Skip to comments.I Don't See One Single Reason Government Needs to Be in the Marriage Business...
Posted on 03/19/2013 3:23:54 AM PDT by Reaganite Republican
*** PING ***
Any whod like to be added to the RR ping-list, pls FReepmail me at Reaganite Republican
I’d say government has a role in guiding social standards. Stable families benefit society, and government ought to recognize and encourage such building blocks. If we pass up on the concept of standards for social behavior, then its anything goes and we lose all hope of a society with moral underpinnings.
That said, the states should be perfectly free to enact faggot marriage if they wish, through their Legislative, not judicial process.
As for the national government, there is no 14th Amendment or natural right to marry a person of the same sex, and no enumerated power to order the states to implement it. I differentiate between no national law regarding the institution of marriage and a tax code that promotes traditional families. Tax deductions for kids and no benefits for homo couples working for the national government is not a violation of any right or equal protection.
A lot of the problems that government has encountered arise from the fact that government, specifically big government advocates in the Democratic Party, have actively tried to shrivel up the role of the church in our lives and replace it with government.
Providing for the poor used to be an act of Christian charity ... and now it’s being done by the IRS, and the government agencies it supports ... with predictable results.
Education used to be done by the church. All the colleges and universities founded before 1850 were founded by the various churches, with few exceptions. At first, public education (as created by the Northwest Ordinance) openly acknowledged the importance of religion as the source of morality ... but now government has pretty much taken over education ... with predictable results.
Marriage, as you’ve noted, started out as a dedication by a man and a woman to each other and to the church, and it was an exclusively religious institution ... then government started taking it over ... with predictable results.
I agree with this. Government shouldn’t be marrying anyone. Just let churches do it.
So many problems started by government getting involved in things it has no business in. By politicians gaining favor by bestowing government ‘legitimacy’ on one group over another.
After gay marriage is going to come polygamy. It’s going to be a constant irritant.
What prevents a couple from living together and calling it marriage?
Our government has not done what is best for a stable country for a long time. Based on that I am all for taking marriage out of the equation of politics.
I agree with you in full... but I do not feel it gay marriage can be banned on the federal level, and this country is in SUCH desperate straights militarily and fiscally, we must shed ourselves of ANY politically-damaging issues that prevent true conservatives from being elected and righting the ship.
I don’t think we’re going to be able to save this country unless we strip the GOP down to primarily fiscal issues, we won’t get elected battling in the social issues swamp with the left, so it won’t win us the presidency in 2016 either. It should be removed from the tax code too, as I’m a flat-tax guy... so government has no need to be involved anymore.
Maybe, but our government can no longer be trusted to do that. We have a government that's going to legitimize homosexual marriage. They've already legitimized baby killing. Gay marriage is happening and will continue to happen on a larger scale. Get them the hell out of the marriage business and let us define marriage ourselves.
That’s a Common Law bond, legal in 11 states
Nothing. What prevents it now?
What authority can adjudicate child custody issues? The church? Which one? The wive's or the husband's?
Suppose you and your wife die. Would you want your kids to be adopted by two homos? Are you kidding? But you don't care enough about your fellow man to turn their kids over to a couple of sodomites?
The list goes on and on. God help us!
But the government can declare that a man and woman can form a special union and this can be encouraged and recognized as valid and important.
I see no value in giving up and just saying "Whatever you like" to such a crucial institution. I'm a social conservative and proud of it. Government recognition of traditional marriage is a good thing.
“Id say government has a role in guiding social standards. Stable families benefit society, and government ought to recognize and encourage such building blocks. If we pass up on the concept of standards for social behavior, then its anything goes and we lose all hope of a society with moral underpinnings.”
Since all governments, in the end, are derived from the consent and will of the people, government is more or less going to govern with moral dictates as mandated by the people. If the people are sinful and corrupt, then the government is going to sinful and corrupt. If the people should repent and become as a whole, much more virtuous then its government, then over time so will their government(kicking and screaming though it may).
Thusly, unless the moral drift in our nation is corrected we are doomed as a nation. The only hope of the righteous folk left, after such a national shattering of our nation would be to attempt to dwell in those regions where people of like mind would join together to rebuild and as they rebuild, correct those flaws in those legislations and governing apparatus that led to our downfall.
What authority adjudicates them now? 40 something percent of births are out of wedlock.
When my children were minors, we had family designated in our wills to take custody. And I certainly hope you do as well. Back then, we weren't worried about the government giving our children to homosexuals but we still didn't trust the government to make the decision of who should be raising our children in the event of our deaths. No one should. But when a couple dies in testate, generally a family member steps forward. Already an in testate couple risks having their children raised by homosexual couples within their own family.
Our government has legitimized baby killing. They can be trusted on nothing. They should not be allowed to define marriage as there can be no doubt that they will muck it up in the end.
By whom? I personally don't recognize a couple as married unless they were married by a priest, minister, or rabbi. Without God blessing the union, in my opinion, it's nothing.
My wife and I were married by a judge.
I'll go let her know that "old and tired" thinks it's nothing.
I guess I missed that enumerated power in the constitution...can you point that out to me?
Sure, we can say that marriage is a church matter and not a government matter, but that really becomes the equivalent of saying "There isn't going to be much marriage in our future, because so many people have given up on religion". And so you just have people milling about having babies with various people.
We have a problem, and I'm not sure that giving up a legal (government) approach makes sense.
I agree with the marriage arguement that a stable relationship benefits the state, however these arguements don’t include the children of this stable relationship, which is why marriage entered the tax code in the first place.
Children in a stable father-mother household grow up to provide tax revenue back to the state, so it is an “investment” by the state to give tax breaks to encourage marriage and family. That is why communists and Socialist-Democrats want to break that bond and structure to put government as the father figure in single-mother homes. Majority of convicts in prison come from single-family homes.
What stops 3 men from being married?
There are many legal issues involved in marriage. The government has to be able to tell who is married and who isn’t.
There is no support in the Bible for church involvement in marriage. From the beginning it was always between the couple and God with community and family sanctions and support.
Ding, Ding, Ding! Give mdmathis6 a prize for nailing this issue. Aside from a religious/moral argument, there is an overwhelming secular basis for a State to support heterosexul marriage.
Woops, mean’t broken arrow responding to mdmathis6
I’m totally against gay partners adopting children. The government decides who can adopt. If you are deemed too old, they won’t let you adopt, but two gays are okay in many states.
I really don’t think I can keep two people from living together -or doing whatever they’re into- SO if they want to pay their taxes and visit the other one in hospital, I have no reason to care.
I don’t have to respect what they’re doing or call it ‘marriage’ if I don’t want to... that’s all I ask
Agreed in full
I am adopted from a Catholic home, so privatization of adoption services is A OK with me
Thanks, and driven by a sense of urgency to gain power as rapidly as possible in 2014 and 2016
You have to choose your fights they say
The article is correct on a very simple basis- the government obviously cannot be trusted to be in charge of marriage because it can then be taken over by those who are out to destroy it.
Nobody should ever fool themselves into thinking that you will always control the levers of power. Hence you should be damned careful with what those levers can do.
The Left has worked for 50+ years to destroy the institution of marriage, and will continue to do so as long as it remains in the public sphere.
My law professor described this marriage ceremony from the early middle ages.
Remember, this was a time where almost nobody could read or write. So, to this ceremony they invited all the children in the town and had a big feast. They held the marriage on the grooms land. Then the priest, or mayor, whomever they had who was the most important man they could get, would reach down and take a piece of dirt from the grooms land and smear it on the brides face. Then, and this is the important part, they beat the hell out of all the children. This was to mark the event in the childrens memory. Those children would forever carry the feast and the marriage in their minds so that during the lives of the grooms children there would be no doubt as to the childrens inheritance rights.
The point was this is where inheritance law came from. But the idea was, the marriage was conducted by the most important individual the groom could find. As the church has faded from life the government has become the most important thing in our lives. We need to reverse this and I agree with the author. Get government and tax laws and insurance laws out of marriage.
If the spouse is to be covered by insurance, then that should be between the insured and his insurance company.
Its been my opinion for a long time.
Why do you need a license if the action is considered illegal without a license?
There was a time when cohabitating was illegal, it no longer is. So why would you get a government license?
You cannot prevent people from stating that they are married or that they are a dog for that matter.
There are few benefits to getting a government license, in fact, there are many penalities. It would be better to take the gigantic tax savings and pay a small amount for a power of attorney.
Get married in the church and tell the government to go fly a kite.
“After gay marriage is going to come polygamy. Its going to be a constant irritant.”
We need to get rid of these issue politically, it will NEVER end, and it will NEVER help us... just like we should probably quit doing TV debates unless they stop it with the ‘progressive’ moderators...
By the way, whoever wrote the article is a heretic.
not as long as there is money to be made and elections to be won
common sense and logic cannot overcome political inertia
It is up to churches, mine of course would never consider such a thing.
What I am for is making the term ‘marriage’ irrelevant to government, BF- take it out of the tax code and such.
I am sick of gay issues and they never are going to help our party, going along with the left doesn’t’ help and fighting it doesn’t really help.
The government will only recognize a legal household, and only for the simplest of things. Government also needs to be out of the adoption business and all such things, I was adopted from a Catholic childrens’ home, the kind that would never have used me in a cruel social experiment with some gay couple... I can’t trust gov’t to do the right thing like that , NO way
With that out of gov’ts hands, they don’t need to care who calls themselves married anymore, it will have no legal significance whatsoever.
You missed my point. Our government is broken and we are passed the tipping point. Even if the righteous of our nation banded together now and put up a spirited fight the best we get out of it is a nation split into 3 or 4 nations with someone holding onto nukes somewhere.
There are really hard times coming and it will happen suddenly like a thief entering a household unawares!
You are right about how the government “should view marriage” vs how the Libs think that government should be everyone’s “father” and disrupt traditional family norms. What the Libs don’t get is that they’ll be unable control the monster they will let loose, though they think they can.
I could see a repeated scenario occurring during the collapse where inner city minority types, their EBT systems not working, start to raid the white liberal neighbor hoods. An uberliberal type might be seen pleading...”But I believe in equality and I love all people groups, I voted for Obama even,,,to which the reply will be..”In the name of the people’s equality, my homies and me be sharin’ yo’ fine house and yo’ fine spouse be my ho’!
Thanks, I’ll pray for you frogjerk
Marriage is a private matter. Government was happy to get into the marriage business because when we gave tax exemptions based on marital status, or when we taxed a person’s estate upon their death, or when the State stepped in to direct the disposition of an estate, or when we used the State to enforce marital fidelity, we had to define who was “married” and who was not.
And with all things Statist, the secular State’s definition of marriage came to have more weight in society than God’s definition.
God defines marriage as being between men and women. While many men who God called righteous in the Bible were practicing polygamy, Jesus said is quoted in Matthew chapter 19 that from the beginning of humanity, it was God’s intent that marriage would only be one man and one woman.
God defines sexual relations between people of the same sex as sin, that is immoral. In Revelation 22:15, a book dictated to John by Jesus, God tells us that anyone who practices sexual immorality will not be granted eternal life.
But these are ecclesiastical considerations that are outside of secular government, that is unless we want government to police sexual behavior between consenting adults based on the standards of the Bible, that is if we can agree what those are. Do we want Congress to have that debate?
Maybe it is time to get government out of the marriage business and to return it to the private sphere. The problem for me today is that people who want to call themselves “married” against God’s law (as I read it) are willing to use the State to force me to recognize that marriage, which I cannot do. The want to have the State’s public education system indoctrinate my children that homosexual marriage is “normal”. They want to force me to subsidize the homosexual marriage in the tax code just like the godly marriage is subsidized.
If the State must force me to acknowledge its power to declare to men to be married, then I must support efforts to remove that power from the State. If people demand a separation of church and State because they do not want displays of the Ten Commandments in public venues, then let us also have separation of marriage and State as well.
A lot of the problems that government has
encountered created ...
There. Fixed it.
As I will for you. You say you are a Church going Catholic but you don’t believe the basic tenents of the faith. Who’s side are you on?
I agree with this, and with the way attitudes are going these days about gay marriage, this is probably the best we can do.
Giving up on Virtue is not an option.
Precisely the correct question, which is why it is never asked. The answer would be that "Well, marriage is defined to be between two people". And the obvious response is "Well, marriage is today (and has been for millennia across all cultures) defined to be between a man and a woman and you've just told me that that definition can be changed. If the definition of marriage is re-definable for whatever reason then there's no reason why it can't continue to be redefined into anything we choose. Why do you think it will stop here?"
If marriage is just a branch of contract law then there's no reason why it can't be whatever arrangement the parties wish it to be. Certainly polygamy has far stronger historical claims to legitimacy than does "gay marriage". The same goes for "marriage" between siblings. And just consider the inheritance tax advantages of being able to "marry" one's elderly parents, be they widowed or not.
The nuclear family consisting of one man and one woman and their children is the bedrock of any society, which is why the state does have a compelling interest in protecting marriage. It is rooted in human biology as well sacred tradition across all times and cultures. Marriage exists to provide a stable family structure essential to the optimum raising of the next generation of citizens. It's not about the adults. Only a completely narcissistic culture would forget this, which is why this "debate" even exists.
When government was a force for good, you were right and government promotion of real marriage and other guiding social standards was a positive force that helped to make America strong. Now that government is on the other side in the battle between good and evil, we are better off paring government back to the minimum role we can attain. Sadly, this now includes severing the government's role in marriage, a role that no longer contributes to stable families.
St. Joseph, foster father of our Lord, protector of the Virgin Mary, Head of the Holy Family, pray for us.
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.