Posted on 02/05/2004 8:04:37 AM PST by RogerFGay
The Death of Marriage I
February 5, 2004
By Roger F. Gay
The decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court to extend all "protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage" on same-sex couples continues to be a subject of discussion and debate around the internet. Unfortunately, many liberals and conservatives alike have bought into the ideas suggested by partisan advocates. Much of the discussion is ill-informed and options are limited to those that will do the least good.
It can be quite difficult to move a debate from a state of superficial partisan bickering to clear and objective discussion, especially during an election year. Regardless of the fact that those who have focused attention on these issues for years know the answers, the average eligible voter will more likely grasp onto their preferred party's talking points and hold on for dear life.
One person who has focused a great deal on family issues for many years is ACFC president Stephen Baskerville. Regular readers of MensNewsDaily.com may be familiar with his recent article; The Father: A Family’s Weakest Link. Dr. Baskerville writes "Thanks to a recent court case in Massachusetts, issues of marriage and family now cover the front pages. But the family crisis is much larger than same-sex marriage or homosexuality."
In his first message as ACFC president (January 7, 2004), Dr. Baskerville writes "We stand at a critical point. Families today are under attack as never before. But this attack does not come primarily from pornography, television, rock music, drugs, or even homosexuality. The attack comes from government, and it targets the family's weakest and most vulnerable point: the father."
Liberals and conservatives need to be convinced that families are under attack, and understand who the aggressor is. Moreover, they need to understand what the problem really is, and begin focusing on objective evidence, analysis, and the consequences of family politics. To be blunt, many people need to start by recognizing that family is more important than partisan politics. Only then, I believe, can they begin the process of deprogramming that is necessary in order to look these issues in the eye and deal with them objectively.
Republicans blame "activist judges" for the redefinition of marriage. Perhaps the most astounding position I have read in a conservative discussion forum relates to the defense of this position. I have been told that government has always been involved in marriage and family. We should not be concerned that government, by acts of Congress and state legislatures, has become more involved in recent years. Only the courts, "activist judges," must be stopped from extending government involvement on their own.
I am astounded by the expression of this view in a conservative discussion forum because on its face it is obviously not a conservative view. I find it odd (but not particularly unusual) when Republicans support the ever-growing cancer of government intrusion into private life. I also find the argument weak and rather offensive. We might like to imagine that judges themselves are non-partisan, thus it would follow that political parties are not to blame for judicial activism. Although I believe that many judges do have strong party affiliations, and that in itself is a problem, that is not the worst of it. We apparently must also believe that judicial decisions are not effected by the laws written by Congress and state legislatures. Thus, enabling us to judge judicial activism as something entirely independent of legislative activism. Therefore, we should ignore the role of state legislators, congressmen, governors, and presidents in the destruction of marriage and family during the period when we are considering how to cast our votes. Pity the poor fool who falls for that one; the ultimate political dodge.
The argument has been put forth that the sudden finding of a constitutional requirement to recognize same-sex unions (regardless of what they are called) as equivalent to "marriage" did not in fact appear suddenly out of nowhere. There is a history of denial of marriage and family as fundamental institutions linked to fundamental rights. The road to the decision was paved with relatively recent federal reforms and billions and billions of dollars in federal funding. The problem has not been judicial activism so much as judicial inactivism; the refusal of the courts to overturn laws that are too intrusive and that have trampled family rights.
It has not been particularly surprising to me that some conservatives and liberals still do not understand that marriage as we knew it was effectively abolished before the Massachusetts decision. Unless someone has gone to a great personal effort to research and understand family law reforms over the past two decades, or regularly reads MensNewsDaily.com or information from another competent source, how would they know? Despite the fact that the fundamental social institution has undergone a complete legal transformation, so-called "mainstream media" has remained silent.
The recent intrusion of government into family life is not merely a matter of degree. If it was, reducing the rights of heterosexuals for the sake of expanding government control would not have led to the birth of new rights for homosexuals. The complete destruction of marriage and family (legally, as we knew it) was necessary before a constitutional right for same-sex marriage could rise as a phenix from the ashes.
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."
I know that I will get arguments regarding the factual nature of such statements in reference to "civil marriage." In the eyes of the Massachusetts court, "civil marriage" must be seen as distinct from marriage perceived in relation to tradition and religious preference. Some social conservatives in fact argue on religious grounds, with that being their only objection. Marriage and family have been recognized and respected by tradition and by religions throughout the world - because of what they are. It is an false and entirely ridiculous argument that because marriage and family are widely recognized and respected, outside of civil law and process, that similar recognition and respect within civil law is unconstitutional.
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. But it was not a sudden death. The Massachusetts decision was only a pronouncement that was finally so obvious that it could not be avoided in "mainstream" public discussion.
As bad as the situation is for marriage and family, the overall situation is worse. The transformation of marriage and family from established, legally recognized institutions to politically controlled services, privileges, and restrictions marks a fundamental change in the relationship between government and the people. It is not so much through judicial activism, but judicial inactivism that has allowed this to occur.
Courts have been more engaged in partisan politics (i.e. on the side of parties rather than in opposition) than in performing their duty to defend fundamental rights. As a result, marriage and family are no longer fundamentally protected, but have been reduced to mere creations of civil law controlled entirely and arbitrarily by political decisions. As such, (phenix from the fire) the equal protection clause has a broader and much more arbitrary reach. That is why the Massachusetts decision came now, when no such decision was given by any court for more than two centuries. Homosexuals have the same access to arbitrary, politically defined statutory rights and obligations as everyone else. It was congressional and legislative activism that led to the decision.
Roger F. Gay is a professional analyst, international correspondent and regular contributor to MensNewsDaily.com, as well as a contributing editor for Fathering Magazine.
That is the problem. The institutions of marriage are collapsing leaving some kind of economic hedonism to rush ionto the vacuum. You can point to a major public event such as the assassination of JFK as the critical catalyst of our downslide, but in fact it has been a continual series of events dating back as far as one wants to go that brought us to our present state, not that we will stay long in our present condition.
The spiteful part of me wants to say "Let the homosexuals have whats left of the institution of what now passes for 'marriage.' Let them deal with the 50%+ divorce rate, the lawyers, the judges, the ruined credit, the custody fights, the alimony, the child support...the whole nine-yards>" Why? Because it will ruin them the same way it ruins millions of people every year.
As much as I hate to say it, "marriage" as we knew it is dead. From my perspective, I'm not in a real big hurry to defend the expensive joke that passes for the institution of marriage. It's a government-controlled scam that turned my life upside down, caused untold hardship for my child, stripped me of my rights, bankrupted me and cost me in ways that no amount of money can ever replace.
If people want to stand up and fight for "marriage" in it's current form, fine. But they will get the same amount of help from me that I and millions of other people got from them when "marriage" and the divorce industry ran through our lives like a bull through a china shop...none at all. Make marriage worth defending again it will be big enough to take care of itself again, just like it was before the 1970's.
I think Dr. Baskerville is an excellent choice as ACFC president.
The traditional family is the backbone of a nation. Targeting the father and traditional marriage is, imo, a direct assault on our culture, values, and our nation itself. I think there is a calculated reason for all of this chaos.
How would marriage do that? Marriage is the union of two human beings. Simply being married in no way would eliminate or lessen the evils or degeneracies of the people involved.
It would give all those divorce lawyers something else to occupy their time with.
As it stands today, the divorce laws will see to it that marriage never will eliminate or lesson those things.
That would be incorrect. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman. The current debate is whether the word marriage should be redefined to accomodate homsexual men and women who are not content with that meaning of marriage.
The debate subsequent to that in Massachusetts will be to further refine the meaning to include any or all combinations that accord with the individuals new "transcendent liberty" rights as waxed poetically about in Kennedys majority opinion in Lawrence.
Of more immediate concern is the courts, both federal and state, inclination to order legislatures to make laws or erase laws depending on the cultural views of the people who occupy those courts.
The system I've proposed (no state involvement in marriage) wouldn't change how we currently look at child custody. Courts charged with dealing with child custody would continue to handle those issues based on current laws. The status of marriage between the various consenting adults involved would in no way affect the power of such courts to rule in the best interests of the children involved.
Now, whether or not our current child custody regime needs to be changed, I leave to those who know more about the subject than I do.
Point taken.
Now, whether or not our current child custody regime needs to be changed, I leave to those who know more about the subject than I do.
Children are what the industry uses to control parents. Any change in the system that doesn't curtail that power will do nothing to solve the problems with marriage. You may as well do nothing if that isn't part of it.
Interesting point. Such a provision would be the first time hard science would be mentioned in the constitution.
You clearly went through a tough divorce. Though, from what I've heard and read on the subject, our current family law regime is heavily biased against men.
Well, other than the part about age limits, like how you have to be 25 years old to be a representative. Are we talking sidereal years, solar years - do we take into account the gradual increase in distance from the sun, do we...
Great, now look what you made me do. I'm never gonna get any sleep tonight.
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.