Posted on 07/16/2004 8:09:37 AM PDT by Voice in your head
Government recognition of marriage has largely removed all meaning from the institution. A couple that is legally married does not need to enter into a union of holy matrimony. They only need to get the government’s permission to marry and take the necessary steps to complete all formalities associated with the marriage. That there is greater outrage over the government recognition of “same-sex marriage” rather than over clergy members agreeing to conduct the ceremonies is an indication of how far the nation has sunk in its view of marriage as a union of holy matrimony versus a legal contract.
The government is an entity that serves the purpose of, among other things, enforcing contracts. Among the most common contract is the contract that is entered into by couples when they marry. By getting legally married, every couple in the same state enters into a similar contract. This should change. The assumption that any two people from any social and economic class can enter into the same legal contract is absurd. Each couple should have its own contract for its specific circumstances. Some couples already do this via pre-nuptial agreements.
As an action that is half corrective and half symbolic, I think that government should discontinue the issuing of one-size-fits-all, marriage “contracts”. Discontinuing this recognition would be corrective in that any contracts formed would need to be specifically tailored to each couple, because each couple would need to draft their own contract. Discontinuing the recognition of current marriage contracts would be symbolic, in that it would send the message that marriage is a religious union that is inappropriate for government to have any involvement in. I can think of no more effective way to pervert a religious ceremony than to taint it with a stamp of approval from the government. For those who marry for spiritual reasons – love and commitment – the marriage will take on greater meaning as a solely religious and spiritual endeavor. For those who seek to form a union for the purpose of shared benefits and legal protections, the marriage will be more of a legal arrangement.
From the perspective of the government, a contract should be just a contract, whether it applies to a man and a woman committing themselves to one another or between a bank and a customer agreeing to the terms of a loan. It is insane to use government as a tool to morally sanction a couple’s lust or love or as a moral compass for our society. There is nothing that so easily gets manipulated for the advancement of our vices as government. To let it continue to have a role in marriage will only further erode the bedrock institution of our society. The surest way to retain the sanctity of marriage is to emphasize the religious and spiritual aspects of it, by giving full responsibility for the recognition and ceremonial procedures to the church.
To take this approach would seem to have many unintended consequences. For example, does this allow “same-sex marriages” or bigamy or polygamy? If there are religions that recognize such unions and will carry out the ceremonies, then the answer is yes. However, the government would not recognize those unions as marriages, because there would be no such thing as a government-recognized marriage. Marriage would be between the family and the church. Would this encourage polygamy, bigamy or “same-sex marriage”? The answer is no, because people who choose those lifestyles already live them, but they do so without government recognition. Nothing would change, because government would still not recognize those arrangements as marriages. There would be no more government-recognized marriages; only religious institutions would recognize marriages. Will this encourage “marriages” between adults and children or people and animals? The answer is no, because those are already forbidden by laws regarding child abuse and animal abuse.
Some would say that my recommendation would further erode marriage, because it would “expand” the definition by opening it up to everyone. I say the exact opposite is true, because it would leave the definition of marriage up to the church. I have infinitely greater trust in the ability of religious institutions to make moral and ethical decisions than I do in the government. Some would also say that this issue needs to be fought and won as we currently debate it, because allowing “same-sex” couples to enjoy the same benefits as traditional couples would only be an entitlement money grab and/or a further encroachment of political correctness upon our society. I say that this point of view is incorrect, irrelevant and ignores the fundamental problems that underlie our society today. Most government entitlements (social security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, most notably) are nothing more than legally sanctioned thievery that people participate in, because they were forced to contribute to them. In simple terms, entitlement programs are government actions whereby your money is taken from you and given to other people who did not earn it, on the assumption that their “need” entitles them to the money. To accept this assumption and use it as the basis for opposing “same-sex” unions (the opposition being that those couples will share in the money grab) is yet another step towards surrendering to an increasingly statist society – and it illustrates the point of view that worries not about the spiritual and religious aspects of marriage, but rather the bottom line: money and control. The future of marriage is too important to be weighed on the basis of money and politics.
To truly ensure the preservation of marriage we must rescue it from the political arena and place it under the watch of our religious institutions. As government and politics are further dominated by more extreme communist elements, we need to separate government from matters related to morality. Otherwise, morality will be redefined (legally) by the likes of the Klintons, the Kerrys, and the other Dasch-holes in congress.
Thus the governement has to have the central role of record keeper."
If we make a distinction between "marriage" and "legal contracts" then we do not need government to annull a marriage. If we let churches handle the marriages, then records are of little to no importance.
"Laws such as inheritance, incompetency, medical surrogacy are all dependent on a consitent and uniform rule of marriage."
I wrote that "[e]ach couple should have its own contract for its specific circumstances. Some couples already do this via pre-nuptial agreements." I wrote this to address the point that you raise. The purpose of the contract is to legally "form a union for the purpose of shared benefits and legal protections" such as those you cited.
"Additionally as a society we reward the insitution not the individual."
I'm a fan of limited government, rather than a state that engages in social engineering, no matter how well intentioned.
I have infinitely greater trust in the ability of religious institutions to make moral and ethical decisions than I do in the government.
Do you? What about Gene Robinson, the gay Bishop in the Episcopalian church? What about the pedophile-shuffling within the Catholic church? Pedo-priest commits a sexual crime - he is shuffled off to a different parish. These are the first two that come to mind. I'm sure we can add to the list of "moral and ethical decisions".
agree mostly
The first sentence does not answer my question, nor does it contradict my point. So, I don't understand your frustration. What we wrote is in agreement, but you apparently misread what I wrote.
"And while courts are part of the government, they are not the entire government. So if the other branches, executive and legislative, would get off their duffs and do their jobs to rein in there out of control colleagues, we would not have a problem."
So are you retracting your earlier assertion? "we can trust the government to uphold that standard because no people has ever voted for homosexual marriage."
"Because government's job is to protect our people and out cultural institutions."
I disagree. Government's purpose is to serve as a body in which we vest our rights to self defense from force, fraud or coercion and we vest our rights to determine rules regarding use of public property.
That is half of it, yes.
I have infinitely greater trust in the ability of religious institutions to make moral and ethical decisions than I do in the government.
"Do you?"
Yes.
"What about Gene Robinson, the gay Bishop in the Episcopalian church? What about the pedophile-shuffling within the Catholic church? Pedo-priest commits a sexual crime - he is shuffled off to a different parish. These are the first two that come to mind. I'm sure we can add to the list of "moral and ethical decisions".
We can "what-if" this issue to death on both sides. Bill Klinton, Gary Hart, Barney Frank, Gary Condit. Do you think that fewer scum inhabit Washington DC and our state capitals than inhabit our churches and synagogues? I have greater faith in the religious institutions to handle marriage.
"Your argument would only work if religious institutions were the paragons of moral and ethical virtues that they should be, but, sadly, are not."
I disagree. So long as the vast majority are moral and ethical, then it works.
You are refereing to cohabitation agreements which already exist. You can just educate people to enter into those "mere contracts" rather than getting married.
As an institution rather than just a contract Marriage is afforded certain priorities that are not available in mere contracts.
For example, despite what a will has, many states have mandatory widow's/widower's shares.
For example, child supoprt would be fixed under a mere contract concept rather than as the cost of living adjusted system now.
Those the want only contracts have been free to do so for decades. cohabitation contracts are readily available from various form companies.
However as a institution marriage as a means of producing and raising children is paramount to the continuation of a society. This is not to be left to the haphazard contracts any more than one would want to privatize the US navy to france.
Have you notice how the PC police no longer say "mother" or "father" only "parent"
This is to newter the genders in order to make it two whatevers. I would like to see the next course after FMA to be making homosexual adoptions illegal. A child should have one mother and one father. A homosexual recreational sex partner does not equal a mother/father.
We better start soon because the courts have become a Kafka-esque joke.
(this is from a lawyer)
I was trying to explain to you that "government" as it was orginally defined did not mean the state. The word government meant self-government of the Christian man, and it it very closely and almost inseparably linked with this, government meant the family. Every family is a government. Every church is a government. Every school is a government, and yes every the state is a "form" of government, but it was orginally defined as civil government. It's purpose is to pass laws that restrain man in a system of morality. If it does not do this it is only because we have been subverted. This can only happen when the "ministers of justice" are spiritually and morally delinquent. In order to have "free" civil government you are going to have to have free men whose greatest desire is self-government under God.
Redefining marriage is not an issue that I raised.
Sure it is...you want to take the institution of marriage away from the state so that they don't define it. What you are saying is that you want to seperate from civil government, but in essence you would be telling civil government that you no longer wish to have "self-government" and then they win (politicians). They could impose their rule over us. On the flip-side of this what will really happen is that sodomites will create their own churches to define it any way they see fit.
"Homosexuality and obscenity were illegal at America's founding."
Yeah, and slavery was legal, blacks were 4/5ths of a person, and women couldn't vote. Things and times change.
"The Fonders recognized that it had to be a nation of moral people in order for the Republic to work."
If that's true, we're in big trouble, as morality is impossible to force or enforce. Stopping gay marriage will not stop immorality.
If the government no longer defines marriage, then does it not follow that mandatory widow/widower laws and the like will be void and thus able to be replaced by contract?
On public property, it would prefer that it be illegal.
"What about my question on the animal cruelty laws?"
I do need to occasionally pull myself away from the computer and get some sleep.
Throughout this thread, "government" has referred to the state. Thus, when I asked how government has protected marriage, I was asking how the state has protected marriage. Sorry for the confusion.
"you want to take the institution of marriage away from the state so that they don't define it. What you are saying is that you want to seperate from civil government, but in essence you would be telling civil government that you no longer wish to have 'self-government' and then they win (politicians). They could impose their rule over us."
I do not understand your point. If the state no longer defines marriage, then it can impose upon us its rules regarding marriage?
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.