Posted on 08/06/2012 6:59:15 AM PDT by scottjewell
requires him to
In the US, even without "gay" "marriage" from sea to shining sea, we're already at the tipping point: over half the births to women under the age of 30 are already out of wedlock.
Since marriage by any definition is no longer the norm, does that mean the government must now carry through with the far more expensive, and far more intrusive, policy of administering DNA tests to all of a woman's ... er... male associates, upon the birth of every child?
Or, drawing back from that, do we just say, "OK, every child is now a half-orphan: a paternally abandoned child. We've given up. First, no more legal wedlock. And now, inevitably: no more legally enforceable children's rights."
This is not a trick question. I'm asking.
There were no statements blasted out from Mitt Romney’s campaign. The same was true for the Republican National Committee. Romney has yet to address the the fact.
____________________________________________
Yeah...
“Either way, their state of marriage, being single, or perhaps marital infidelity, is irrelevant to The State.”
Thank you DTogo - very well put.
I don’t understand why you and I appear to be in the small minority of people who see it this way. Why?
Why doesn’t Mitt come out and say this? Why don’t the Repubs put in in their platform?
It’s a simple idea, and it’s the way our Founding Fathers wanted it.
Are we missing something?
Are you assuming here that WIC, EBT's and every other sort of State-as-father-of-all stuff is 100% gone?
There were no statements blasted out from Mitt Romney’s campaign. The same was true for the Republican National Committee. Romney has yet to address the the fact.
____________________________________________
If Willard was going to come out against gay marriage he would have done so weeks ago...
The timing and the atmosphere are perfect right now to show the difference between the GOP and the Dems...
But not Willard...
Hes too busy being Obamas mirror image...
The silence will suggest consent ...
Short answer: Yes, the government must now bear the expensive burden of determining paternity in situations where the mother and (alleged) father disagree.
I know it stinks, but that’s the way it is.
But it still has nothing to do with marriage.
Yes, I think the Democrats are indeed taking it as Mitzi’s consent.
Sincere question: didn' t English common law, largely adopted into American law, recognize marriage as a natural relation, and the family as a natural society? I don't know the history here, and stand ready to be educated.
My impression is not that the Founding Fathers saw marriage as irrelevant, but that they saw it as pre-existing the State, and as foundational.
How did the Commonwealth of Virginia handle it? Or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania?
I do remember that in Tennessee in Andrew Jackson's time, you couldn't get a divorce without a specific act of the Tennessee Legislative Assembly. It was an issue in his personal life, and in his campaign.
Whether Obama wins or loses, gay marriage will continue to be pushed and supported by both parties. Remember it was the presumptive republican nominee who instituted gay marriage in Massachusetts. He has always been for gays in the military and in the Boys Scouts. He supported ENDA which would have placed sexual orientation on the same level as race and religion and would have required religious based companies to hire gays. As an act of reaching out to the other side, Romney will surely do something unconscionable.
Interesting question. As you know, ‘marriage’ is not mentioned in the constitution. We also know that the Fonding Fathers intentiionally steered clear of social issues.
However, you may be right that they understood marriage to be ‘foundational’. I don’t think anyone would argue against marriage being a great benefit to society as a whole, for reasons that include child custody, paternity identification, family stability, and survivor rights.
I would be interested to know what discussions took place among our Founders, but my guess is that it was a conscious decision to leave it out.
AND our founders in their wisdom stated that there are unalienable ‘rights’ established by the Creator, no man/government could give or take.... ‘life’, ‘liberty’, and ‘the pursuit of happiness’.
There is NO ‘life’ ‘liberty’ or ‘happiness’ in perversion. These are matters NOBODY can do it better. Some things do not require long wordy minds of men/women to be stated. Marriage is one of those sacraments designed from the beginning by the Creator. Mess with Him and the whole civil society self-destructs.
Good stuff and thanks for chiming in.
I think it’s a classic case of “God’s Law” vs “Man’s Law”.
And in this case I just don’t think “Man’s Law” should address ‘marriage’.
Oh but there are some who will think so highly of themselves that will ignore the 'warnings' of the Heavenly Father and claim they can do things better.... AND the finger pointing begins from those that jut out their chin when they played the role of Lot's wife.... Hence my tag.
The Declaration of Independence, which predates the Constitution and is the rationale for the Constitution, states that the purpose of government is to secure the rights which we receive from the Creator and which are established by Natural Law.
The advocates of the marriage as the basis of the natural family, say that was established by Divine and Natural Law. If this is true --- and I think it is -- then marriage is one of the goods which is supposed to be secured by government.
That's, I know, a sketchy argment, but I think a better, more watertight argument could be made if somebody put a couple days' work into it. I think that's part of what the Manharran Declaration group is trying to do.
Paradoxically, right now we might defend marriage BEST by keeping government out of it (because government wants to subvert natural marriage by redefining it it in a disordered and dysfunctional form.) But in a society which has regained its right mind, I suppose a government could again be estrusted with the defense of marriage, on some level --- at least the level of establishing paternity and inheritance.
Nothing about "Love." Please. This is civil society.
Nothing about "Relationship."
They wouldn't have to use words like "Matrimony" or "Nuptial" or "Husband" aor "Wife" or even "Spouse." They could call it "The Paternity and Inheritance Act." And announce the legislative goal as securing for every child its biological, social, economic and legal claims on its parents. Via some kind of institutional arrangement which would draw together all these claims into one coherent package.
Which, when they get it all sorted out to the last detail, would turn out to be (shhh -- don't tell anybody) ---
Mmmmmmmm
You are so very right on this one, but clearly the leftists, the libertarians, and the GOP establishment are on the other side on this one, and the public schools and the media are selling it to the upcoming generation. So real marriage loses, real family loses, and real-life kids lose big-time. Henceforth, every kid who does not have two daddies will be a ward of the state—until the country collapses, which I think will not be very long.
That's the one cheerful thing about the current trend: it's suicidal.
:o\
If she wants the father to help support raising the child and he refuses to sign the BC, then yes. If she doesn't want him involved and he doesn't petition to sign it, she's on her own.
Are you assuming here that WIC, EBT's and every other sort of State-as-father-of-all stuff is 100% gone?
That would be nice, but is irrelevant to this discussion on The State being extracted from marriage.
One man, one woman, one God. And not necessarily in that order. The fight is just beginning.
It can't be based on supernatural revelation, to which non-believers or different-believers cannot be held.
It can't be based on esthetics: the "ick" factor, for other tastes, might be a "yum" factor.
It can't be based on something inherent in small-group sociology, since there have always been non-marital small-groups (business partnerships, siserhoods, quilting bees, barbershop quartets) --- but the ones that correspond to "marriage" always correspond to "man-woman."
So if you're interested in the core reason for marriage, you'll find it is necessitated only by procreative potential: the possible transmission of life to a new generation. That's why you need some structure to provide for kinship, nurturance, socialization, and property transfer.
It's this begetting-and-raising issue which is the key. No other factor is significant from a State or public-interest point of view. Without the potential for procreation, the society at large has no real interest in your amours.
So that's why WIC and EBT cards are relevant to the discussion. All government commitments to households will grow as the marriage commitment recedes. As Dad-ism is vanquished, Statism triumphs. If the husband/provider is un-attached, the bureaucrat/provider takes his place. You can either have the marital estate, or the Leviathan State.
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.