Group Calls for De-Legalization of Marriage

FoxNews.com ^ | October 9, 2003

[gridlock]

That's true as long as you do not wish legal status of any kind for your 'partner' over and above what a stranger would have.

I could grant my partner (my wife, in my case) any kind of special legal status I want. For instance, she might designated me her health-care proxy, and I could do the same for her.

Similarly, two men could designate each other with all sorts of special relationships under the law through mutual contract, and do so all the time. If this constitutes marriage, we've had gay marriage for the last twenty years.

[hunter112]

Not true - it is in the government's best interest to promote the institution of marriage. The heterosexual family is the foundational unit of society.

OK, maybe you'd favor a law that just de-legalized MY marriage. I have a vasectomy, and my wife has had a hysterectomy, we just got hitched six months ago, and maybe we shouldn't have done so, since we can't "be fruitful and multiply."

The laws of the various religions functioned to protect the societies that had them. The coupling of government with religious law worked fine for the first 4900 years of human history, but in the last 100 years, we've figured out how to get most people born in a civilized society to reach reproductive age. Therefore, we no longer need government sanction for purely religious rules that favor procreation.

[bc2]

BUMP for civil society!

Put an END to "justice of the peace" weddings! A marriage is a contract between man, woman, and God. Marriages should only happen in a CHURCH unless you are "common law" husband and wife. If you are gay, and you can find a Church that will marry you, FINE. Hey, it's your soul, not mine. That must be one wacked church in my book!

Government must not promote anything, other than the natural rights of man and woman to make contracts, and hold property.

If a private business like insurance companies, HMO's etc, want to give people who are "common law" husband and wife, or live in girlfriend, or gay lover, etc, benefits, FINE, that is a PRIVATE COMPANY and they are free to make contracts!

This is a common sense libertarian constitutional answer to this simple problem! Common sense, people!

[bc2]

WE MUST PROTECT MARRIAGE AT THE POINT OF A GOVERNMENT GUN!

IT IS FOR THE CHILDREN!

do you realise what you sound like?

[gridlock]

The one and only thing I would change about my Wedding Day was when the Priest said the line, "And now, by the power granted me by the State of New York, I now pronounce you...". It struck me as wrong at the time, but I was too happy about other things to care...

A religious officiant should never have to rely on powers granted by the State of New York, or any other state, to do anything.

[vrwc1]

It would allow homosexuals to form "partnership contracts" if they really wanted to (and there is nothing stopping them from doing that now), but it would be impossible to have such contracts defined as "Marriages" in Law because the State would not be involved in the definition of Marriage at all, and so could not mandate that any such contract be legally considered a "marriage". "Partnership contracts" would be recognized as "Marriages" only by, and within, such Churches as conferred that blessing on the contractors

If everyone has a "partnership contract" that must be treated equally outside of a "church", you have effectively conferred all rights of "married" heterosexuals on homosexuals as well - i.e. you have created homosexual marriage. Don't try to deny it - it is as plain as day!

And because "partnership contracts" would only be binding on the parties themselves, there would be no grounds for "discrimination lawsuits" against organizations which refused to respect the partnership

That is a fallacy. Employers would end up having to provide the same benefits to homosexual spouses of their employees as they do to heterosexual spouses of their employees in "partnership contracts". You are playing into the hands of the homosexual agenda.

By the same token, is the best defense of the Institution of the Church a Constitutional Amendment defining as "Christian" only those individuals who qualify by the standards of the Church? After all, we have a lot of wackos running around claiming to be Christian now... should we get the State involved, so that Jesse Jackson could no longer make this spurious claim of himself? "The best defense is a good offense"?

That is a bogus argument. You are talking about an unconstitutional establishment of religion. Marriage, however, is a legitimate and constitutional government concern, as stable heterosexual marriages are a tremendous benefit to society as a whole, therefore the government should do whatever it reasonably can to promote such an institution.

On the contrary... if the State defines Marriage as a heterosexual institution in Constitutional Law, it has permanently destroyed the power of the Church to enjoy Civil Enforcement of canonical standards for heterosexual marriages -- such as the canon law against the Marriage of Believer and UnBeliever. Right now, the Church is unable to strictly enforce this canonical standard because the Church has a legal obligation to treat such "unions" as being actual "marriages" because the State says that they are. You would make this devaluation of canon law -- and all the State's other devaluations of Church canon law for heterosexual marriages -- the exclusive and permanent province of Caesar, by Constitutional Amendment.

Another bogus argument. There is no "canon law" against the marriage of believer and unbeliever. In 2nd Corinthians Paul says that a believer shouldn't marry an unbeliever, but he also says in 1st Corinthians that if you are married to an unbeliever you shouldn't divorce them! Besides, if a church doesn't want to marry a believer and an un-believer they are free to do that today, and would be free to do so under the proposed Constitutional amendment - this is no "devaluation of canon law". Besides, the 1st amendment protects a church's rights to practice their beliefs. That is not changed by a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as only a heterosexual institution.

Private contractual partnership, OTOH, would allow Churches to recommend only "partnership contracts" which conformed to their own canon laws

As I stated above, churches are free today to marry or not marry whoever they wish. Nothing would be changed with the proposed constitutional amendment.

[Sofa King]

I'm all for the de-legalization of marriage. Marriage, as traditionally practiced in this country, is a Christian (yes, Christian, not Islamic, Jewish, Hindu, druidic, pagan or atheist. Like it or not, this country was founded by christians as a Christian nation) sacrament. It should be allowed to remain a religious institution rather than being twisted beyond recognition by the government.

[vrwc1]

No, if the State has no power to define a contract as a "marriage", then (by definition) no "partnership" could be legally required to be respected as a Marriage. Churches and Businesses could choose to recognize whichever "partnership contracts" they pleased, and not others, as the terms of a Private Contract are binding upon the Parties themselves, not parties external to the contract. State Law, on the other hand, is binding on Parties external to the contract, which is exactly why we are in this mess.

You're dreaming if you don't think that eventually state law would require all businesses to recognize and treat all "partnership contracts" equally, effectively creating homosexual marriage!

[bc2]

BIG BUMP for common sense.

Marriage is a contract between man, woman, and God.

If you are gay, and can find a church to marry you, FINE. It is your soul, not mine.

To ask permission of the State is indeed an ABOMINATION and should be disgusting to any free man or woman.

The job of government is to protect our Natural Rights and to provide for our Common Defense. Protecting our Natural Right to contract! If that is violated, or we wish to change that contract, that's where the State comes in and NO WHERE ELSE.

You have no right to use the government to tell 2 gay men or women they can not be married.

That is the Church's job :)

[vrwc1]

I didn't say anything about children. All I said was that the heterosexual family is the foundational unit of society. I never said your marriage should be "de-legalized" - you just pulled that out of thin air!

[bc2]

Maybe your efforts would be better spent changing the laws that say you are no longer free to hire and fire, or rent property, to whomever you want.

You would be free to not hire gay people, black people, Irish, Jews, or anyone else you didn't like.

Then, if an insurance company didn't want to give a policy to 2 gay men, they wouldn't be forced to by a law.

I thought this was a free country? Am I wrong?

[vrwc1]

WE MUST PROTECT MARRIAGE AT THE POINT OF A GOVERNMENT GUN!

We must define marriage as a heterosexual institution only, because too many are trying to define it otherwise. It's time to remove the issue from the courts permanently - a Constitutional amendment will accomplish this.

I'm sorry if that hurts your homosexual agenda, but you are part of a miniscule minority, and it is time for this issue to be put to rest.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

The one and only thing I would change about my Wedding Day was when the Priest said the line, "And now, by the power granted me by the State of New York, I now pronounce you...". It struck me as wrong at the time, but I was too happy about other things to care... A religious officiant should never have to rely on powers granted by the State of New York, or any other state, to do anything.

By "Priest", I'm assuming that you are either Roman Catholic or Episcopal. Or maybe Lutheran? Anyway, you know that if Marriage were strictly a matter of Private Contract, your Church could require that your partnership contract included clauses conforming your partnership to the Church's canon laws for marriage.

You would then be under a binding legal obligation to respect the canon laws of your Church in regard to Marriage, as the Civil Judges would be under judicial requirement to respect your voluntary private contract as a binding mutual agreement in Law.

By comparison, there is nothing currently stopping wayward divorcees from performing an "end run" around Church canon law by traipsing through the gaping loopholes of the State's "easy come, easy go" Marriage and Divorce Laws. Church canon law becomes a musty, theoretical exercise, with no place in the "reality" of an Institution controlled by State Law.

HOWEVER, given the majority of American's social preference for Religious Blessing of their marital unions, the return of Marriage to the sphere of Private Contract (private contracts in which Churches could require the inclusion of strict canon-law protections of marriage as a condition for Religious Blessing) , the privatization of Marriage could easily result (given a few generations) in an enormous overall strengthening of the Institution, albeit to different degrees along different denominational lines and canonical standards.

[bc2]

I am not pro homosexual, I am pro family and pro freedom.

You are a controller. Is it not good enough that the Church will exclude these people from marriage? Only a very small minorities of silly churches will perform gay marriage.

You talk about the Constitution, but do you understand it's purpose and intent? I think not, and it is quite sickening.

[vrwc1]

Maybe your efforts would be better spent changing the laws that say you are no longer free to hire and fire, or rent property, to whomever you want.

I find racial discrimination to be despicable. We are all equal in the eyes of God, however he finds homosexuality extremely offensive (an "abomination" is what the Bible calls it).

I find the homosexual agenda to redefine marriage to be a national tragedy that needs to be stopped. Sorry if you don't like that, but that is where I will concentrate my efforts for now.

[gridlock]

If everyone has a "partnership contract" that must be treated equally outside of a "church", you have effectively conferred all rights of "married" heterosexuals on homosexuals as well - i.e. you have created homosexual marriage. Don't try to deny it - it is as plain as day!

No, what you have created is homosexual civil union, not homosexual marriage. There is a difference, you know.

For one thing, we've had homosexual civil union for some time in this country.

[Aquinasfan]

"Why should you be treated differently by the law just because you're married?"

Because marriages beget children. Without children, society disappears.

This is the pathetic level to which "scholarship" has fallen.

[bc2]

I find racial descrimination sickening, as well.

But do you think there should be a law telling you have that you MUST rent to homosexuals, or you MUST consider them for employment at your company?

Because it is the same thing we are talking about here.

[vrwc1]

I am not pro homosexual, I am pro family and pro freedom.

You mights as well be pre-homosexual, as you are arguing for their agenda.

Only a very small minorities of silly churches will perform gay marriage.

And that is where all the homosexuals will go to get their marriages, and then demand equal rights with heterosexual marriages. How can you be so blind?

[vrwc1]

You talk about the Constitution, but do you understand it's purpose and intent?

What is your problem with a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as a heterosexual institution?