Boo . . .
John Adams
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.”
When government touches anything -—— it just gets very messy.
The title looked so promissing...
The State “licensing”, or recognition of Marriage is something FORCED on it by the overwhelming social and RELIGIOUS institution of Marriage. So many people were wedding, forming their families, living and dying under this institution, that they wanted the State to STAY THE HECK OUT OF IT! State recognition of Marriage FORCES the State to grant the natural rights of child custody, inheritance, power of attorney and others that married people naturally expect. These substantial freedoms can be rightfully granted because of the social authority of the Church and the solemn vows taken in Marriage.
I thought the author was going to state that it was time to end the practice of the so-called “civil marriage”, a “marriage” with no religious authority behind it - only the State, itself. (I’ve always wondered what is sworn-to in a Courthouse “marriage”; the State Constitution?)
The author is, of course, completely wrong. Granting the freedoms and powers of traditional Marriage to any and all, without moral and religious authority will simply destroy those freedoms and powers forever. You will be able to have your religious ceremony, but you will have none of the natural freedoms you are entitled to.
That would certainly make the Muslims and Mormons happy, then they can have their many wives as young as they want them.
Then you will see man/boy churches starting to organize too.
Enough of this. Marriage is best left exactly as it has been for centuries. “Getting government out of the marriage business” isn’t conservative: it’s a cop-out.
Why do you think we register marriages with the state?? For once, it rally is for the children.
Problem is there are dozens—if not hundreds—of ways the government treats people differently according to whether they are married or not. The reason for this, historically—the State has understood stable marriages are to its benefit. Married families make more income, own more property, are the best place to raise kids, are more religious, more moral (generally), have lower rates of violence and other crime statistics, lower disease rates, etc. etc. and are basically the rock of stability to society. Therefore it is totally rational for the State to favor marriage, as such policies actually favor a healthy, stable civilization.
Care & custody of children, probate and inheritance, taxes of all kinds, ownership of property, government benefits & entitlements...all of these things and more depend on the government having legal means to determine who is married and who isn’t.
Things were much simpler in say early America—where all Church denominations—and individuals—basically believed the same things on marriage, and all that was necessary was a minister’s signature in a bible to prove a couple was married. Since government benefits and entitlements were much less (though they existed in those days too—in things like military pensions) it wasn’t as vital to be able to legally prove marriage anyway. However by the 1800s, as government involvement in life got greater...a standard, organized way to prove legitimate marriage came about parallel (and linked) to the record of the religious commitment, in the marriage license.
Given that much greater government entanglement in marriage now—it is impossible to turn the clock back—and proposed libertarian solutions (”get government out of the marriage business”) are just fantasies not based on the facts of modern real life.
If the government gets out of the marriage business, what kind of legal rights would the children have? Would they be considered bastards if it was a church that the state didn’t recognise, like wiccan?
Cushman is an idiot - the quintessential RINO (non-conservative.)