Ann, stop waterskiing near sharks.
Your books are great, and generally I'm a Coulter dittohead, but not this time.
All of the legal "problems" you raise to the "loss" of government marriage are straw men, and you know it.
As a lawyer, you are well aware that there's this thing called a "contract."
All we need is the acknowledgement by the government - through laws that compel it - that it must honor any marriage contract drafted between two people. That contract can be standardized, or not, an can address all of the issues you brought up.
You also know that government marriages are relatively new, and that most geneology in this country has to search church marriage documents past a certain historical time - like before WWII.
And as for whether two people want to be married by their tennis instructor, I guess that's none of your business, is it? You can denounce them, and your church can denounce them, and together you can refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of their marriage. Fine, knock yourself out.
But the contract between them is valid under the law.
And guess what? You don't have to give a damn about what they think of you, either.
Natural Rights - they're not just a good idea, they're the law.
Period.
I question anyone’s legitimacy who refers to themselves as a dittohead when showing their appreciation of anyone.
Natural rights? Yep, it's NOT natural for homosexuals to be married unless they marry someone of the opposite sex.
That's why it is a "natural" law.
Yes it is. But it is NOT a marriage.
” All of the legal “problems” you raise to the “loss” of government marriage are straw men, and you know it. “
Broken homes are not a strawman, but a top source of juvenile social pathology.
“You also know that government marriages are relatively new”
Wrong. Marriages have been defined in law since ancient times, including the laws of Justinian in 550AD.
Such ignorance and misstatement of law and history has led you far astray.
“All we need is the acknowledgement by the government - through laws that compel it - that it must honor any marriage contract drafted between two people “
We have that today, so what is so objectionable about the status quo, a status quo defined in law for 1500 years?
The urge to destroy a standard, moral understanding of marriage serves what end? No end really, except further fraying of the social fabric, already already quite frayed by the last generational trends in ‘defining deviancy down’.
“Natural Rights - they’re not just a good idea, they’re the law.” LOL, reread your Locke, then, on the relations of parents and children, etc. Marriage is an institution, not a right, and one designed to protect children’s rights from abuse of parents, while giving parents rights to direct children. The Left has for 50 years tried to undermine that traditional relationship, and clueless Libertarians swallow dumb and incorrect arguments in giving away the store.
There is no ‘right’ to polygamy. there is no right marry just anyone you want (not your sister, not your uncle, not 3 guys names Bob, and not your goldfish). Nor is there a ‘right’ to destroy the definition of marriage in law.
Homosexual judges might try to change the rules, but there is no justifiable right to back up those rule changes, just judicial fiat and the pressure from activists hellbent on an agenda that is at odds with protecting what’s good about marriage.
Coulter is right. Abolition of marriage is kooky idea based on misreading history, law and philosophy. gay marriage is a bad idea, but this idea is 10X worse.
Talisker wrote: “You also know that government marriages are relatively new, and that most geneology in this country has to search church marriage documents past a certain historical time - like before WWII.”
This is not factually correct. I’ve personally reviewed marriage records dating back to the 1830s and 1840s in county courthouses of states west of the Mississippi River; some of the marriages were conducted by ministers and others by judges or justices of the peace, but they were routinely recorded in the courthouse and a series of state-required questions were asked and answered in writing about consent of the parents for marriages under the age of 18 (which used to be fairly common).
You would be able to find much older records in our older states. In areas where there was a functioning local government, marriages have been registered in America since colonial times. Ministers and churches also kept their own records, and sometimes those records are in better shape than civil records especally in backwoods areas where intinerant Baptist or Methodist preachers were traveling through towns and holding church services perhaps once a month and the closest courthouse was much too far to reach to register the marriage, but marriage has most emphatically been regulated by the government for most of American history.
You are, however, correct if you’re talking about pre-Reformation Europe. By declaring that marriage was not a sacrament, Protestant doctrine removed marriage from control of the church and put it into the hands of the state. Some Protestant countries (England included) routinely had the minister act on behalf of the state in conducting marriages; others had the official marriage ceremony conducted by civil authorities followed by a prayer service in the church building.
I happen to believe the Protestant Reformation was correct on this point that marriage is properly governed by the state and not by the church. You may disagree, but that is not the Anglo-American legal history.
[wipes tear from eye]
That was a beautiful post BTTT.