The Death of Marriage I

MensNewsDaily.com ^ | February 5, 2004 | Roger F. Gay

[RogerFGay]

uh-huh

[Dante3]

Exactly.

Incidentally, I didn't see it but I heard that yesterday "Law & Order" put in a plug for homosexual/lesbian marriage and adoption.

[GigaDittos]

If yall aren't gonna post some funny pictures, I'm leaving.

[Modernman]

The details of the marriage "contract" had been worked out through many generations of limited government involvement in private family issues; ie. when one spouse sued another in civil court.

Imagine a marriage regime where there is a generic statutory marriage contract that any consenting adults can enter into. Call it a "Personal Relationship Contract" (PRC). The generic PRC would lay out rules as to how assets of the relationship would be distributed upon dissolution of the PRC, how things like power-of-attorney would be handled if one member of the PRC fell sick etc. People entering into a contract could alter the terms of these provisions as they saw fit. This regime would be very similar to how business partnerships work under state law- there is a generic set of statutory rules that govern how a partnership works, but the partners are able to alter those rules (within limits) by execution of a written partnership document.

[RogerFGay]

I can imagine it, but unfortunately, it's all politically controlled now. As a members of the village, people don't get to make individual personal choices, or even rely on reality if they have to argue through what makes sense. "Society" (politicians in Congress who abuse power -- the two parties) controls all of it.

[Deliberator]

For more than two centuries, family and the institution of marriage were "recognized by law" in the United States. There is a fundamental difference today, in that marriage and family issues are entirely "politically controlled." To be recognized by law is accepting of marriage and family as something created outside of government, so important that laws are needed to recognize it, but so established in the private domain that it must be respected and protected as involving fundamental rights. By the time the Massachusetts decision was made; "Simply put, the government creates civil marriage. ... In a real sense, there are three partners to every civil marriage: two willing spouses and an approving State. ... Civil marriage is created and regulated through exercise of the police power." [...]

The real basis of the new constitutional right for same-sex marriage is that marriage and family now exist only as civil institutions, created and controlled by political processes, defined by arbitrary government services and arbitrary politically determined privileges and restrictions. Anything that may be connected to tradition or religious practice and belief has been abolished regardless of its fundamental meaning, importance to society, and the effect abolishment will have on parents and children. Marriage and family now means whatever politicians define them to mean and only what they define them to mean. The nature of marriage and family has been abolished.

Precisely.

[leadpencil1]

That's kind of the way it was before the federal reforms, given to us by Congress.

Unfortunaltley, we are well past the point of no return on this issue (gov't encroaching on our private lives). That being said, is it even possible to stop it? Me thinks not.

[longtermmemmory]

The notion of fathers as the weakest link is amusing but wrong. Weak does not define a man who gets up at 6 am to go to work to earn the money to improve the lives of his children. Weak does not define a man who makes certain they children have a roof over their head and food on the table even if he has to do without something.

It may only be an analogy but it is the wrong analogy.

The rest of the family is dependent on the father. Remove the father (as the judicial and legislative activists designed in the article) and presto the destabalized memebers have to find a new place to rest their needs. The governemnt.

Perhaps a better analogy would have been steel beam. Remove a steel beam support and the structure will either collapse or need a replacement support.

it may just be tomato tomahto. One thing is certain, yesterday's ruling has kicked up the stakes a notch. The reporters are in full propaganda mode with anecdotal fluffy stories about homosexuals who raise children (as aopposed to produce them) and John Kerry's "personaly" opposition to homosexual marriage. (it however did not make him "personally" vote for doma. There are just to many kerry jokes than i can "personally" make.)

Have you ever considered the pool of judicial candidates? not just the federal judges but the ordinary working judges. Interest groups like the ABA don't have to fret because law schools work very hard to indoctrinate their law students. The odds alone do not favor finding a conservative judicial candidate.

[sr4402]

Roger you are right, there is attack on Fatherhood, but the enemy is at the gate and if we do not defend now we will lose the family as well.

There is only one solution for the folks in MA and that is to impeach the MA Supremes who voted for this.

The cry for the Marraige Amendment must be imperative. For the barbarians are at the gate and the battering rams are coming.

I lament over Fatherhood in america, pray that the Lord would interviene for our fathers and our families in America. Pray for those who are pushing this liberal agenda - "that sin would be sin utterly" and for "God's severest mercy", else our nation will go the path of the Greeks and Romans and be no more.

[RightWhale]

What are the moral issues in the institution of marriage?

[sr4402]

Also weep for the children, for the target of the MA Supreme Court ruling is them. How many children will loose their fathers? How many children will be raped and abused by this ruling? One child is too many.

[Modernman]

What are the moral issues in the institution of marriage?

I'm not sure I understand the question.

[sr4402]

What are the moral issues in the institution of marriage?

How about whether you will keep your promises? How about whether you really love your wife? How about whether you will love your children? Respect and Honor? Just little things like that.

It is the institution first created by God in Genesis. It preserves mankind from mayhem. All nations that tinker with marriage are in the dust.

Do you really need to ask the question? The moral issues in marriage go to whether we have a civilization or are even civilized. The cries of the fatherless and raped children cry out against what is taking place.

[Volunteer]

I like your post. I have a similar take on the matter. Marriage, as my Church teaches it, is a contract between a man & a woman. It is a sacrament in my faith (Roman Catholic).
However, on a daily basis we see not "till death do we part" but rather, "when something better comes along, I am totally out of here."

I am not in favor of ANY law that forces the Roman Catholic faith to extend the sacrament of marriage to homosexual couples.
But, if the law wants to recognize such unions - then I have no problem with that. Along with that, they get the marriage penalty tax, alimony, child custody battles, child support, etc.

[ohioman]

Do us a favor and get back in the closet.

[3catsanadog]

Next step: decriminalize bigamy.

Then, lower the age of consent to 14.

Then, lower the age of consent to 12.

Then, lower the age of consent to 8.

[tallhappy]

I am not surewhat point you are making in this.

[RightWhale]

Do you really need to ask the question?

Yes. Your response indicates that you favor a virtues-based ethics. However, most of the virtues mentioned are not high on the Aristotlean list. The institution of marriage is currently under fire and the attacks are not just the nonchalant use of divorce and shacking up anymore. If we can't come to an agreement of the need for the institution, it will die away and be abolished just as King Hamekameha abolished taboos once no one remembered the basis for the taboos.

[Modernman]

I am not in favor of ANY law that forces the Roman Catholic faith to extend the sacrament of marriage to homosexual couples.

Such a law would be completely unconstitutional and I would be incredibly opposed to government meddling in the religious institution of marriage.

But, if the law wants to recognize such unions - then I have no problem with that. Along with that, they get the marriage penalty tax, alimony, child custody battles, child support, etc

The old adage comes to mind-"Be careful what you wish for."

[RightWhale]

I'm not sure I understand the question.

Another question then: what is the need for marriage?