Posted on 02/05/2014 4:15:29 AM PST by xzins
Yet the "rights" line of reasoning was argued in Loving v. Virginia (1967) and other marriage cases that followed it. Chief Justice Earl Warren's opinion for the unanimous court opined that:
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
But it's a derivative one, not a First Principle, i.e. "Because your family house has a leaky roof and mold damage in 1/3rd of the rooms, we order you to tear the entire house down. A new house will be erected from the proceeds of your insurance and taxpayer funds, large enough for a gay family to live in also; and you may not build another house like the one you had before, nor live in it with only your biological family as before. Your laws were bigoted; this is the fundamentally changed law now."
Bingo. Can't take the time to find it, but there was an Atlantic article to this effect IIRC about 20 years ago summing up this point, the negative consequences of which still haven't sunk in to the population at large enough to seek a correction.
Agreed, as long as you are not arguing that the state could somehow stay so far out of marriage that it fails even to support marriage. That is the situation we have now, in fact.
Some of the legitimate reasons for government to support (true, heterosexual and JudeoChristian) marriage are the protection of the institution of marriage itself, the protection of minor children and the disposition of shared property when one of the partners defaults on the marriage. Looking at the state's position on marriage through the distorted lens of the no-fault divorce environment is like looking in a fun house mirror.
So very sorry; God be with you.
As I've tried to point out in previous posts, abandonment is enabled by no-fault, which permits a partner to leave with no legal consequences specific to the abandonment, therefore delivering no justice to the abandoned party.
Catholic churches require "pre-Cana" marriage preparation and also promote Engaged Encounter and Marriage Encounter weekend seminars.
The non-Catholic churches also need to develop curricula about engagement, marriage preparation and marriage, to promote them and be reluctant to marry anyone who has not participated in such instruction, to encourage small-group peer counseling of the marriagable or newly married by stable grandparent couples who have gone through a course and screening, and other proactive steps.
In other words, instead of decrying the darkness, take responsibility for turning on the lights.
Nutshell!
That’s an example of building the America you want on your own street. However, I don’t how far it would go. If you’re doing marriage preparation honestly, you have to say, “One of the ends of marriage is the sanctification of the spouses, and sanctification comes only through suffering.”
People get married anticipating that they’ll be happy, not that they’ll look back after 25 years ... and take pride in what they’ve endured without losing their sense of humor.
I have some like that in my drawer upstairs.
Unless there are no gloves, there is only Zuul ...
See my post 41. I am an LCMS pastor whose wife left him and thus I am going through a divorce.
Profound. As usual...
Or does it indicate taking the easy way out and not respecting the institution enough to work through problems?
I saw that after I posted. I am sorry.
You’re too kind!
We shouldn’t think this is anything new. When Jesus told His disciples that it was wrong to divorce and (especially) remarry, they said, “No way! Then it’s better to stay single!” They considered marriage unacceptable without an escape hatch.
It would be interesting to know what else they planned to do, in their cultural milieu. Were they going to stay single and screw around, as is often recommended on FR? Or was the plan to accept continence as the price of freedom?
And who was going to cook and do the wash ... their mom, forever?
I wish I knew the answer to that, other than that housemaids to do laundry, etc have always been for hire or enslavement.
All I know is, I lived in America "before" and America "after." And although "before" wasn't perfect, it was better for most children.
You are correct in your several observations that Americans are no longer interested in defending or preserving the common good at the expense of their personal preferences or whims.
That's certainly how it appears to me, although it's true that I don't get out much.
I wonder where single men lived in 1st century Judea, if not with their parents. Lazarus lived with his sisters in Bethany. Were there apartment buildings, like in Rome?
When I got married, we went through the Lincoln, Nebraska diocese and did all the steps you mentioned.
I also saw WHY then needed to do that at the marriage encounter. The priest kept tell my bride and I “We are not doing this for couples like you, but you may see why by Sunday”.
The LCMS church I went to had a few similar programs.
> Agreed, as long as you are not arguing that the state
> could somehow stay so far out of marriage that it fails
> even to support marriage. That is the situation we have
> now, in fact.
I think this idea should be examined. To start with, what kind of support does the state, or should the state, give?
Government has proven time and again that it spoils what it touches. Over time and in many places, government has tried to take over religious sacraments, never for the purpose religion assigned them, but for *other* purposes.
Births used to be registered in church, now they are registered by the state. Marriage (and divorce) are done by the state. Burial, and now even death, are being encroached upon by the state.
None of them are improved by this.
Alternatively, when marriage, as such, is between people and their faith, it is socially enforced by their community and themselves. An absence of government involvement likely helps far more than it hurts.
Was the change the part in quotes? lol
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.