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.
As a voluntarist, I reject the idea of coercive government retirement schemes such as Social Security. As for private employers, that is their own business as to whether or not they want to provide benefits for private marriages.
Oral sex is sodomy. Do you object to heterosexual oral sex (sodomy) within a state-sanctioned marriage?
Family is, not marriage. It is a distinction that matters, and which many people here are oblivious to. "Marriage" is currently just a government bureaucratic institution, not to be confused with anything relating to "family".
Those two words stopped being synonymous a long time ago. Its time to stop pretending they are the same, because it certainly won't be true as long as the government is defining it. Marriage was nothing more than a popular social mechanism for achieving family. Family is not dependent on marriage, nor vice versa.
The welfare state in those places is bigger than in the US. As a result, marriage is in even worse shape. If our welfare/nanny-state keeps growing, marriage in this country will keep declining.
"Marriage" is currently just a government bureaucratic institution, not to be confused with anything relating to "family".
God defined marriage...and it is in the Common Good that government protects it.
Family is not dependent on marriage, nor vice versa.
May, I recommend a day in Probate Court...where vice versa,marriage and family meet in the arena of judicial mayhem.
I agree. I'm just curious if you've read anything that discusses likely disputes arising over those issues, if marriage were to be "privatized".
There are always situations outside the ideal. But if we are obligated to equate everything, then you are essentially saying that marriage cannot exist under the constitution. If it exists even as it does in Massachusetts, it leaves some people -- poeple with children -- out. The point of marriage (who knew a 5,000 year old institution was going to need such vigorous defense) is to encourage the ideal. The gov't has an interest because where parents fail, gov't steps in. It is perfectly logical and just for gov't to recognize and define a family according to how nature defines a family.
Even if that were true, which it is not, your posts in this thread have been straight from your intestines. Which is worse?
"The rationale that marriage when removed from State protection will prosper fails to take into account inheritance rights,immigration issues, plus the over 1000 Federal benefits and occasionally set backs that are available for married couples."
Did you read the article or are you just commenting on the title?
Go back to DU, you sorry POS liberal interloper. Your kind isn't wanted here.
Not necessary. I cut and pasted it from this person's FR homepage. It was meant for him, and he knows damn well where it came from.
How so?
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.