Is It Time to End State Licensing of ALL Marriages:

Lars Larsen, Substituting on Michael Savage (6/26) and Today on KXL (6/27) ^ | June 26, 2003 | Lars Larsen

[litany_of_lies]

Lars Larsen brought up a very interesting idea last night while subbing for Savage.

In the wake of the Supremes' sodomy decision, Lars advocates the states ceasing to issue marriage licenses of any kind.

[litany_of_lies]

I'm inclined to agree.

IMHO, if the government stops issuing marriage licenses, hetero couples will generally achieve legitimacy by marrying inside churches. Heteros who want to have a "legit" marriage will otherwise have to go to a lawyer and sign a "contract." Same-sex "couples" will either have to go to a church that sanctions actions clearly proscribed by all of the world's major religions, or go the lawyer route that non-religious heteros will have to. Polygamists, those wanting to marry minors, and too-close relatives won't have either avenue available; if there's doubt, legislators would have to eliminate it.

Defenders of marriage would better off taking the aura of legitimacy implied by a marriage license away from the same-sexers, and forcing them either into fringe religions or a (perceived lower-value) "lawyer's marriage." Hetero couples would perhaps think harder about the implications of what they're doing and get married in church instead of running to the JOP.

I must admit that I have not thought through all conceivable implications. That's what a forum is for. Have at it, folks.

[lady lawyer]

The state couldn't get out of the business of regulating marriage. There would still be questions of property distribution on dissolution, child custody, child support, etc. If the state stopped issuing licenses, the homosexuals would simply look for legal recognition under one of the other laws relating to marriage.

[Scenic Sounds]

Put me down as a "no."

There are a lot of important legal ramifications to a legal marriage. I am a big supporter of legal marriages, particularly where the couple has children.

Sorry, Lars. ;-)

[Servant of the Nine]

I agree. All the issues of property and financial liability for loans and child suppert can be handled by commercial partnership law.

The Govt. does nothing but cause trouble by giving Marriage a special legal status.

So9

[A Vast RightWing Conspirator]

I had that 'thought' before him. See: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/935859/posts

Posted by A Vast RightWing Conspirator to chicagolady
On News/Activism ^ 06/26/2003 8:46 AM EDT #8 of 30 ^

An interesting thought just occured.

It goes like this. Did anyone care whether 'the State' recognized a marriage, let's say... 1000 years ago? No one did because the State didn't get involved much into such aspects of peoples' lives. Marriage and family were matters of customs, religion/church and, to a limited degree, personal choice. The 'State' role teneded to be limited.

Not today's 'welfare' State. It is important to have your marriage 'recognized' today because today's families are objets and products of today's State's social engineering activities. Families tend to receive 'benefits' (subsidies) that non-families do not. Extending one member's health insurance to the rest of the family, for example. This explains why certain individuals are so eager to have their type of co-habitation recognized by the State as a 'family' and, to a degree, why 'legitimate families' would not want to see additional contenders attempting to take their slice of a limited 'benefits pie'.

Were not for the Welfare State would anyone care whether the State 'recognized' homosexuals living together as 'a family'? Or would anyone care?

[My2Cents]

I agree with you. Also, the way I see it, it isn't so much the state "licensing" marriage, but the public (represented by the government) giving sanction to a particular kind of union (man and woman). What gays are looking for is a state sanction for what they do -- moral equivalency. By eliminating state licensing of marriage, gays could claim their unions were now just as valid as hetero unions.

[Zavien Doombringer]

What is marriage but a union of a couple that promise to love each other, "till death do us part". When did it become a States jurisdiction, when it has always been a church's jurisdiction.

Tragic as it is, too many divorces have screw things up, but the truth of the matter is $15 for a license. It's about revenue for the state! They would make more money if they issued parental licenses!

The Biblical truth of the matter is, once the man and woman have sex, they are already married, that is the union!

[TheWillardHotel]

I agree.

The state, our institutions are rotten to the core!
Being sanctioned by the state means nothing if your
institutions are corrupt.

Marriage is a relationship between: wife, husband & God ...
not the state.

[tracer]

Now that the USSC has trashed the concept of "compelling state/societal interest," marriage likely will cease to be "licensed" by the states in the near future.

And it will be tomorrow's children who will pay the price for this.

Adios, Western civilization. We hardly knew ye.....

[AntiGuv]

Interesting. Protecting the institution of marriage is so imperative that we should abolish it altogether. I'm not certain I can agree with that one...

[Snuffington]

Were not for the Welfare State would anyone care whether the State 'recognized' homosexuals living together as 'a family'? Or would anyone care?

I largely agree. But of course, in the past, it wasn't just something up to individual choice either. Institutions like the Church and family had real power back then. That wouldn't just automatically emerge by repealing the welfare state, which makes the issue vastly more problematic.

[jpl]

Never happen. How is a woman going to be able to grab half of everything a guy owns if she can't actually prove some kind of legal documentation that they were married in the first place? :)

[litany_of_lies]

Great points. Also, how about filing status for income tax?

[Stefan Stackhouse]

Interesting. Protecting the institution of marriage is so imperative that we should abolish it altogether.

"We had to destroy the village in order to save it. . ."

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

There are definitely two aspects of marriage. There is the religious aspect, the joining of one man and one woman. There is also the civil aspect, in that marriage forms the organizing principle of the family and society.

If we as a civil society want to leave open the definition of marriage to those that hold a postmodernist worldview, it may seem hip and fashionable. However, it will play havoc with the future of our civilization. Civilization has considered the matter of marriage over thousnads of years. It has weighed its definition in light of the best interests of children and the stable and predictible perpetuation of estates and property. I believe that we would be foolish if we trashed that definition and left its definition up to fringe groups and cults.

If states cannot define marriage or family, then what gives them authority to define theft or murder? Why not leave those definitions up to churches? If we go down that road marriage and family will become essentially meaningless and the organizing principles of society will be thrown to the winds of popular culture.

If you folks are seriously considerin this and wish to call yourselves conservatives, I'm about ready to load up the truck, stock up on ammo and learn how to profitably raise livestock about 50 miles from the nearest city. Cuz the end is definitely near

[freedumb2003]

>>Tragic as it is, too many divorces have screw things up, but the truth of the matter is $15 for a license<<

OK, then indicate "married filing separately" on your 1040. No difference, right?

Marriages are imbedded throughout our legal milleau. The entire California Family Act (2 very thick volumes of laws and accompanied by 6 or 7 very thick Cal Rprtr volumes) is the description of a "community" and marriage is intrinsically linked to that. States that have "divorce" (as opposed to "dissolution of marriage") probably have even more laws.

[Zavien Doombringer]

The institution of marriage isn't a Government Concept. Therefore, eliminating the government out of the institution will make marriage stronger again. YOu might find more couples staying commited.

The concept of marriage these days is like "going steady" legally. Once one side of the marriage is tired of the other, especially when the honeymoon is over, divorce comes up.

So, by getting the governments out of marriage will be protecting a great institution! btw I have been married for 18 years now, I courted my wife for 6 years before (high school and 2 years after) We got married at 19!

[LizardQueen]

I agree with you, and liked your post.

I've been against state meddling in marriage ever since my husband and I payed $1500 a year more in taxes the year we got married than we would've if we had remained cohabiting.

There are many obstacles to getting the state out of it, though, mainly because of the huge welfare state and bureacracy that have grown up around it. The paternity thing is also an issue, but which may be addressed by DNA testing and legal guardianship laws.

As someone else in this thread put it and I feel the same way: marriage is between the husband, the wife, and their God, no one else.

LQ

[tiamat]

And they would no longer be able to collect the all-important state FEE for issuing a lisence. Ain't never gonna happen!

Tia

[alloysteel]

Hey, what's wrong with keeping the co-habitation contract just within the immediate family? Solves a lot of problems on inheritances, and it also helps identify certain recessive genes, as the breeding program gets into the more purebred lines. Sibling marriages have occurred elsewhere in history, and MOST of the offspring are viable. Of course, the family tree becomes a single vertical shoot, and there is limited genetic diversity introduced, relying entirely on spontaneous mutations. So be careful of what the objectives of the breeding program are set up to be.