I have a somewhat different suggestion. I would like to see government stay completely out of the marriage business.
My personal view is that marriage is a social issue. For those who believe in God, as I do, marriage is also, and even more significantly, a religious issue.
If two people want to have some sort of personal contract which gives each other various financial and legal rights, that is fine and they can do that with or without marriage.
If two people want to be married in the religious sense, that should be a matter for the couple and their God.
If two people want to be married in the eyes of society, that should be a matter for the couple and their family and friends.
Aside from any legal contracts, the government should butt out.
That is the pro-polygamy, pro-homosexual agenda position, end civilization's definition of marriage, and let it become whatever anyone wants to define it as.
Good Government requires that the two being married are not related or have certain infectious diseases thru a blood test.
Good Government doesn't pass no fault divorce laws.
Good Government recognizes and respects the unique and special nature of marriage by honoring laws of inheritance, property and custody.
Good Government understands that by protecting and upholding marriage and the family as the bedrock of society it reaps the rewards via good and prosperous citizens.
Bad Government tries to rewrite natural law which is called injustice.
Under the law, only certain financial and legal rights can be contracted. There are a number of preferences in the law that are only conveyed via marriage.
One example: the spousal exception for estate taxes. You can bequeath your spouse your entire part of the estate, with no tax consequences. You can't do that via contract.
Government used to be intended to underscore simply what God had already stated and protect us from those who would force us against His almighty will. (What is an “unalienable right”, afterall?) It seems that today however, many think government’s role is to determine things which God hasn’t stated and then to force them upon us.
Your view seems simple and logical. What I think you don't fully appreciate, however, is that government got involved in the marriage contract several centuries ago -- and we have several centuries of law that is based on that contract.
It all got started, I believe, with the need to have an orderly process in distribution of inherited property.
A man's "legitimate" heirs, i.e. a wife whom he had properly married in the eyes of the state, + the children who were born of that legitimate union, were the heirs who had a first claim on the man's property at his death.
The state had a "legitimate" interest in officially sanctioning marriage, in that facilitating a stable and orderly transfer of property within families is beneficial to the state (partly because the state taxes that property).
Wrong.
For centuries marriage has proven to be a benefit to society and to government. A strong healthy nation is dependent on strong healthy families. For instance; As goes the American Family - so goes America.
Liberals believe just the opposite: A strong healthy nation is dependent on a strong healthy GOVERNMENT. And to attain the goal of governmental dominance, they seek to destroy marriage and the family.
There was a time when America was a strong and healthy economic society. But since the 60’s, LBJ and his Great Society programs have replaced the father with a Welfare check. And look what’s happened.
Leave the religious connotations out of marriage if you wish. But one thing is clear: This country MUST endorse the social values of the marriage contract or we’re doomed.
It’s probably the best solution, but it is never going to happen.
The problem with the state’s involvement, at least in the modern era, is that the definition it uses to recognize the institution is simply whatever judges, pols or the majority thinks it is at any one time. And that’s it, and that’s all it will ever be. Combine that with the fact many have been conditioned to think marriage comes from and is defined by the state and you have what we have today. It was always a danger. Pope Leo XIII warned about it 130 years ago.
The statists won’t give it up, as it is a way to control the culture—look at the state of marriage in a general sense over the past decades and ask why statists might like it that way. The homosexualists won’t give it up, as it is the only way they can punish those faiths who will never buy into things like ‘gay marriage.’ Many others have simply been conditioned to think the institution comes from and is defined by the gov’t, so they accept whatever the state recognizes as marriage—it is denoted by pieces of paper issued by the state, and voided and resumed when the state decides it should be. Many who rightly consider ‘gay marriage’ repugnant and impossible won’t consider any of the drawbacks of state involvement itself in such a vital institution, but have no problem rightly seeing the drawbacks when it comes to other institutions like charity and education.
What I think will eventually happen is that those faiths that consider marriage independant of gov’t mutation and beyond a simple collection of legal strictures and benefits won’t bother with the state. It’s just a shame about the punishments that will have to be taken for not buying into whatever the gov’t calls marriage at the time.
Freegards
except that things liek taxes and benefits are involved here.
Also I remember talking to a libertarian about marriage and he said the said crap of Govt should not be involved and then wanted all sorts of marriage, father daughter, under age marriage etc.
That no Govt crap now tends to make me think that it’s a cover to have their perverted sick marriage.
Once marriage is changed then no one should be surprised when all sorts of marriage is wanted and maybe made law.