt out of it at all, in fact it seems to me govt would be more involved.

There should be a way to enter into Holy matrimony without the state, without a license from the state, only permission from the church. Those would leave govt out of it. But I don't see govt getting out of it, our government is too entrenched in it. Social Security, for one thing. Marriage penalties are another. There are many ways.

What is needed is for marriage to be separated from “civil rights” it isn't one. Nor is it an inalienable right. Pursuit of it is, but marriage is not. And for all the homosexuals, NEITHER IS SEX! When courts allowed the equal protection clause to be co opted, that is when all the trouble started.

[gidget7]

Here Here!!

[gidget7]

OK you do have a point there. I know a few elderly couples, who have been forced to divorce in order not to lose their homes and stay out of nursing homes. I feel for them. It happens a lot.

[gidget7]

How did he respond?

[IrishCatholic]

Absolutely!
Then replace it with.....
Oh wait. That's the rub. Adoption? Parent rights? Religious rights? Property rights? Tax law? The very foundation of American society? All gone.

Yip yip yahoo. 5,000 years of Western Society thrown over by people with an American Idol attention span. Maybe it was the fluoride in the water. Maybe it was public education. Whatever it was, it was toxic.

[Ted Grant]

Hard to imagine the government would get out of the dissolution of marriage business.

[puroresu]

Once again, our culture is being deconstructed. Centuries of Anglo-Saxon law and tradition, recognizing marraige as an institution that precedes the state and which the state is thus obligated to honor and protect, gets casually tossed out the window.

Whenever liberals dangle the bait, libertarians always grab it, and always get hooked.

[SampleMan]

How did he respond?

I think it struck him as a unique idea. He thought about it and noted that the state wouldn't recognize Church weddings. I responded that such recognition was rarely beneficial anyway, as the state puts a penalty on marriage.

He then cocked his head in thought again and stated that if the State did invent a new non-Christian definition, that he thought that the Church should indeed start to marry people without a state license.

[gidget7]

For a lot of people, the fewer involvements with the state the better. Better, much better, to be married in the eyes of God than the state. But it should also be solely called Holy Matrimony. If a couple wants the state civil license, they can go to a JP or a judge, in addition.

It was pointed out to me, that if they did marry people without the state license, unitarian churches and Episcopal churches would marry gays. But they have been for years. Those are just not recognized by states.

[jwalsh07]

Any person with eyes and ears need only look at what the Great Socciety did to the urban family and the resultant gross expansion of government to realize just what a stupid idea this is from a conservative point of view.