End Government Recognition of Marriage

16 July 2004 | Me

[Voice in your head]

"It is right that the government encourage stable families and societal groups. It is not right for the government to impose a religiously held view upon its citizens without their expressed consent. And Americans, by dint of the First Amendment, have expressly denied the government that consent."

I do not think that the government is imposing any kind of religiously held view on us, by recognizing and/or giving preferential treatment to married couples. I do not see the traditional, committed, man-woman, monogamous relationship as a religious phenomenon, though it is has obviously been encouraged by Judaism and Christianity. Partaking in a religious ceremony, vowing before God commitment to one another, and then fulfilling that sacred vow throughout their life together is a religious phenomenon. If government were to require that a religious ceremony be a criterion for eligibility for recognition as a married couple, then that would be an imposition of a religious view.

It is certainly noble that government has long encouraged stable families and social groups via marriage. However, the fact that the goal was noble does not give the policy merit in regard to whether it is a proper function of the government.

[Voice in your head]

"It is right that the government encourage stable families and societal groups. It is not right for the government to impose a religiously held view upon its citizens without their expressed consent. And Americans, by dint of the First Amendment, have expressly denied the government that consent."

I do not think that the government is imposing any kind of religiously held view on us, by recognizing and/or giving preferential treatment to married couples. I do not see the traditional, committed, man-woman, monogamous relationship as a religious phenomenon, though it is has obviously been encouraged by Judaism and Christianity. Partaking in a religious ceremony, vowing before God commitment to one another, and then fulfilling that sacred vow throughout their life together is a religious phenomenon. If government were to require that a religious ceremony be a criterion for eligibility for recognition as a married couple, then that would be an imposition of a religious view.

It is certainly noble that government has long encouraged stable families and social groups via marriage. However, the fact that the goal was noble does not give the policy merit in regard to whether it is a proper function of the government.

[Voice in your head]

Post above directed to stitifier.

[asmith92008]

I'm actually just graduated from law school, the University of San Diego School of Law. I'm sitting for the California Bar next week. I'm working on getting into the Navy JAG Corps, though for some reason I don't think I'll ever get in a dogfight or foil an international assassin.

1. How can you favor assisted suicide but condemn the German case? If a human being killing another is the legal definition of murder, then so is assisted suicide.

3. I agree that norms change. The fact that no democratic action has ever allowed gay marriage in America is proof to me that times haven;t changed much on that issue.

As to endorsing the gay lifestyle, if we recognize "gay families" we will have to change our language. The words mother and father will vanish. "Heather Has Two Mommies" will become a standard textbook. If the state recognizes "gay marriage" its organs will have to promote that lifestyle as acceptable.

Finally, I'm not arguing that they be forced into false heterosexual marriages. Rather, they are simply bound by the same law as everyone else. There are lots of relationships society refuses to recognize. This is simply one of them.

[Blzbba]

"1. How can you favor assisted suicide but condemn the German case? If a human being killing another is the legal definition of murder, then so is assisted suicide."

I'm in favor of sane people being allowed to choose the method of their passing, given that they have some uncurable, life-ending affliction; whereas the Kraut in question was simply a nutcase into S&M&C(cannibalism). Honestly, the world's probably a better place without a guy who expressed a desire to be eaten. Oregonians seem pretty happy with their current asst'd suicide laws.


3. "3. I agree that norms change. The fact that no democratic action has ever allowed gay marriage in America is proof to me that times haven;t changed much on that issue."

Although this doesn't constitute the actions necessary for an Amendment, I'd have no problems with this issue going on the ballots in November and letting the people decide. I'd go along with whatever 'our' decision would be.

[Blzbba]

"I'm sitting for the California Bar next week. I'm working on getting into the Navy JAG Corps, though for some reason I don't think I'll ever get in a dogfight or foil an international assassin."


Good luck to you, btw!!

[asmith92008]

Thanks.

[asmith92008]

1. Just 'cause you don't agree with nutcase Krauts who are into S&M&C, doesn't make them crazy. Do I detect enforcement of morals here?

As to the assisted suicide laws, there are plenty of issues that we as a society have felt important enough not to leave to the states. Voting and not owning slaves come to mind. Those are things that society feels are so important to a functioning society that we don;t let states experiment with them. I think sanctity of innocent life (assisted suicide) and the definition of marriage are issues of similar importance.

[Blzbba]

" Just 'cause you don't agree with nutcase Krauts who are into S&M&C, doesn't make them crazy. Do I detect enforcement of morals here?"


Actually, I think cannibalism does (or should) qualify as some sort of mental illness. What you detect here is an enforcement of societal norms, as legalized cannibalism has no place in a civilized society. Simply put, you can't allow people to go around eating each other without ramifications other than a stomach ache.

"It must have been someone's something I ate" can never be used to describe one's stomach pains.

[asmith92008]

While I quite agree that one's food should only disagree with him after the meal and not before, this comes from a moral judgment that human life is precious. Therefore, the law can stop consenting adults who had no history of mental illness, i.e. they can distinguish reality from fantasy, event though they are not infringing on other's rights.

I believe the fact that we don;t see more incidents like this, even though there appears to be quite a subculture on the net from the news reports about this case, is attributable to the effectiveness of legislating morals. Folks might want to eat each other but realize they'll get sent to a place where their potential meals are certainly not free range.

[Blzbba]

Thanks for typing these comments - I've had a good laugh already and it's Monday AM...

"While I quite agree that one's food should only disagree with him after the meal and not before, "

LMFAO!


"where their potential meals are certainly not free range."

Brilliant!


I also think that the subculture you refer to has a bunch of phony pretender types who, if they had the chance, wouldn't go thru with the deed.