Posted on 06/27/2003 9:36:15 AM PDT by 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.
Theft and murder violate the rights of others. Marriage violates the rights of no one.
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.
In case you didn't notice, if the government defines marriage and the government is a democracy, it is by definition thrown to the winds of popular culture. That's why gay marriage is going to be instituted by, you guessed it, government.
In case you haven't thought this through, if the government does not define marriage, then in a secular society marriage would be nothing more than any given individual's regard for it. Gay marriage would by definition be immediately equivalent to straight marriage in every respect, and neither would mean much of anything....
Government doesn't seem to be doing a good job.
50% divorce rate.
On the verge of recognizing gay marriage.
Record cohabitation rates largely due to male boycott of unjust marriage laws.
Nice track record. What is it that government is doing to protect marriage?
People were married for thousands of years of human history without the state's permission. Were they not 'really married'? A marriage is a declaration to all that two are joined. You don't need the state for that. You can do that, and many other things just fine without the state's 'help'. Try it out, it's libertating.
Without legal recognition, there would never be any reason to prove to anyone who you're married to..
...but recognition by our government is not necessary for the marriage itself to be real.
To yourself, no, to anyone who may choose to ignore your certainty of its reality, yes.
Yes, as regards "gay" marriages. Those marriages are as real as my marrage to my wife.
You're wrong that marriage is a "government" institution, however. The marriage is real whether the State recognizes it or not.
Marriage is a private contract, and it is legally binding, even if the State wasn't consulted.
This is an important question, think carefully...
Who, outside the couple needs to recognize the marriage, and why?
in a secular society marriage would be nothing more than any given individual's regard for it.
Mmmm.. You're getting warmer. Here's a hint: if it's up to individuals/churches/families to recognize a marriage or not, you will never have to recognize a gay marriage.
But if the state defines it, then what happens...?
I misspoke, AntiGuv. Government recognition makes the marrage easier to prove to the court that you are married.
The reasons to "prove" a marriage are mostly legal reasons, having to do with property disputes.
It is doing a better job than if it were doing no job at all.
50% divorce rate.
Do you think divorces would become harder if their were no government recognition of marriage? Granted, they would certainly become rarer, because few would bother getting 'married' in the first place. They would also become unnecessary, so I guess they would fall close to 0% (the rate of separation would be higher).
On the verge of recognizing gay marriage.
Good. Then perhaps they can eliminate the domestic partnership laws which are a genuine threat to marriage. This would likely impose some greater measure of stability and monogamy in the lifestyles of gays, which would benefit the greater society.
Record cohabitation rates largely due to male boycott of unjust marriage laws.
I believe you're referring to unjust divorce laws, but whatever the case, eliminating government recognition of marriage would not decrease cohabitation rates, but rather increase them.
Nice track record. What is it that government is doing to protect marriage?
More than it would be doing if it did nothing at all by not recognizing marriage in the first place...
People were married for thousands of years of human history without the state's permission.
The state's permission was implicit - whatever form "the state" may have taken - in every case where marriage exists as a meaningful social construct.
Were they not 'really married'?
See above.
A marriage is a declaration to all that two are joined.
Anyone can make that declaration with or without the institution of marriage. If the government no longer recognizes the institution of marriage, then it's true fewer will bother making that particular form of commitment declaration.
You don't need the state for that.
You need the state for it to be meaningful to anyone but yourself and the social circle within which you associate.
You can do that, and many other things just fine without the state's 'help'.
Yes, you can declare a commitment to anyone, even someone who doesn't know you're declaring a commitment to them. However, someone other than yourself (preferably including your partner) has to recognize that commitment in order for it to have meaning outside your own head.
Try it out, it's liberating.
I've gone through two marriages and two cohabitative relationships of equivalent depth. The practical distinction wasn't especially great except that the consequence of dissolving the latter was far less than the consequence of dissolving the former. There is little doubt that I would not have bothered with the second marriage ceremony if it weren't for the legal institution. As for the first, I guess I might've gone through it so long as it were a major social/spiritual event, even if it meant nothing in the grander sense.
That depends on the couple's purpose in getting married. If the couple requires no one else to recognize the marriage, then they need not bother with any aspect of the government institution.
Here's a hint: if it's up to individuals/churches/families to recognize a marriage or not, you will never have to recognize a gay marriage.
Here's a clue: no one will have to recognize your marriage, either.
Aside from personal social preference, that is..
Why would I need them to?
You don't have to prove you're married to your social circle. You tell them you're married, and it's over.
The only reason to legally prove that you're married is when questions of property are raised.
The only reason to legally prove that you're married is when questions of property are raised.
Fair enough. Without government recognition of marriage, you still would not have any reason to prove to anyone who you're married to for that reason, either.
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.