Posted on 03/19/2013 3:23:54 AM PDT by Reaganite Republican
I'm against social engineering from both the left and the right.
The government has no business regulating (encouraging, cajoling, bribing, fining) how people behave. If something is harmful to other people (rape, murder, theft, assault, etc.) outlaw it and arrest those who do it.
But if something affects only those willing participants (knowingly drinking unpasteurized milk, accepting a job for $3 an hour, living in sin with a person of the same sex, smoking cigarettes, getting fat) the government has no role.
Most people are against social engineering unless they get to drive the train.
Government at all levels also needs to be out of the “anti-discrimination” business.
One major purpose of gay marriage is to allow the gay spouse of an employee access to employers’ benefits. If there are gay marriages, then any employer denying benefits to the partner will be hit with discrimination charges. “Sexual orientation discrimination” needs to be taken off the government plate FIRST.
How foolish you are. So, you want the gubmint out of adoption services too?
If it were not for the state, you would have remained a legal orphan with no rights that children naturally born to their parents have.
So you don’t have a problem with other kids being adopted by homosexuas?
Leave them your phone number so they can thank you if they reach adulthood.
You will stand by and allow kids to be adopted by homosexuals?
How courageous.
property rights,
inheritance, taxation,
intestasy,
FRAUD in conveyance,
bigamy prevention,
immigration fraud,
protection of widows and orphans.
peopele are too soon to forget we USED to have a private recording system which was fraught with fraud.
These get government out positions are childish and anarachistic.
the hippies of the sixties tried these no law methods.
—— What authority adjudicates them now? 40 something percent of births are out of wedlock. ——
What’s your point? Regardless of the piece of paper or terminology, courts treat the mother and father like a divorced couple. The court decides who receives custody, visitation rules, child support, etc.
If not the State, what institution should do this?
What if one parent flees with the child? Does the other parent have no rights.
Man, I think I’m on DU.
Marriage in the traditional sense is a key fact in such disputes because it marks a change in the legal relationship between a man and a woman and their respective families and any eventual offspring.
"Privatizing marriage" as you suggest is unwise if for no other reason than that so many of the legal obligations and disputes that arise out of marriage or living together relationships inevitably end up in court. If there is no marriage, or the existence of marriage is ignored, then such cases tend to become more complicated, contentious, and expensive to resolve.
Worst of all, great damage can be done to any children involved, with the lack of a marriage between parents often making for uncertainty and neglect of the best interests of the children. Family law attorneys and judges hate such cases because they know that, even with the best intentions and decisions, damage is likely to be done to the children.
The best argument for civil unions is that it would provide a clearer framework for resolving disputes arising out of living together arrangements between gays. These days, children are often involved, and arguably, unnecessary harm may be done them by the uncertainty of legal rules and recourse as to child custody when same sex relationships are dissolved.
In some instances, custody of a child brought into or born during a same sex relationship is judicially conferred on the partner instead of on an unsuitable natural parent. Establishing civil unions for same sex partners would probably increase the number of such cases.
On the other hand, legal provisions for same sex civil unions tend to become marriage lite and to undermine support for traditional marriage as a unique legal and moral relationship. That does immense harm to men and women and to children and to the fabric of family life. On balance, those ills far out weigh whatever benefits may be claimed for civil unions.
I absolutely do. But that already happens on a wide scale among homosexuals in long time relationships (long time being a relative term obviously). There's a household around the corner from mine in my own neighborhood. The only organizations who don't let homosexuals foster or adopt - at least here in Pennsylvania - are religious ones.
I keep seeing Christians on this thread - people who believe marriage to be a sacrament - I keep seeing them giving authority to the state, where there is no authority to be given. Marriage is a holy estate defined by God. Yet these Christians want to grant authority to the same state which has allowed 55 million children to die in the womb since 1973. Don't let the state define marriage for you - it will surely disappoint.
Who's on the birth certificate? What's in the DNA? If the state weren't dealing with these very issues right now - all the time - from unmarried parents I'd say you were making a good point. But whether or not a marriage ever occurred between the parents is basically irrelevant in child custody cases.
I'm against social engineering too.
Tell me: why do you think preservation of a social institution which is thousands of years old, and which is supported by all kinds of secular governments and all sorts of religions -- why should the preservation of that be considered "social engineering"?
I would say -- very emphatically -- that weakening that ancient pillar of decent society, by diluting marriage into some kind of tawdry "anything goes" playtime -- I would say that such a drastic change would be considered "social engineering". And that is what I disagree with.
Well said.
I hear that. To think that this venerable Conservative website is now filled with people who cannot bring themselves to support marriage between a man and a woman as a worthwhile legal construct. So sad.
Because it is.
It is the very definition of social engineering. Government got involved in marriage because the government wanted its people to behave a certain way that had benefits to the state. It chose to reward, through tax policy or property policy, certain behaviors while not rewarding other behaviors it considered less desirous. That's EXACTLY what social engineering is. The fact that its old social engineering doesn't dilute the fact that it is social engineering.
What you're really arguing is that you like this flavor of social engineering, so it's really good and should continue. That's the same exact argument people like Mike Bloomberg make.
Obviously, there are millions of citizens who don't accept Bloomberg's definition of good social engineering, or even if they think it's beneficial, they don't think its the proper role of government. The same can be said of the social engineering you support.
Because a society of weak families needs a much more powerful government than one with strong families. The extreme example is the tribal society where nearly everything is provided by families, the government only providing protection between the families and from foreigners.
Better that government have a little power to enforce strong marriages than a lot of power to replace them.
Which is exactly what happens as those functions MUST still be provided.
This is a tough political issue because the media sells more advertising in a society of weak families.
Since nothing can be done about that I suppose we might as well enjoy the ride to tyranny as RR suggests...but I laugh at any 'libertarian' who supports this.
“There are too many people on this thread who don’t understand that government will *always* corrupt and twist any power that it’s given. “
And even more who want to give government more power to corrupt and twist by weakening marriage.
Just as has happened in America in the last generations as marriage’s weakening coincided with the huge growth of the welfare and nanny state.
Weak marriage= strong government. We’ve all seen it.
Again, if you somehow assume handing the power to government to do what you want won’t be corrupted (as it already has), then you are denying reality. You don’t need to be a libertarian to observe how the world functions now with the Left using any institution with power that they can subvert to wreak their havoc.
Unless you can take away their tools, you will never win anything but very temporary battles, and most of those will fall to ashes in short order.
Someone please tell me exactly how the government is “in the marriage business.”
You purchase your marriage license from the government to get them to acknowledge the event.
After that, your property rights, tax liabilities, legal standing, health care options and more are all affected by the government's acknowledgement of the change in your marital status.
Isn't all that just the government recognizing the REALITY of marriage? Isn't this just all of what marriage does?
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.