To: dennisw
But defining marriage as between a man and a woman and issue a legally binding license is a very basic duty of govt here and worldwide
Fine, then it should have been in the federal Constitution that marriage is one man and one woman. Without that, letting marriage be under the control of the government left us open to a whole host of problems, which we're seeing now. Keep in mind that there is a difference between a government recognizing a marriage, and defining it. There is also a difference between most governments in history and ours, as in, dictatorships vs. republic. Our government could have been structured to recognize marriage that was sanctioned by churches or synagogues or whatever, but instead it took it upon itself to have the power to not only define marriage, but license it, regulate it, and preside over the terms of its demise. Heck, even Henry VIII had to abide by the Catholic Church's rules of marriage until the ol' Church of England was established.
50 posted on
02/27/2013 4:51:53 PM PST by
fr_freak
To: fr_freak; dennisw
Gov't is involved with marriage because marriage is a contract - and almost certainly the single most important contract anyone will enter into during the lives.
I don't know what the current libertarian position is on contracts but it used to be that people understand you look to the courts to enforce contracts and you look to the law (both common law and statutory law) to determine how a contract should be enforced. Common law is built up thru the courts and statutory law is created by legislatures. So, yes the gov't is involved in marriages and it is hard to see how it could be any other way than it is.
I'm getting old though so maybe things have changed in the past decade or so.
To: fr_freak
Fine, then it should have been in the federal Constitution that marriage is one man and one womanYes. This should have been included in the Constitution same as clauses stating that water is wet and the sky is blue. When The Constitution was written there was zero doubt what constituted marriage so why would it be included? Maybe today everything is up for grabs, but not back then
53 posted on
02/27/2013 5:28:23 PM PST by
dennisw
(too much of a good thing is a bad thing --- Joe Pine)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson