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 As recently as 1989, voters in avant-garde San Francisco repealed a law that had established only domestic partnerships.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.
“If the government does not hand out goodies based on marital status who cares?”
These people will present themselves as married and our children and generations that follow will think nothing of a couple of married lesbians or gays. It then becomes normal.
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.
One way morality is protected is by keeping order.
In the United States, we keep order and protect the population by mandating that people drive on the right and obey other regulations; the United Kingdom does the same but have people drive on the left. So, these ARE NOT opposite laws, they are the same law that utilize slightly different methods.
Good try though, did you come up with that one on your own or did you have to take a few bong hits first?
That’s what happens when you let the government intrude into (and inevitably mess up) a societal institution.
a single record keeping system prevents the issues of abandonment and subsequent bigamy.
you also have tenancy by the entireties which protect widows and children (now widowers)
Anything goes marriage leads to rampant fraud of multiple ownerships and debt collection issues. Those with assets suddenly find out they were “married” via some kind of fraud and have creditors chasing them ala id theft.
Children will never be able to inherit leaving all beneficiaries into the “common good” of government. (to pay your death panel obamacare tax)
The government should never have intruded upon the marriage institution, or been allowed to muck around with the definition of marriage. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, a union between their families and a bridge to the future through children and inheritance. The imitation marriages between homosexuals is another bad joke from pop culture, more perversion of traditional values and our society. A government that participates in the willful destruction of our society and its foundations should be toppled.
Conservative churches could reach an agreement that only they determine marriage. But the emphasis of that agreement would be those marriages they reject.
Each faith would have to go back to the very old way of doing things, but share a common registry. Then if a couple showed up at the door of any of them, claiming to be husband and wife, unless they were checked out, they would not be considered as married.
Marriage of one man and one woman is fundamental to Natural Law Theory and the “Duty” that all human beings have to raise and care for all their biological offspring. The Natural Family is the basis of all governments/civilizations.
It is fundamental to the philosophy of our Constitution, which is based on Lockean philosophy. Montesquieu stated that all Republics have to promote “Public Virtue” for them to succeed.
Our government is unique— set up to promote “Justice” (Rule of Law (Higher Laws/God’s))-—which is Virtue (our Justice System is based on Christian Ethics which began with Common Law and blossomed into the Magna Carta—no other ethical system, but the Christian one, where Individual Rights originated).
The US government always has to promote “Public Virtue” (otherwise the laws are not “Just”-—and are Null and Void), which is the ethics of Christianity only, since ALL humans have dignity and worth in Christian Ethics—no matter how old or weak. No other ethics system enshrines Individual Natural Rights from God which precedes all governments.
(Without Virtue, there can be no Freedom (Socrates).)
All the Founders KNEW that Virtue is essential for Free Republics, and the only purpose of governments is to enforce contracts-—Natural and agreed upon ones and protect our private property Rights (ALL NATURAL RIGHTS).
So Marriage is definitely a Natural Right which is connected to Duties——a natural contract that is essential to flourishing teleological ends, which should be encouraged and promoted by State Laws——as all Laws have to promote Public Virtue (and Natural Duties) to be “Just Law”.
Any Laws that prohibit or discourage “Natural Duties” are unconstitutional. They would be anathema to the Supreme Law of the Land: “Null and Void”. For Individual Natural Rights are God-given and unalienable and permission from the government is never needed-—but should be promoted-—to create Virtue in the people which is the only purpose of government: “Justice”—the Queen of all Virtue.
Marriage of one man and one woman is the only system designed to make sure human beings do their duty to their own biological offspring.
Any other system denies babies their biological mother and/or father (unnatural)-—and destroys their Natural Rights and reduces babies to an object (Means) to be bought and sold like in slavery. Dehumanizing laws are unconstitutional. Homosexual marriage is an abomination and unnatural and unconstitutional. Judges need to be impeached for allowing such denial of Natural Rights to human beings in our “Justice” system based on Natural Rights from God. It also sets up a system which promotes vice-—not fulfilling one’s Natural Duty of raising your own biological offspring.
“And without government involvement people can accept or reject those marriages as they see fit. As it should be.”
No, that is not how it should be!
What happens when gays reject the Christian Traditional Marriage and then discriminate on that bases?
no they can not. the govenement can FORCE recognition. (see obamacare)
Wrong?
How old are you? I ask because you seem ignorant of recent history. Look at LBJ and his Great Society. Replacing the father with a welfare check was the objective and boy did they meet that one. Plus a thousand more.
Its very simple here. Either you support and approve of the Welfare State or you support DOMA and all other laws that supported marriage and made America a great nation for 200 years.
********************************
Do conservatives and libertarians have less and less in common as time goes on, or were their actual beliefs less discernible in past years?
I’ve been arguing for years now that the govt no longer belongs in the marriage business. This positioned managed to upset a few.
Oh so then instead we let the government define who can and cannot be married which BTW includes gay marriage right now and THAT decides what is kosher?
Just because someone presents themselves as married does not make it so. It takes two or more people to validate a social convention HOWEVER when the government stamps it Official all contrary Social Convention is invalidated (and so is your argument!) and it becomes LAW! And once you give the government power over such it can quickly be corrupted!
>> just another libertarian ploy t
It’s not a nefarious ploy, wagglebee.
Welcome back!
relying on mere religion concedes the logical arguments to the enemy.
This is a ploy (trial balloon) of politicians who in the secret support their homosexual dc staffers and want to avoid the logic and reasoning to support real marriage.
Why just TWO?
I tolerate a lot of crap from libertarians. But when they come on here and start attacking marriage while supporting civil unions and so on.
I’m at my boiling point. I’m pissed off.
Libertarians do not oppose homosexual marriage, so when they make these arguments people should understand where they are coming from. They would basically abolish marriage, which is a stated goal of the radical homosexual movement.
But if parents teach their children that two men or women cannot be married in the eyes of God, isn’t that likely to carry more weight than what two people in any relationship call themselves? Gay or lesbian couples can say that they are a married couple to their hearts’ content, but if the government does not provide official sanction to any marriage people will regard those relationships in whatever way they choose.
>> libertarians strongly support the homosexual agenda and will go out of their way to force same-sex marriage on society
And abortion. These modern Libertarians support the killing of nascent, human life. That’s not very libertarian for the well being of the noob.
It’s ironic the modern Libertarian embraces law that forces the citizens to support, service, and sanction homosexual behavior. Well, these supporters of such enforcement are in reality Liberals.
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.