I Don't See One Single Reason Government Needs to Be in the Marriage Business...

Reaganite Republican ^ | 19 March 2013 | Reaganite Republican

[Reaganite Republican]

Privatization’s the only way to handle the issue 

and get this off the GOP’s back- we don’t need it.

My conservative/libertarian friends, imho it is time for government on both the federal and state levels to remove marriage from the tax-code and walk away from the term completely- two adults of any sort can register a household as legal entity for the purpose of benefits, hospital visitations, agreed inheritance contracts, etc, but let us be married by the church of our own choosing. Marriage was created as a religious ceremony/bond anyway- maybe that's where it belongs.

Being a church-going Catholic, I’m confident Rome will be defining it the same way I see ‘marriage’... hope you feel the same about yours.

Why not remove this issue from the political arena once-and-for-all while paring the statists' influence? And everybody gets what they want... libs can go marry their vacuum cleaner for all I care.

I myself used to know these kinda crazy twin sisters who lived their entire lives together, worked together, etc- there are probably many other non-traditional households, such as best friends who have chosen to live together over the long term in a non-sexual context- for all practices and purposes a Common Law marriage, which is still legal in 11 US states 
(between a man and a woman, anyway).

Shouldn't people like that -or anybody- be able to create a formal entity providing rights a spouse would enjoy, purely for legal purposes: you can't patrol the country's bedrooms, so why even try? But when government is no longer involved, we in the political sphere won't be talking about it anymore, either- and that's a good thing.

There's even a term for it: Marriage Privatization. Sounds great to me, thus the Left would be denied the club they've been pounding us over the head with- there'll never be a more practical, politically beneficial (for the GOP), and fiscally prudent way to do it.  

The Left only benefits from social issues when Big Government has it's tentacles in there, and they can frame conservatives as the enemy and grab a block of voters-  so why not pull the rug out from under 'em?

I doubt greatly that groups like GOProud would have a problem with such a policy, either- although with 'gay' no longer relevant politically, they don't really have a reason to organize as a separate faction of fiscal conservatives, do they? Don't ask/don't tell seems more sensible to me when their sexual practices are no longer something we need to be discussing.

Just one more area where we need to get government out of our lives, and where the statists' influence can be pared as well:
this issue needs to go-away, and handling it in this way serves to further the cause of Liberty in this country by ending 'gay marriage' as a political issue... just as school vouchers could largely remove government from the education business while getting American kids away from what have evolved into taxpayer-funded NEA indoctrination centers, cranking out
'lil Obots by the score... 

[Reaganite Republican]

*** PING ***

Any who’d like to be added to the RR ping-list, pls FReepmail me at ‘Reaganite Republican’

TIA

[ClearCase_guy]

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.

[Jacquerie]

Support of the civil society, both at the state and federal level is a good thing, for republics cannot long endure without it. Marriage between man and woman is the civil society's foundation.

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.

[Bryan]

Great article.

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.

[tje]

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.

[count-your-change]

What prevents a couple from living together and calling it marriage?

[she geek]

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.

[Reaganite Republican]

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.

[old and tired]

I’d say government has a role in guiding social standards.

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.

[Reaganite Republican]

That’s a Common Law bond, legal in 11 states

[old and tired]

What prevents a couple from living together and calling it marriage?

Nothing. What prevents it now?

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

The main problem is child custody, but there are many other ramifications as well, besides the fact that sodomy has nothing to do with marriage! Sheesh. We've all gone mad.

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!

[ClearCase_guy]

Seems to me that if two men live together, they can just say to themselves "We're married" and the government has nothing to do with it. If three people live together and say "we're married" then there is nothing I can do about it.

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.

[Nicojones]

The State has a vested interest in promoting marriage between a man and a woman. It is the only low cost (to the State) and efficient way of increasing Citizens/taxpayers. Just like the State may want to encourage home ownership or fuel efficiency by offering tax breaks for mortgage interest or hybrid car purchases, it is wise for a State to give a benefit for marriage. A married couple can cheaply create taxpayers, have stability to support them, and not require significant State funding. In exchange, more future workers are created (not imported) and the tax base increases to help pay for the defense and other needs of the State. In our Sate, it's even more important for the sustainability of Social Security. Which is why debasing State endorsed marriage between a man and woman is sort of like killing the modern tansfer payment based retirement system.

[mdmathis6]

“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.”

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.

[old and tired]

What authority can adjudicate child custody issues?

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.

[old and tired]

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.

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.

[babble-on]

Quite sensible

[justlurking]

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.