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.
That Oregon county announced it was not going to issue marriage licenses a couple weeks ago. Seems like we're pretty close to ending marriage as it is.
Someone needs to do a study to determine how much money will be shifted from gay couples onto other folks as a result of the extension of marriage to the gay community.
This debate is lost because the right side can't even muster the correct argument. The sanctity of marriage isn't the issue. Homosexuality is the issue.
Stripping the primary family unit of any legal protections would guarantee the end of our society as we know it.
Look to the Democratic National Convention coming soon in Boston (or a "Gay Pride" parade) for a concrete look at the society that would rise in its place.
I don't believe that, neither do most Americans.
But actually, it would harm the institution just as the left's adoption of "No Fault" divorce has done.
I prefer the traditional No Sex marriage.
Thank you for posting that statement.
You're right. Most Americans are quite tolerant, which is why we're sinking into a morass of immorality like the Romans, and we'll wind up in the same place too. In the history books.
So if homosexuality is A-OK, then why not let them get married? That's where the "sanctity of marriage" argument breaks down.
I don't think that gays should be 'married'. Civil unions are okay with me, though.
If you make that argument, you will lose the debate. Very few people agree with you on that matter.
Really, just look at where the black community has sadly ended up because of weak families and illegitimacy. State government should do everything it can reasonably do to strengthen the institution of the family. It's part of our tradition here in state government.
And yes, sodomy is a disgusting perversion that should be re-criminalized, but the argument on the family is important, too. To compare sexual perversion to normal family life--as though there were any comparison--is obscene.
The institution of marriage is terminally ill and not long for this world. You're trying to close the barn door after the horses escaped. I'm not trying to save a dead institution. I'm trying to fight the acceptance and legal sanction of this perversion.
We're missing the boat here. Homosexuals don't really care about marriage. The level of promiscuity is incredible among them and their marriages would be an ugly farce. What they're trying to do is get official government approval of their "lifestyle".
Nonsense. What homosexuals do to or with each other in no way influences the morality or immorality of the American people. In any event, the Roman comparison is silly. Rome lasted for a 1000 years. If America lasts that long, we should be so lucky.
So if homosexuality is A-OK, then why not let them get married? That's where the "sanctity of marriage" argument breaks down.
I'm fairly neutral on this subject, but I have to ask: How would allowing homosexuals to marry in any way influence heterosexual marriage?
If anything needs defining, it is sex itself.
I understand that. I never said that I have a mainstream position on this issue. Do I have to have one? Anyway, the argument is already lost. We'll never see a Marriage Amendment and state after state is passing gay marriage. What's left to debate about?
One of the reasons we lost this fight is because we picked the wrong argument. It's not really about marriage. It's about official approval of homosexuality, but our side lacked the courage to say it, or didn't believe it.
I will say now that if society deems that homosexuality is just fine then there is no rational argument against gay marriage. That's how we lost.
This debate already occured, and the gays won. Sodomy is not just gay sex, straight people can engage in it also. You can't make sodomy illegal for gay people only, nor should you.
I know several gay couples, and guess what? Their 'family life' is surprisingly similar to that of all the straight couples I know! They wake up, make coffee, walk the dog, go to work, come home, make dinner, watch tv, do the dishes, mow the lawn, etc...
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.