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.
The next move is the legalization of polygamy and "polyamory," which is I think is group marriage. Incest is legal, or at least decriminalized, in Sweden.
The wording is the difference. Straight couples can have marrige, gays have civil unions. To me, this is only to keep straight couples happy, I really don't care either way.
I don't see how letting gay couples participate in marriage hurts anyone.
Government policy: Fix it til it's broken.
Ever notice that anything government touches gets screwed up? Name one thing in our society, that government touches, that isn't screwed up.
This is the first piece I read on the subject that actually makes sense.
Divorce leads to the breakdown of the family structure. Letting gays get married would add to the number of married people.
I personally know 4 gay couples, 2 men and 6 women. Two of the Lesbian couples have children. I have seen no evidence that they are not normal, healthy families. They have the same love as straight couples, and they have the same problems as stright couples do too.
I've noticed that Left-wing actions via government have damaged marriage, yes. But it isn't in my nature to surrender. You can do as you please, but don't expect us to follow.
Government has already destroyed marriage and the family unit. Or haven't you noticed? -Critter
I've noticed that Left-wing actions via government have damaged marriage, yes. But it isn't in my nature to surrender. You can do as you please, but don't expect us to follow. -FormerLib
Many traditionalists just want out. Fatalism is weakening our side. It is much wiser to fight the good fight. The ordinary governmental protections are still necessary and still working for what they are intended to do. It is important to stop gay marriage, but please don't go rhetorically nuclear.
Who are the folks who subscribe to radical egalitarianism to force all of civil society to recognize gay marriage as equal in every way to traditional marriage? Very few of them think of it as radical. Some are mainstream conservatives and/or civil liberties fanatics.
I think that a man and a woman raising children together in a loving stable relationship is the best thing everyone involved, and the best thing for society in general.
The problem is that how often does this happen anymore? Half the time, basically.
Divorce is a major problem. I think it would be better for a child to be raised by two women in a loving relationship than by a single mom, or by a dysfunctional father and mother.
Quite simple. If any part of marriage is up for grabs, then every part of marriage is up for grabs. In the same way as asking "why a man and a woman" then we open up "why 2 people"? "why the same species"? "why not father-daughter or mother-son"? Reproduction answers are excluded since homosexuals cannot reproduce. Any mechanism they use is available to siblings, peers and even species.
The only one of these models of co-existance that can be justified in any way besides "because I wanna" is the unrelated Male-Female union, which forms the basis for the nuclear family which forms the basis for our society.
So, if we open it up, then it cases to exist. Period.
Right.
I think it would be better for a child to be raised by two women in a loving relationship than by a single mom, or by a dysfunctional father and mother.
I am not prepared to concede this, but willing to stipulate it.
Letting gays get married would add to the number of married people
Not at all clear, conserv13. Forcefully changing the culture to accept homosexual marriage will subtly but definitely cause marriage to evolve away from being an institution motivated by children and families. It is likely that over time, fewer and fewer children will have two parents (of either orientation) who are married.
Have you read Maggie Gallagher's work? It is easy to find in Weekly Standard and National Review. I think it bears studying.
Your trying to add too much to the scope of my post. What I said was:
"Then again, neither can possibly produce kids, and would not be considered a married couple and family - Which is why marriage exists, and why the state has a vested interest in preserving and nurturing the next generation of good citizens."
The key word here is produce. When you adopt, yout take custody of the result of sexual contact between a male sperm and female egg. In a homosexual relationship, you must go outside the relationship to come up with both of these items.
"They don't have the guts to say that homosexuality is a filthy and evil perversion and not only shouldn't be approved by the government, but should be vigorously stamped out. "
Substitute "homosexuality" with "Judaism" above and you have almost paraphrased Hitler's Final Solution.
"The institution of marriage is terminally ill and not long for this world."
I agree with you. Many heteros screaming about how harmful to hetero marriage the idea of homo marriage is conveniently forget that -- without homo marriage -- heteros have managed to make give marriage a 50%+ divorce rate.
Not to mention the millions of Britney Spears / Vegas-type debacles that have left millions of children behind in their wakes of devastation. But that's OK because it's hetero?
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.