The government recognizes NO ONE as married or unmarried. It’s none of their business. You know I find it ironic for conservatives that want government out of every other aspect of our lives, this is the ONE (and the most personal one) that my fellow conservatives want the most government influence. It’s disturbing.
I don’t think you’re thinking through the implications of no one being married in the government’s eyes. What about children of a widow who marries a new husband? How does he get to adopt her children if he is as good as a stranger to her? What ties people together in a society if there are no recognized ties? Who enforces contracts?
“...this is the ONE (and the most personal one) that my fellow conservatives want the most government influence. It’s disturbing.”
I agree. It isn’t a very popular opinion in these parts.
Relying on the state to define and protect marriage, at least in modern times has subverted the role of faith, and has led many to accept impossibilities like “gay marriage” simply because the intitution is now viewed by many to be just another gov’t contract that can be broken and resumed as long as the state gives its OK.
But the bottom line is that it isn’t going to change, it provides the state too much power over the culture. Statists and homosexualists wouldn’t be able to punish folks if they disagreed with their ever evolving definition of marriage, which is coming soon, if not already here in some areas, at least in my opinion.
The good news is that some faiths are never going to accept it, no matter what the punishment, and that’s all that really matters.
Freegards