Save Marriage? It's Too Late.

Opinion Journal ^ | March 15, 2004 | Donald Sensing

[Unam Sanctam]

Opponents of legalized same-sex marriage say they're trying to protect a beleaguered institution, but they're a little late. The walls of traditional marriage were breached 40 years ago; what we are witnessing now is the storming of the last bastion.

[Jim Noble]

The walls of traditional marriage were breached 40 years ago; what we are witnessing now is the storming of the last bastion.

This is exactly correct, and it's why the "traditional" marriage movement as presently defined is not going anywhere.

Saying that traditional marriage is defined as "one man and one woman", full stop, is so misleading as to be fundamentally false. Traditional marriage has three essentials:

1) It is permanent.

2) It is sexually exclusive, with penalties, both legal and social, for breach.

3) It is between one man and at least one woman. Many cultures limit marriage to one man and one woman, but not all.

When our society removed #1 and #2 from the definition of marriage, marriage was abolished.

What's left is a social welfare program. Who can blame the gays for wanting in?

[IronJack]

bookmark

[Rodm]

This article is Wrong, Wrong, Wrong! God instituted marriage at the beginning with Adam and Eve. Many cultures have perverted marriage, but the amazing thing is, marriage continues to exist and works best as designed by the Creator. Marriage as designed is a spiritual, emotional and physical union of one man and one woman.

Homosexuals have a perverted and rebellious view of God's design for marriage and family.

[ClearCase_guy]

When society decided--and we have decided, this fight is over--that society would no longer decide the legitimacy of sexual relations between particular men and women, weddings became basically symbolic rather than substantive

I think this is very true. If the trend is ever to be reversed, society must become more open about bastard children being an embarassment, divorce a matter of shame, single motherhood (other than widowhood) a cause for public humiliation, and "shacking up" a cause for scandal.

I don't think our society wants to go there. But until these "non-marriage" choices are openly criticized, we will just see more and more extreme examples of them.

[StonyBurk]

Problem with this article is the author ignores the fact
that in the United States -marriage licences were not
granted ,nor marriage recorded except by the church as a
religious duty. And this fact remained undiluted until
about 1853 --It was not until 1987 that a court divided
amongst itself declared the civil institution had value to a State system that had walled God out.But that same body
when it was true to the language and intent of the Constitution declared in 1858 that "the basis of the family consisting of and springing from the union for life
of one man an done woman in the Holy estate of matrimony."
Oh what atangled web we weave when we tolerate courts that
erect walls to decieve.

[LadyDoc]

all of this was predicted in the greatly maligned essay: Humana Vitae, which pointed out that once you ignore the link between sex and procreation, and you take the procreation of children out of the implication that children are a gift of God and make them a chosen commodity, then the result is a cascade of problems that lead to a culture of death...

But of course no one wants to point that out...

[Unam Sanctam]

Indeed, Pope Paul VI was certainly prophetic.

[wai-ming]

So the economics of sex evolved into a win-win deal.

There is no way that marriage could have "evolved" naturally, and it is not a win-win situation biologically or economically. What normal, red-blooded caveman would give up the prospect of multiple sex partners and sacrifice half of his resources for one nagging cavewoman and her whiny kids?

[brbethke]

The proper question is, if marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman, and God, then why is the state in the business of regulating marriage in the first place?

I find it ironic that the same people who claim the 2nd Amendment takes precedence over state law, and therefore states have no business regulating firearms ownership, are usually the first people to demand that the state "do something" about gay marriage, when clearly the same argument can be made invoking the 1st Amendment.

Marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman, and God. The 1st Amendment protects religious expression and takes precedence over state law. Therefore, the state has no business licensing and regulating marriage.

[Theo]

I will make him a helper comparable ...

"Comparable"? What version is that in? Seems to either be a mis-translation or intentional "mistake"?

[Esther Ruth]

Can any of you see Moses coming away from the presence of God after receiving the 10 Commandments, looking down into the valley, and seeing the people drunk, decadent and building golden idols - can you see Moses calmly walking down the mountain side, smiling, hugging them all since he missed them, and then asking them to stop their idol building for a moment so he can talk with them and perhaps share and persuade them as to maybe, well, just maybe we should stop this building of this golden calf, because God, well, I don't think He is happy, and well, these orgies, I know you all are confused and well, lets talk about this - discuss why maybe this may not be the best plan for everyone involved!! Let's break up into nice little age related discussion groups and tell Moses how we feel about what he is asking us to do. (calm, quietly, peacefully) NOT! Thus says the Lord - I love you but obey NOW! or else! There's a new title for a book!

[BikerNYC]

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

It can be, but it doesn't have to be. Many people decide to get married by a justice of the peace, outside of a house of worship. It's pretty clear that marriage does not have to be religiously based.

[brbethke]

That's the essence of my argument. In this country, marriage is two different things:

• civil marriage, which is a contract between two people to essentially form a peculiar form of limited corporation with certain tax and benefits implications and a body of law that governs the distribution of the assets in the event of the dissolution of the partnership, and
   
• religious marriage, which is a sacrament whose terms are defined by the denomination or sect to which you belong

Most of the current hysteria over gay marriage seems to be coming from people who can't distinguish between the two ideas and who are demanding that the state regulate a religious sacrament, thereby conceding that the state has the legitimate right to do so.

As a Christian and a libertarian, I say, let consenting adults form whatever kind of stupid legal partnerships they want to. Just don't force my church to bless the resulting mess.

[KantianBurke]

"Sex, childbearing and marriage now have no necessary connection to one another, because the biological connection between sex and childbearing is controllable. The fundamental basis for marriage has thus been technologically obviated. Pair that development with rampant, easy divorce without social stigma, and talk in 2004 of "saving marriage" is pretty specious. There's little there left to save. Men and women today who have successful, enduring marriages till death do them part do so in spite of society, not because of it."

Megabump!

[EdReform]

Bump & Ping

What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)

The Stamp of Normality

[Mamzelle]

hypothetical (and I believe it will come to this shortly)--

Your adult daughter has been married about ten years, she and her husband have a couple kids. Bigamy is decriminalized, and there is no longer any civil penalty (as in divorce) for adultery.

Your son-in-law brings home his next "bride" to share the home with your daughter and grandchildren. Your daughter finds out that she has no legal means to kick out the new woman, and not only that, but her property has now been diminished because community property would split it three ways. So even a divorce wouldn't help her much.

It'll happen . There was a reason that marriage was defined the way it was--libertarians think they can just willy-nilly make the world adjust to their philosophical whims...

[brbethke]

No, you missed the "mutual consent" part. Many successful polygamous societies have required the current wife (or wives) to consent before another partner can be added to the marriage.

The one that doesn't is Islamic polygamy, in which wives are chattel and a husband can acquire a new wife in about the same way that my neighbor adds a new cow to his dairy herd.

Your nightmare scenario assumes my daughter is powerless and a helpless and subservient pawn of her husband. Luckily, I did not raise my daughters to be those things.

[Mamzelle]

Consent of an existing partner? How you do assume. That's only implied in existing definitions of marriage, and we're talking a libertarian utopia where everyone is free to beee.

Requiring consent would limit the lifestyle choices of the husband and his new bride--the old one would have no power to stop him, and would find taking it to court rather difficult since the definitions are always free (unstable). And, how dare you try to exclude a needy new wife (and baby!) from health benefits and housing!

Given the way polygamy has worked in the past, I'd say many first wives would find themselves hard-pressed by circumstances not only to accept the new defintions of marriage, but to put a good face on it--

The only way I see a woman maintaining a strong hand would be to insist that all property be in her name, and also insisting on a prenup that, on the event of a new wife, her "dowry" remains hers. These are typical marital contracts in a few Muslim countries.

[Ole Okie]

Weddings ceremoniously legitimated the sexual union of a particular man and woman under the guidance of the greater community.

'legitimated'?

Call the po-lice. Call Sherlock Holmes!

Somebody stole 'legitimized' whilst I wasn't watching!!

Where, oh where, did ligitimized go?

Legitimated aside, what better plan for the conception and rearing of children could be conceived?

One thing's for sure; the gubmint won't do it better.