Marriage is an implied contract. And with implied contract there has to be a set of rules to adjudicate the inevitable differences that come up between two people.
Like, who is responsible for the care and support of the children who re the result of this union? If one or both parents abandon the duties, at what point does the greater community step in?
All these disputes, and other matters like inheritance, or property ownership, or even separation of parties with irreconcilable differences that may very well lead to mayhem or murder, are very much in the wider interests of the community. At one time, these disputes were settled within the confines of the religious authority figures, but with the deep schisms that have appeared between factions of the religious authority, this was no longer a reliable agency to settle differences. Religions sometimes are not very good at making judgments on a wide range of human mischief and malfeasance.
“Marriage is an implied contract. And with implied contract there has to be a set of rules to adjudicate the inevitable differences that come up between two people.”
So make it an explicit contract. Do you think that the so-called family courts are a better venue to litigate marital problems than say an ecclesiastical court?
“Like, who is responsible for the care and support of the children who re the result of this union? If one or both parents abandon the duties, at what point does the greater community step in?”
How’s it working now when roughly half of kids are born out of wedlock anyway?
True, there has always been marriage law, no matter what the ruling authority was called, government, a state religion, tribal law, the fact is that there was law.
In America, we don’t have a state church, and we don’t even force people to have a religion at all, it is childish to waste time on this game of gay churches, mosques, and churches, and whatever cults get created, all creating their own concepts of marriage that we all have to accept.
This isn’t a serious argument, it is just another way to stop conservatives from organizing a political strategy.
While I agree with you that marriage is an implied (or actual) contract, I don’t see any reason we can’t still have that. Maybe have domestic partnership agreements drawn up in lieu of a marriage license? As far as children go, they already belong to whomever is listed on the birth certificate, regardless of parents’ marital status.
//Like, who is responsible for the care and support of the children who re the result of this union? If one or both parents abandon the duties, at what point does the greater community step in?
All these disputes, and other matters like inheritance, or property ownership, or even separation of parties with irreconcilable differences that may very well lead to mayhem or murder, //
We have DNA now, paternity can be proven outside of marriage (which wasn’t always the case)
Same with other disputes. All can be handled legally without a marriage license. The queers can legally set up everything that state marriage provides already through various contracts and things like medical directives and power of attorney. For them, it is forcing acceptance of their behavior and forcing themselves into our religion and violating our religious freedoms. Time to take that power away.