Skip to comments.Do We Really Want To Redefine Marriage?
Posted on 08/11/2010 9:01:11 AM PDT by Starman417
States across the country are in the midst of debating the idea of changing the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Five states have legalized the practice through legislative or judicial action, but despite thirty-one attempts, not a single time has a majority of citizens of a state approved such a change. Not that this is an argument for majority rule. Its not. Every state has a republican form of government and should be governed by the rule of law rather than man. Nonetheless, at some point government is accountable to the people and constitutional change is often how citizens make their feelings felt. Thirty states, including California, have amended their constitutions to explicitly state that marriage is to be considered between one man and one woman. This week a federal judge in San Francisco threw much of that into the air. Ted Olson argued that the court is merely protecting the right to marriage, a right the court has addressed 14 times since 1888. I have to disagree with Mr. Olson and Judge Walker. This is not just like Loving v. Virginia, which did away with barriers to interracial marriage. Race is not sex. This is not opening up marriage to just another group who had been arbitrarily excluded. Men and woman are fundamentally different and marriage has always been understood to be a union between a man and a woman, not just two people.
If we step away from thousands of years of western tradition, if we take that first step in changing the definition from one man and one woman, where does that road lead? Where do we stop? Its the slippery slope problem. Sure, today we are arguing about two people of the same sex, but why could we not just as easily argue for one man and two women or three men or three women? Could we not use the same rationale to allow a salesman who lives in Miami but works in Charlotte to have a wife and children in Florida and another family in North Carolina? And what if his Charlotte wife wanted to have a second husband from across town for the weekends when her salesman husband is down in Florida? Who says a person cant be committed to two different people simultaneously? In 1887 Utah was forced to outlaw polygamy as the price of admission into the United States because it was understood that marriage was between one man and one woman. Will the state now have the opportunity to amend its constitution to bring back the practice? Once we change the definition the permutations could be endless. What about children? It was not so long ago that the marriage of children for political or dowry reasons was not uncommon. Do we want to go back there and allow 12 & 13 year old children to be married and traded for family favors or for love? Is not the age of consent arbitrary?
Read more at floppingaces.net...
Uh, NOPE, duh.
We already have. Just look at the Divorce rate.
The divorce rate is not correctly tabulated.
You have serial divorcers.
You also do not have an accounting for re-marriage to the same person.
When you factor the latter in the divorce rate drops to the 30+% range.
The article is false.
The supermajority of states have already voted no.
There is no debate, the supermajority of the country does not want to redefine marriage. case closed.
I know I don’t want marriage redefined. In fact, with the “no fault” divorce laws and more couples living together than getting married (at least the last time I saw a study on such a thing), marriage has already been “redefined” to be nothing more than a fling.
That is still very high, especially if most of those are due to "irreconcilable differences."
This is a left-wing and homosexual movement to undermine the family and bring acceptance to a perverted lifestyle that should be banned in public. Sodomy was once a crime and should be so again mostly based on common sense disease control.
Where does the road lead?
The road leads to the appeals of various other interest groups who can claim consent in their relationships. Polygamy already has a movement for its recognition in progress. Google words “polygamy” and “Jonathan Turley” to find a lawyer who has already argued polygamy be legal to the courts. If lawyers are jumping on the legalization bandwagon, it’s not neccessarily too long before a moral issues legality can change.
Regardless, when the divorce laws were eased you redefined marriage from a permanent union of a man and a woman to a union of convenience, expected to last only until someone better came along. The Biblical command that what God had joined let no man put asunder was tossed right into the dumpster. The traditional concept of marriage got pitched at the same time.
Thanks for mentioning the serial divorce cases. I had never considered that factor into the claim that 50% end in divorce. It makes the picture look a little better to recognize that.
My gut tells me we will see the day where homosexual marriages will be the law of the land and yes, there will be unintended ramifications such as polygamy.
This will happen because the homo lobby keeps on pushing.....push, push, push, all with a lot of support from the left, MSM, Hollywood, Academia, etc.
But this won’t be enough. The homo activists will target churches, who will likely lose their tax-exempt status for not marrying the homo’s.
Once we drive down that slope, there will be a lot more than just Tea Parties who are mad as hell.
I am not interested in your sex life. I am referring to male homosexual behavior—rimming, felching, and other activities that often result in fecal ingestion, a material teeming infectious agents introduced to a different part of the GI tract. There is a very clear reason that male homosexuals are the #1 vector for the spread of infectious diseases. See below for a statement I wrote a week or so ago and realize that the marketing of homosexuals we see from hollywood is not based in reality.
We have watched the feminization of the country. Next, we will have the homosexualization of same, but at a much more rapid and forceful pace. Clearly, fear is not the issue with normal people; the word is disgust with deviant behavior whether it pertains to sex with children, animals, or the dead. This sickness grows more bold in demanding that others, not just accept, but exalt said behavior as normal. If there is any concern with public health, then let it be restated that male homosexuals are the #1 vector for the spread of infectious diseases among humans and are an unnecessary public health threat costing the system billions. Male homosexuals have the highest incidence of HIV/AIDS, syphilis, drug-resistant gonorrhea, entamoeba histolytica, chlamydia, herpes simplex II, Chancroid, Drug Resistant TB, Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis non A & B, just to name a few. Hollywood and the press, of course, never discuss the CDC facts, but if you want to look for yourself the information is in the scientific literature. I dont want to pay expenses for smokers either, but at least they dont spread infectious agents. There is a notable homosexual group, consisting of thousands of members and tens of thousands more underground, known as the North American Man and Boy Love Association ( NAMBLA). This is a group of male child/boy molesters whose cry is SEX BEFORE 8 BEFORE ITS TOO LATE. This group has been welcomed to most major homosexual parades across the United States. Homosexuals commit more than 40% of all reported child molestations in the United States, which, assuming homosexuals make up 2% of the population, means that 1 in 19 homosexuals is a child molester.
Curious use of defining a group who has legitimate rights associated with an being an illegitimate [group.]
Sexual preference always disturbs me as being worthy of even being described as group who deserve special rights.
Why aren’t horse race gamblers a special group from dog race gamblers then? Shouldn’t they get special rights too?
And then there is their argument about being discriminated against like a minority group or women, which is baloney as one can clearly tell are different by merely looking at them. The same is not true with a homosexual/s so how do they qualify as a legitimate group singled out for discrimination again when they ARE a group within every group???
One cannot tell a homo unless they tell you or you ask, so again, a phony farce of an argument by the homos.
The whole argument of Homo’s deserving special rights is a farce when you break down their own arguments.
Look, I don’t even know what “felching” is and won’t bother looking it up. I’ll trust that you know about it enough to want to outlaw it. My question isn’t how gross something is, but how in the world you’d monitor such things.
“Sodomy” is clearly - and has always been - defined as non procreative sex. Many hundreds of millions of consenting heterosexual adults engage in sodomy. Not the kind you have mentioned, but perhaps safer and more benign types.
For me to suggest that “outlawing sodomy” isn’t perhaps the best strategy does not, in any way, somehow condone the lunacy of NAMBLA.
and besides, who the heck would even WANT such a job?! Eessh.
What was it 60 years ago? Exactly.
Do we want to?
Me personally? No, it’s worked for me. Society itself - yeah, I think the fact is that a significant segment wish to revist this, so fair play to them.
The trouble is, that's not the debate: the debate today is about government involvement and the right of law... and unless a "statesman" emerges to put this in proper context, the traditionalists cannot win this battle in the long term.
I will explain...don't flame me yet.
Marriage has been a Christian religious bond, and one adopted in one form or another by most other religions of the world for the purpose of ordaining and establishing The Family. This is simply a historical fact - it's not the point of debate I intend to raise here.
The problem in this country arose when the state got involved: establishing laws on who could and could not marry (underage, close relatives), plus licensing the practice. Next came taxation differences: IRS rules treating people differently depending on whether they were married. Add to this insurance differences, adoption practices, inheritance, and much much more: we talk about the "slippery slope" for many issues -- government involvement in marriage is the very definition of this. We truly now have two classes of people: those who can marry and financially benefit from that institution, and those who cannot. This is undeniable, and has been established now more by government than by God.
The result? Like it or not, this California judge has accurately pointed out that the laws are treating people differently, and the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment should indeed apply. The barn door has been thrown wide open, and it's because the church (in whatever form you prefer) has embraced/allowed/tolerated government intrusion into its business. Now we're paying the piper, and there's no going back.
In my view, there's only one chance left to recover marriage in its current form. And that requires a communicator with a national voice, an undeniable reputation, and a common sense message. That message should be as follows: "It is in the compelling best interests of the United States that marriage be preserved and encouraged in the form of one man and one woman united to form a family. This family unit is the basis for all economic development, child creation and development, education, defense, and protection for this nation. It provides the year-over-year bonds of family that stabilizes us, establishes civil order, encourages careers, and ultimately provides a future that we can count on in this country."
While one can argue that there are people in the form of "life partners" or others who can establish that they can successfully achieve these high marks themselves (and certainly there are married families that likewise fail to achieve them), one cannot argue that over time, these points are better achieved through married families than any other entity. It is for this reason that the ideals of the 14th amendment must rank below the compelling interests of the United States to support, protect, and defend marriage in its current form. But because we have allowed the government to (already!) redefine marriage, we have likewise ceded the means of control. And based on current Constitutional law, I believe this kind of argument I've outlined here is the only means of rescue for marriage... and then only partially, for we frankly still have the government in control of it regardless.
I don't know that we have such a statesman who can sell this, but we need one quickly. It is nearly too late already.
I think you make some good points, but, I’m unclear on the 14th amendment “equal protection” argument.
Everyone is already treated equally under current marriage laws. Any eligible man can marry any eligible woman. We’re all limited to one partner at a time. We all are limited to an opposite sex partner. The fact that a homosexual man doesn’t want to marry a woman doesn’t negate the fact that he has the same right to do so as anyone.
Further, homosexuals are not a protected class under federal civil rights laws. The laws classify us all as men and women. There is nothing about gay men and lesbian females in the federal law, thus, there is no legal basis to say that they are treated unequally somehow in marriage laws. At least there is no legal basis unless a judge decides that homosexuals “should” be a protected class.
We can all make policy arguments for and against same-sex marriage, but, clearly the judges are bending the law to rule for same-sex marriage. If homosexuals were a protected class under civil rights laws, then the argument under the 14th amendment would be much stronger.
To me, the place to make all these arguments is in the legislatures, not the courts.
Their motive is envy. Envy is an unhealthy form of competition which doesn't seek to have what others have but to destroy what they have. Envy is a race to the bottom rather than a race to the top. Envy is evil and should be fought.
Agreed. Envy and ingratitude are hallmarks of liberalism.
That is exactly the problem: we have reached the point at which the equal protection argument is tearing up ALL of the limits you mention. Yes, gays have the right to marry the opposite gender, but they don't want to do so. Yet they want the financial and legal benefits of marriage, so they have now successfully argued that the 14th amendment should protect that option on an equal basis of opposite-gender marriages. They have worked around the protected class argument and gone for a straight 14th amendment victory.
So my point is that we have lost this argument and must therefore develop another approach (previously outlined). Your points seem to be exactly what was lost in this California decision. Common (gender) sense and tradition have no rational legal standing any more. Religious practice was ceded once the government and states got involved in licensing marriage. Once this hits SCOTUS (and wins), I expect that the only limits left regarding marriage will be that of 'consenting humans of age'... two or more.
I think you are right about “consenting humans, two or more”. The same arguments being made in favor of same-sex marriage can and will be made in favor of polygamy or group marriage.
Already some talk about “triads” or “polyamory”, in which groups of people live together. I’m “libertarian” enough to say let people live how they want, but, just because consenting adults live a certain way, doesn’t mean that our social policies need to approve of or give legal status to how they live their lives.
Yes, of course. To be progressive is to reject everything that controls. All ethics and behavior that have a shred of confining religious pretext must be damned. In the Utopia of Progressive America there will be total equality of wealth, of gender, of education, of everything.
Marriage is of no real value in a society of total freedom and no rules. The wealth of accumulated civilizing knowledge is actually poverty. The precepts of civilization are chains.
To solve the progressive problem there must be a revolution and massive blood in the streets. Otherwise, it will never end. It can not be eliminated by any other means.
marriage has existed long before christianity.
The argument to protect marriage can and must be made WITHOUT ANY RELIGIOUS REFERENCE.
it is only the foolish who think religion is really part of this debate.
abandonment cases and bigamy dropped.
you can’t have it both ways.
women would threaten to make accusations against the ability of their husbands to perform...with women. It was not pretty and it was often petty.
Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.
I hate this argument. It’s as if polygamy is any worse than gay marriage. It’s clearly not.