Posted on 03/29/2013 5:43:13 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
There is no question that the media, political, and cultural push for gay marriage has made impressive gains. As recently as 1989, voters in avant-garde San Francisco repealed a law that had established only domestic partnerships.
But judging by the questions posed by Supreme Court justices this week in oral arguments for two gay-marriage cases, most observers do not expect sweeping rulings that would settle the issue and avoid protracted political combat. A total of 41 states currently do not allow gay marriage, and most of those laws are likely to remain in place for some time. Even should the Court declare unconstitutional the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman for federal purposes, we can expect many pitched battles in Congress. The word “spouse” appears in federal laws and regulations a total of 1,138 times, and many of those references would have to be untangled by Congress absent DOMA.
No wonder Wisconsin’s GOP governor Scott Walker sees public desire for a Third Way. On Meet the Press this month he remarked on how many young people have asked him why the debate is over whether the definition of marriage should be expanded. They think the question is rather “why the government is sanctioning it in the first place.” The alterative would be to “not have the government sanction marriage period, and leave that up to the churches and the synagogues and others to define that.”
Governor Walker made clear these thoughts weren’t “anything I’m advocating for,” but he gave voice to many people who don’t think the gay-marriage debate should tear the country apart in a battle over who controls the culture and wins the government’s seal of approval. Gay-marriage proponents argue that their struggle is the civil-rights issue of our time, although many gays privately question that idea. Opponents who bear no animus toward gays lament that ancient traditions are being swept aside before the evidence is in on how gay marriage would affect the culture.
Both sides operate from the shaky premise that government must be the arbiter of this dispute. Columnist Andrew Sullivan, a crusader for gay marriage, has written that “marriage is a formal, public institution that only the government can grant.” But that’s not so. Marriage predates government. Marriage scholar Lawrence Stone has noted that in the Middle Ages it was “treated as a private contract between two families . . . For those without property, it was a private contract between two individuals enforced by the community sense of what was right.” Indeed, marriage wasn’t even regulated by law in Britain until the Marriage Acts of 1754 and 1835. Common-law unions in early America were long recognized before each state imposed a one-size-fits-all set of marriage laws.
The Founding Fathers avoided creating government-approved religions so as to avoid Europe’s history of church-based wars. Depoliticizing religion has mostly proven to be a good template for defusing conflict by keeping it largely in the private sphere.
Turning marriage into fundamentally a private right wouldn’t be an easy task. Courts and government would still be called on to recognize and enforce contracts that a couple would enter into, and clearly some contracts — such as in a slave-master relationship — would be invalid. But instead of fighting over which marriages gain its approval, government would end the business of making distinctions for the purpose of social engineering based on whether someone was married. A flatter tax code would go a long way toward ending marriage penalties or bonuses. We would need a more sensible system of legal immigration so that fewer people would enter the country solely on the basis of spousal rights.
The current debate pits those demanding “marriage equality” against supporters of “traditional marriage.” But many Americans believe it would be better if we left matters to individuals and religious bodies. The cherished principle of separating church and state should be extended as much as possible into separating marriage and state. Ron Paul won many cheers during his 2012 presidential campaign when he declared, “I’d like to see all governments out of the marriage question. I don’t think it’s a state decision. I think it’s a religious function. I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want.”
Supporters of traditional marriage know the political winds are blowing against them. A new Fox News poll finds 49 percent of voters favoring gay marriage, up from just 32 percent a decade ago. And among self-described conservatives under 35, Fox found support for gay marriage is now at 44 percent. Even if the Supreme Court leaves the battle for gay marriage to trench warfare in the states, the balance of power is shifting. Rush Limbaugh, a powerful social conservative, told his listeners this week: “I don’t care what this court does with this particular ruling. . . . I think the inertia is clearly moving in the direction that there is going to be gay marriage at some point nationwide.”
But a majority of Americans still believe the issue of gay marriage should be settled by the states and not with Roe v. Wade–style central planning. It might still be possible to assemble a coalition of people who want to avoid a civil war over the culture and who favor getting government out of the business of marriage.
— John Fund is national-affairs columnist for NRO.
Really? How would eliminating state recognition of marriage address the problem of forced adoptions by homosexuals? How would it address the issue of homosexuals’ friends in the courts forcing private businesses to serve them?
These things have all happened in the absence of forced recognition of homosexual “marriage,” and there’s no reason to believe the situation will not continue to snowball.
Thus any and all tax laws related to marriage go away (for better or worse) and “Marriage” becomes a contract between 2:n people of any sex or relationship.
And thus, meaningless.
Game, set and match to the liberals — this is their endgame.
No. Traditional marriage has always been encouraged for a good reason. Repubs are throwing in the towel because they are scared and are trying to rationalize why they are cowards.
Since the only duties of the federal government are to provide a common defense and deliver the mail, why not begin divorcing government from all areas in which it has encroached upon private liberty?
Government does all things poorly these days, yet it insists on giving more and more power to corrupt people with a lust for control. This is exactly the kind of government that the Founders warned against.
Would it be better to have homosexual marriage or no government-sanctioned marriage at all?
You can't just say "government won't be involved". It's not logical at all. The homosexual lobby is trying to change things -- and the Libertarian types who say "get government out of the marriage business" are playing right into the hands of the homosexual lobby and saying "You guys are great! Yes! Let's change things!"
Marriage as an institution isn't broke. Don't try to fix it.
So we DECLARE DEFEAT and move on?
I mean if there wasn’t a push for gay marriage today, would anyone be thinking of outlawing marriage, which is what is being suggested here?
So I guess they set the agenda, and us conservatives are forced to buckle to it?
Who the heck wants to avoid the cultural war?? Bring it on! We can't just give up -- we need to meet the challenge and preserve the things worth preserving. Throwing marriage away in an effort to get along well with the homosexuals is just not a sensible strategy.
No kidding. Their side must be worried about what they’re going to do for the next 20 years. I doubt they figured we’d BUCKLE that quickly. After all, we’ve been fairly tough on other issues, like gun control.
And for those tempted to take the bait because “married people and people with kids get all the benefits”, ask yourself how long this country will be around if we ended all incentives to have a family. We’re already getting killed demographically, even with the incentives. End the incentives, and that pretty much ends the country just about one generation from now.
...but at least you won’t be called homophobic, and that’s all that really matters. Right? Honestly?
The caption prompt me to send this
Want to make a difference ? You won’t do it preaching here Start your own vocal group Be your own precinct captain The piece below is designed to be printed up and passed around your precinct and your friends and neighbors as a (index sized) palmcard. On the face (REVERSE SIDE)or below the slogan you can put the name of the candidate you favor and the election dates...EXCELLENT FOR SLIPPING UNDER WINDSHIELD WIPERS ON CARS PARKED IN KEY PARKING LOTS CHURCHES, RALLY SITES....
DEMO-COMS AND RINO CRYERS
GOD DENIERS AND PREDACIOUS LIARS
ARE REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH INCITERS/
FIRST YOUR MONEY THEN YOUR GUNS
ISSUING DECREES OF MANY COME
DEMAND SURRENDERING CHOICES ONE BY ONE
INTO REGIMENTATION YOU MUST RUN
AND NOW THEIR ROBOT YOU’VE BECOME
It’s time to get government out of Our faces
Our religions and and Our pocketbooks
For most of western civilization, the institution of marriage didn’t involve a government-issued marriage certificate. I have long maintained that marriage, as an institution of the church, is one in which the government does not belong. However, government IS involved in the marriage business and most likely always will be. For government to simply “get out of the marriage business” would involve re-writing several pages of state and federal law, which is not going to happen.
“Because then government couldn’t use marriage as a weapon against inconvenient citizens.”
Can you give us some examples, please?
“For government to simply “get out of the marriage business” would involve re-writing several pages of state and federal law...”
It would also, effectively, end our country as having kids is expensive enough, even with the help from the government. No incentives, no kids - that simple.
Yes, there will be a few kids...of course. Every few couples will have their one token kid, but the others will simply say “why bother”.
“Because then government couldn’t use marriage as a weapon against inconvenient citizens.”
That’s why it will never happen, there are people on both sides who don’t want it to ever happen for completely different reasons. Conservatives recognize that a good state could promote a good culture by promoting marriage. Statists and homosexualists recognize that state recognized ‘gay marriage’ is just a way to punish and keep punishing those who will never buy into ‘gay marriage’ or whatever other impossibility the state decides to call marriage.
Freegards
Minor issue...and only hits when both spouses make almost the same amount of money. For a one-earner household, it works the opposite way. We’ve benefited greatly by the incentive for my wife to stay home and raise our kids.
I’d rather work on fixing the penalty, then ending marriage - but maybe I’m just not with it.
Those things all occurred before gay marriage. As I see it civil unions wouldn’t further or restrain any of it. Unmarried gay couples and single gay parents have been adopting children for quite awhile.
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.