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 As recently as 1989, voters in avant-garde San Francisco repealed a law that had established only domestic partnerships.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.
This is the meme of the week and it comes from the very top of the party. A lot of FReepers are on board, too. I guess a lot of folks haven't heard of the Law of Unintended Consequences. If we lose (or give up) we will lose a lot more than just traditional marriage.
The state is about as likely to get out of marriage as the church is to get back into it; which is to say not bloody likely. State control of marriage has been a disaster for the same reasons that state control of so many things has been a disaster. The only reason the culture is even considering this radical departure from history is because the state has crowded out the church in so many areas over the last 100 years.
They can even call homosexual couples a so-called "same-sex marriage."
But they can't make an unnatural couple into a natural marriage. Sorry, homosexuals, but you can never have a NATURAL marriage. It will always be unnatural, no matter what five out of nine El Supremos decide.
“The word “spouse” appears in federal laws and regulations a total of 1,138 times”
It can’t possibly be that low.
But, then again, I’m probably adding forms into my mental tally. .
Muir, this isn’t about civil unions any longer. But that it were! The homosexualists no longer even want civil unions. This is about redefining marriage.
Sounds pretty darned complicated to me, ditching state protection of family life, by which our society survives. It would be cheaper to deport all the 4 million or so homosexuals. That's way fewer than the illegal aliens.
“State control of marriage has been a disaster...”
If you think outlawing marriage will push people back into churches, you are DREAMING.
I don't understand what you mean by "civil unions," or that topic's relevance, since the article is about eliminating government ... "civil" ... recognition of unions.
ONE MORE THING.
The government DID get out of marriage, at least part way. They enacted no-fault divorce laws in the 1970s...so that you no longer needed to convince a judge as to why you wanted to break up a marriage.
The result: The divorce rate WENT UP from something like 10% to 50%. I’m sure a lot of children and others benefited from the state getting out of the way there.
I agree with you.
At first I floated the idea that maybe it’s best to just get the government out of marriage. As I worked it out I realized that it would be a HUGE defeat and basically giving in to the enemy.
No, we must fight this at every level every time we see it. One of the ways I do it is to explain that the same thinking that makes homosexual marriage legitimate as well as the arguments used can be used to support polygamy and incest marriages. They can’t argue against that and often don’t even try.
We can’t just let them roll over us, even after multiple defeats. The bible tells us to stay diligent. If one does nothing more than refuse to apologize for marriage coming from God one is being diligent.
We all get our opinions from either personal experience or information from authorities we trust. The most trusted authority on the planet is the Bible. There is no shame in saying Marriage is from God.
If they want civil unions, that is a completely different battle. But no way will I EVER call it marriage. I also don’t call homosexuals “Gay”, I even chastized my pastor during his sermon in front of the whole church for saying it. And it was knee jerk - like swatting a mosquito. I didn’t mean to do it - he said “gay” and I said, “you mean homosexual”.
But I’m glad I did. We all need to do it. They are literally attempting a “1984” on our language. Fight back!
For most of Western (and Eastern) civilization, there was no dichotomy between "government" as an entity and "society" as the living arrangements of the population. That's way (for example) King Henry VIII needed to change England's religion in order to divorce his wife.
In some of the American colonies, at a slightly later period, the only marriages recognized were those performed by the established church - the Anglican church in Virginia, for example. Weddings in dissenting churches (a Baptist fellowship, for example) were irrelevant: legally, the couple was simply cohabiting.
State involvement in marriage only weakens the institution. People have come to equate legal marriage with marriage, leaving the state as the arbiter of marital morality. If the state issues a divorce, that is the final word, as far as 99% of Americans are concerned. And since the state does not stand in the way of divorce in our mordern age, it means that society has come to accept divorce-on-demand as being a morally neutral concept.
Throw in gay marriage and it is easy to see that government interference is capable of destroying the concept of marriage altogether.
Government must be kept as far away from marriage as possible. Let the government define domestic partnerships for it’s own purposes, but leave marriage to religious and cultural institutions.
Many excellent points! I also never use the word “gay,” but always say “homosexual,” as regards the person, and “sodomitic” as regards the activity.
I also don’t say “civil unions,” but instead, “household contracts.” I think we should have a fixed package of legal form, rather in the manner of the Uniform Commercial Code, which states can adopt in whole or in part, but have practical motives for generally accepting. This would cover property ownership, inheritance, power-of-attorney, etc., and allow the formation of “contractual households” by any adults, irrespective of romantic or sexual relationship.
If you think I said that it would, you are DREAMING.
Yep. That's the cowardly answer to solving this problem.
And they keep on pretending that "government didn't used to be involved in marriage" but when you try to pin them down they generally point to the medieval times. The problem is that the government was involved in marriage then too, if in no other way then by enforcing the rules of the church(s).
Is that what they want now?
LOL!
Few people realize that (in England, for example) the government, not the churches, executed religious dissenters. Lord Acton, of all people, goes through quite a slew of words trying to explain why this is reasonable, but I didn't buy it. It was on the order of "The state is the people, and the people must be uniform in belief for the stability of the state, so religious disagreement is treason."
Everything the government touches turns to $#@!.
Thanks for recognizing that, Mr. Fund. Some contracts are invalid because they are destructive to the parties who are involved in the contract. Gay relationships are destructive to the people involved. Gays suffer higher rates of mental illness, drug addiction, domestic violence and suicide.
Over half the people in America who are HIV-positive are gay. Compare that with the fact that only about 2% of the population is gay.
How many of you are aware that there's a disease called "gay bowel syndrome"? How many heterosexuals do you think are infected with this disease? Not to mention the higher incidence of several forms of cancer, STDs and respiratory diseases among gays.
Gay activists and their friends in the media have been very careful to conceal these facts. That's precisely why we need to shout them from every rooftop, Mr. Fund. The law is a teacher. By legalizing gay marriage, or by getting the government out of marriage completely and thereby allowing gay marriage, we teach the young and impressionable that it must be okay to experiment with gay sex and see whether it might be something they like.
Gay behavior, and immersing oneself in the gay lifestyle is roughly as safe as crack cocaine or Russian roulette. It destroys lives. It is not safe, it will never be safe, and government is the only force in America that can discourage it effectively.
Thank you for your cogent answer to that nonsensical suggestion.
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.