Posted on 06/04/2014 10:19:50 AM PDT by Iced Tea Party
Cultural civil war can be avoided by getting government out of marriage
There is no question that the media, political, and cultural push for gay marriage has made impressive gains. As recently as 1989, voters in avant-garde San Francisco repealed a law that had established only domestic partnerships.
But judging by the questions posed by Supreme Court justices this week in oral arguments for two gay-marriage cases, most observers do not expect sweeping rulings that would settle the issue and avoid protracted political combat. A total of 41 states currently do not allow gay marriage, and most of those laws are likely to remain in place for some time. Even should the Court declare unconstitutional the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman for federal purposes, we can expect many pitched battles in Congress. The word “spouse” appears in federal laws and regulations a total of 1,138 times, and many of those references would have to be untangled by Congress absent DOMA.
No wonder Wisconsin’s GOP governor Scott Walker sees public desire for a Third Way. On Meet the Press this month he remarked on how many young people have asked him why the debate is over whether the definition of marriage should be expanded. They think the question is rather “why the government is sanctioning it in the first place.” The alterative would be to “not have the government sanction marriage period, and leave that up to the churches and the synagogues and others to define that.”
Governor Walker made clear these thoughts weren’t “anything I’m advocating for,” but he gave voice to many people who don’t think the gay-marriage debate should tear the country apart in a battle over who controls the culture and wins the government’s seal of approval. Gay-marriage proponents argue that their struggle is the civil-rights issue of our time, although many gays privately question that idea. Opponents who bear no animus toward gays lament that ancient traditions are being swept aside before the evidence is in on how gay marriage would affect the culture.
Both sides operate from the shaky premise that government must be the arbiter of this dispute. Columnist Andrew Sullivan, a crusader for gay marriage, has written that “marriage is a formal, public institution that only the government can grant.” But that’s not so. Marriage predates government. Marriage scholar Lawrence Stone has noted that in the Middle Ages it was “treated as a private contract between two families . . . For those without property, it was a private contract between two individuals enforced by the community sense of what was right.” Indeed, marriage wasn’t even regulated by law in Britain until the Marriage Acts of 1754 and 1835. Common-law unions in early America were long recognized before each state imposed a one-size-fits-all set of marriage laws.
The Founding Fathers avoided creating government-approved religions so as to avoid Europe’s history of church-based wars. Depoliticizing religion has mostly proven to be a good template for defusing conflict by keeping it largely in the private sphere.
Turning marriage into fundamentally a private right wouldn’t be an easy task. Courts and government would still be called on to recognize and enforce contracts that a couple would enter into, and clearly some contracts — such as in a slave-master relationship — would be invalid. But instead of fighting over which marriages gain its approval, government would end the business of making distinctions for the purpose of social engineering based on whether someone was married. A flatter tax code would go a long way toward ending marriage penalties or bonuses. We would need a more sensible system of legal immigration so that fewer people would enter the country solely on the basis of spousal rights.
The current debate pits those demanding “marriage equality” against supporters of “traditional marriage.” But many Americans believe it would be better if we left matters to individuals and religious bodies. The cherished principle of separating church and state should be extended as much as possible into separating marriage and state. Ron Paul won many cheers during his 2012 presidential campaign when he declared, “I’d like to see all governments out of the marriage question. I don’t think it’s a state decision. I think it’s a religious function. I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want.”
Supporters of traditional marriage know the political winds are blowing against them. A new Fox News poll finds 49 percent of voters favoring gay marriage, up from just 32 percent a decade ago. And among self-described conservatives under 35, Fox found support for gay marriage is now at 44 percent. Even if the Supreme Court leaves the battle for gay marriage to trench warfare in the states, the balance of power is shifting. Rush Limbaugh, a powerful social conservative, told his listeners this week: “I don’t care what this court does with this particular ruling. . . . I think the inertia is clearly moving in the direction that there is going to be gay marriage at some point nationwide.”
But a majority of Americans still believe the issue of gay marriage should be settled by the states and not with Roe v. Wade–style central planning. It might still be possible to assemble a coalition of people who want to avoid a civil war over the culture and who favor getting government out of the business of marriage.
— John Fund is national-affairs columnist for NRO.
We can’t trust people to make contracts with one another, we need an all-knowing, sanctified, governmental apparatus to care for us. Something might go wrong. What about the children? /s
The goal is the same as it’s been stated since the red diaper doper baby days “SMASH THE PATRIARCHY”.
Subversion of the institutions, not “acceptance”.
Actually queers don’t want legal marriages. They don’t.
They - like all big gubmint statists - want to eliminate all marriages which results in a greater Welfare State. And they’ll use any tactic to accomplish this.
So. For anyone to argue for Civil Unions or argue the government should abandon traditional marriage is just nuts.
The proper role of just governance is to secure the blessings of liberty. The original purpose of Family Law, i.e. government involvement, was to protect the rights of children to be raised properly by the father and mother who conceived them. Children, understandably, are most vulnerable with regard to the security of their endowed rights. Is government too involved in marriage today?. . .no question a slippery slope, however, there is a “just” role for government in securing the rights of children. . .btw, it is children’s rights that suffer the most as a result of the redefining of marriage. No one has an endowed right to have a spouse. . but children born of a father and mother DO have an endowed right to be raised properly by that father and mother.
Which of the following is an evil nation?
1. The US, where people drive on the right.If "all laws boil down to moral issues", then clearly, of these two opposite laws, one must be good and the other must be evil.
2. The UK, where people drive on the left.
Fund’s right, of course, that marriage precedes government. In fact, until the French Revolution after which couples were required to see the mayor before the priest, “formal” marriage was limited to the sacrament of Matrimony or the religious, social, tribal conventions of various groups. Just one of the many, many perversions of the French Revolution that’s leaked into today’s mores.
(backs away slowly looking for the exit)
Both designate a specific side of the road.
You are just trying a red herring.
The designation is there to prevent death.
Marriage is about the institution rewarded by the society for furthering the society.
Children are created by a male and a female not by any “fetish” test.
Worth repeating in larger font....
______________________________________________
Marriage is more than a religous committment. It is the foundation for every successfull society since the beginning of time.
As goes the American Family - so goes America.
it can’t be. b/c divorce exists, and it’s conducted through courts. which then sets precedents in law, and then legislatures get involved with making laws regarding marriage and divorce.
Yep. Or he was. He’s dead now, ya know.
He was a social liberal. That’s what a libertarian is.
And don’t leave now. Stick around new stuff. You’ll learn a lot from us.
If the government does not hand out goodies based on marital status who cares?
Government, like cancer, has a “vested interest” in growing and infiltrating its surroundings.
Capitalize this: you’re wrong.
No, I am acutely aware that government oppression of Christians is mounting and that many of us risk being sent to gulags.
Do YOU realize that the government can try to force ministers to perform same-sex marriages whether marriage licenses exist or not?
Grow a brain.
Wow, this is going to be fun.
If a preacher starts marrying gays he won’t have much of a congregation left, and you are ALWAYS free to move to the next church.
Actually, I don't expect ACTUAL Christian minister or Jewish rabbis to do any such thing.
You want government in YOUR church?
I am quite aware that libertarians have a grotesquely distorted view of government and its role. I am also aware that many, if not most, libertarians strongly support the homosexual agenda and will go out of their way to force same-sex marriage on society, all while being blind to the FACT that in the majority of the United States it is the government that prohibits these abominations.
That's the evil genius of it:
1. Government comes up with some rationalization for taking control of a social institution.
2. Enough suckers buy the excuse to let it happen.
3. Once the takeover is a fait accompli, it becomes part of the rationale for the next takeover.
4. Lather, rinse, repeat.
And without government involvement people can accept or reject those marriages as they see fit. As it should be.
To take the point a step further. Those "liberal" types, whom the hard core Leftists used to refer to as "useful idiots," argued back in the 1930s, when the ADC program was proposed, that the Government should take the stigma out of having children out-of-wedlock. The idea was that the children were innocent victims, forced to endure undeserved social stigma. The point was valid up to a point; but that social stigma, however unkind to the innocents, was society's way of discouraging an unfortunate social process.
The result of taking the stigma out in that case, ended up being 15 or more times as high a percentage of American children forced to grow up without the benefit (blessing) of a normal constructive family. 15 or more times as many children crying over what they lacked.
Just offering "food for thought."
Marriage in the US worked for over 200 years. We did not become a totalitarian nanny state ruled by religious fanatics and idealogues simply because we upheld traditonal marriage in our laws and courts.
So for anyone to look at marriage and argue that the government has no place in sanctioning it is simply ignorant of history.
Now. If you wanna know WHY tradional marriage is nearly dead in our government today, then start with LBJ and his Great Society. Liberals and those who argue against marriage in our laws and in our courts are the ones to blame.
Not conservatives.
*******************
It can't be your message, can it?
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.