Skip to comments.Why not open the floodgates on marriage?
Posted on 01/04/2013 7:22:21 AM PST by SonnyBubba
Why not open the floodgates on marriage? January 03, 2013|Dennis Byrne
Just where the balance is between the rights of individuals and the good of society often is difficult to determine.
The argument that same sex couples should have an equal right to marry is not to be taken lightly.
It appeals to Americans' ingrained sense that everyone should be treated fairly. It is memorialized in the Constitution's 14th Amendment, which guarantees to each person equality under the law.
The equality argument has been so persuasive that the Illinois Legislature may well approve same sex marriage in this lame-duck session. The elaborate public relations campaign to enshrine same-sex marriage in law couldn't have come at a more opportune time, while public attention has been focused on how Illinois is to avoid its own fiscal cliff.
(Excerpt) Read more at articles.chicagotribune.com ...
This guy nails it.
“But, why “between two persons?” As long as we’re redefining marriage, why keep this last vestige of the medieval idea of marriage? Why not three, four or as many as the blissful spouses could tolerate? If it is a denial of equal protection of the law to prohibit any two persons of the same sex to marry, then why isn’t it also a denial of equal rights for three or more persons to marry? What is so magical about a couple, as opposed to a trio or a quartet? What’s the big deal about monogamy?
Is it not discrimination against those who wish to practice polygamy? Why should marriage be denied to those who wish to define it in their own way? Isn’t this a denial of their equal right to marry?
You might respond that there are good reasons to limit marriage to two persons, and I can think of a few myself. But whatever your or my reasons are, by what authority do we deny someone else their equal rights?
Under the proposed act, the right to marry also would be denied to other folks. Siblings couldn’t marry. Nor could cousins of the first degree. Aunts and uncles couldn’t marry their nephews and nieces.
Hey, it doesn’t hurt me; why should I care if siblings marry? Let them have as many genetically damaged children as they want. Their birth defects aren’t my problem.”
If “equality under law” is enshrined under the constitution, then I want to be deemed a 6’-2” blonde, buff knock-out model with a million dollars in the bank. It’s only fair.
Why the ‘state’ has any say in marriage is the real question.
Marriage ought to be the province of and defined by religion; civil contracts could be entered into by any willing parties.
This is all in the name of defining deviancy down.
It's not "to be taken lightly", it's to be dismissed "out of hand".
There is no "right" to marriage.
Marriage is historically an obligation undertaken by two persons prior to engaging in activities which might reasonably be expected to yield offspring, for the purpose of maximizing the likelihood that said offspring survive to become productive adults.
Since there is nothing two persons of the same sex can do that can be expected to yield offspring, there is no need for them to "marry".
Actually, with the implementation of Obamacare, it is your problem. At least until the Death Panels get rolling.
The equality argument has been so persuasive...
The "equality argument" is a lie, and they know it.
With regards to marriage, everyone is equal already! Every American has the right to marry another person of the opposite sex. That is equality. Arguments to the contrary are pushing the wolf of marriage destruction clothed in the innocent-sounding sheepskin of "equality".
The very definition of the word is at stake here, as the article nicely illustrates!
The argument that same sex couples should have an equal right to marry is not to be taken lightly. I don’t.
For generations, we have given the State the power to create artificial persons, in the form of corporations, foundations, trusts and the like. Nobody is confused by this government-defined fiction. We know that a corporation is not a real human person. Where the left has a problem is where the Supreme Court has ruled, in Citizens United, that such “persons” have the right of free speech.
Another government-defined fiction that we have allowed for generations is that the State can also define “marriage” and who is “married” and who is not. But marriage predates any State because it is God who defines and defends marriage, not the State. Indeed, any “marriage” a State defines is just as much a legal fiction as when it tells us that a corporation is a “person” that has freedom of speech.
The State attempts to force us to recognize its power. One way is to presume the power to define who is married and who is not. We cede this power in part because we allow the State to tax incomes and estates. To administer such taxing power, the State must define who it considers to be “married” and who is not. Just as when it defines a corporation to be a “person”, as silly as this would be to God, the State does not hesitate to define anyone it pleases as being “married”, totally apart from how God would define them.
Jesus, who was recognized as a prophet by all three monotheistic religions, is quoted in Matthew chapter 19 that from the beginning of humanity, it was God’s intent that marriage would only be one man and one woman. Scripture in many ways and places also tells us that God defines sexual morality and that people who refuse to practice that His morality simply do not qualify for His freely given gift of eternal life. (for example, see Ephesians chapter 5). Of course, people are free to believe whatever they want, but that does not change what God clearly said to us.
If you review the arguments advanced by supporters of same-sex marriage (like at HRC.ORG), you will find that many of them are related to taxation, inheritance and medical issues. But existing law addresses those and any defects in the law can be easily repaired apart from the issue of “marriage”.
I dont want a government that can tell me what I may or may not do in the privacy of my own home or relationships. In a secular Constitutional Republic with a provision that prohibits Congress from making any law respecting religion, I have to allow others to have their own beliefs and morality. I can only be an advocate for the morality and beliefs that I think are true. I take my understanding of sexual morality from Scripture and that is where I learn that God considers sodomy to be an abomination to Him.
If a State decides that two (or more) people can marry, if that is all that happened, I could live with that because I don’t have to approve, change my beliefs or what beliefs I pass on to my children.
However, once gays and their supporters have sufficient influence with a State to redefine marriage, they dont stop there. They use the State to forbid me from acting on my morality and beliefs. In fact, the State in some cases forces me to accommodation in their practices.
If I have children in public school, the State will insist on teaching them that gay marriage is just as normal as God’s definition of marriage. You will be sanctioned as a parent if you attempt to remove your child from such indoctrination.
If you run a business that could provide services to the public, you will be sanctioned if you decline to treat gays as non-gays. For example, if you run a wedding photography business, you will be sanctioned if you decline to photograph a gay wedding. This has already happened in California and New Mexico .
You may lose control of your own property. 
You might have to go out of business to stay true to your principles, so as to avoid being fined or sued into bankruptcy. 
From the article:
“Wedding vendors elsewhere who refused to accommodate same-sex couples have faced discrimination lawsuits and lost. Legal experts said Discover Annapolis Tours sidesteps legal trouble by avoiding all weddings.
“If they’re providing services to the public, they can’t discriminate who they provide their services to,” said Glendora Hughes, general counsel for the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights. The commission enforces public accommodation laws that prohibit businesses from discriminating on the basis of race, sexual orientation and other characteristics.”
In short, gays will demand that non-gays accept them as moral equals, which they are not and cannot be. When the State says they are equal it is forbidden for a private citizen to dissent from that status. In doing so, they seek to force me to give them approval for something that I will never approve of. It is that last point that galls gays the most.
Curiously, when advocates of gay marriage are asked if their policy also would allow polygamy or polyandry, they recoil in horror and insist that it does not. However, logic demands that it does. I would ask how same-sex parents are going to react in the future when, for example, Utah public schools officials require that teachers instruct the children that LDS-related polygamy is just as “normal” as same-sex “marriage”. The fact that this will be an issue will show yet again that gay “marriage” is not about marriage at all it is about forcing the rest of us to approve of repugnant sexual immorality, something that LDS polygamists never demanded.
 Refusing To Shoot Gay Marriage Is Discrimination, Says New Mexico Appeals Court
 Judge Rules Christian facility cannot ban same-sex civil union ceremony on its own premises
 Opposed to same-sex marriage, company ends wedding business
Trolley owner says move made to avoid potential lawsuit
Then, how are things like Social Security survivor benefits and inheritance issues to be determined if the state can't recognize any such relationship?
The real fight about gay marriage has always been a cultural dispute. Most conservatives see promotion of the homosexual agenda as simply more decadence and harmful to children and society.The big question is will religious people and their clergy be allowed to excuse themselves from the fiasco. When government entities begin to take actual punitive actions against institutions and individual clergy for refusing to participate, things will get really interesting. What the Supreme court ultimately decides in the mandatory aborticant funding law will be predictive.
2 Corinthians 3:17
Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
If marriage becomes "anything goes" and if I can have 17 wives and some of my wives can also have multiple husbands, then things get messy. I don't think my insurance company could figure it out. I don't think my employer will offer me a family benefit package. I don't think the government will let me declare that many dependents on my taxes.
So, if marriage becomes "anything goes" then a lot of simple things that people expect to have will have to be jettisoned. A simple couple (man and woman) won't get a tax deduction, won't get a benefits package from an employer, and won't get reasonable insurance coverage -- but, hey, homosexual marriage isn't hurting them, right?
With population growth in decline we need as many marriages as possible. Homosexuals could be medically altered to be able to have anal children.
End Social Security. That's something that needs to be done with or without "gay marriage".
Ultimately, that's what "gay marriage" is all about - using the government to fleece your fellow citizens for your benefit. That, and legitimizing depravity.
...and inheritance issues ...
Find a lawyer and write a Will. That option has been available for centuries.
“Then, how are things like Social Security survivor benefits and inheritance issues to be determined if the state can’t recognize any such relationship? “
A delightful question. The answer is that the State Law states that people are free to file a declaration that could be in the form of a Will, but if the person dies in testate (”The condition of dying without leaving a will.”) then the State definition controls the disposition of the estate.
This allows people the liberty to fully control their assets. The issue for same-sex marriage is that inheritance laws have not kept pace with changes in marriage law. So a person could be “married” to a (same-sex) person in a state where such marriage is legal and if the “couple” moves to a state that does not recognize SSM, and one of the two dies, the surviving “whatever” could find they would not be an heir of the other person.
Getting married is now a purely religious event here in the states with some people.
I am not sure how it affects other issues.
I imagine one could be head of household with a religiously married wife.
I dont think that social security would come through.
Of course you are right about inheritance.
“This is all in the name of defining deviancy down.”
Why bother with “slouching to Gomorrah”!
Everyone should have access to government-funded rapid transit to Gomorrah!
Sell a few more T-Bills to the Chinese to fund the project. Tell them we will buy the rolling stock from their factories.
“As long as we’re redefining marriage, why keep this last vestige of the medieval idea of marriage? Why not three, four or as many as the blissful spouses could tolerate? If it is a denial of equal protection of the law to prohibit any two persons of the same sex to marry, then why isn’t it also a denial of equal rights for three or more persons to marry? What is so magical about a couple, as opposed to a trio or a quartet? What’s the big deal about monogamy?”
With state involved, at least in the modern era, the definition it uses to recognize the institution is simply whatever judges, pols, or 51% of the voting public think marriage can be at any one time. That’s it, that’s all it can ever be, there’s no other way to do it. Sometimes the definition the state uses will coincide with the real definition, sometimes it won’t. It was always a danger, Pope Leo XIII warned about the state’s involvement in the institution 130 years ago. Makes one wonder what the state will consider marriage in another 130 years.
Fantastic post! I have used the same arguments myself (albeit less articulately). To continue your line
And why all this talk about love in connection with marriage? Why can’t people get married for admittedly tax-avoidance reasons? Or just because they “feel like” it? Under current estate tax laws, inter-family inter-generational marriage (no sex has to be involved, since we are letting each couple/trio/quartet, etc. define the terms and conditions of marriage) could avoid estate taxes entirely, since there is no estate or gift tax between spouses.
This all boils down to words having meaning. The goal of same sex marriage advocates is to strip the word “marriage” of all meaning. They are succeeding.
You are being too restrictive. Why do you always say “persons” or “people”? (/s)
Why should marriage be BETWEEN x number of people. I should be able to marry Al Gore if I want. Why should he be able to interfere with my marriage
[I really don’t care about the $50,000,000 that would be my share of the family wealth].
No two people have a "right" to marry. Every marriage has to be approved by the society in which the two are being married. This is old, settled law although the issue is mostly ignored in our modern era. You have to post the banns of marriage in advance so people can object if they have a reason. There's a last chance at almost every ceremony. Members of the community must witness the marriage.
It's not just two people deciding how they want to share their lives. It's a community accepting and agreeing to support a new family in conjunction with the new couple.
We can re-define it so it's not a community thing, but that's what marriage has historically been.
When this argument was shoved in the left’s collective face,
they’d try to flip it back to us like WE were the perverted ones for “wanting” such strange combinations to be called marriages.
Of course, their only standard by which to determine right and wrong is how it makes them feel about themselves, so there’s really no “intellectual depth” to their position that you can make them grasp onto and defend.
Marriage, in my view, certainly has a religious component, but civil marriage has been approved by society outside of the relgious context for quite some time. Laws usually contain a moral component, reflecting a consensus of society’s views.
No one seeks to control (at least not anymore) the actions of consenting adults, but no one has a “right” (as that term ought to be understood) to have society put a seal of approval on any relationship they choose to have.
Don’t answer the fools in their folly...
The real goal of the leftist supporters of “gay marriage” is to DESTROY marriage as a concept.
Homos are simply being used by the left in the anti-Christian agenda.
The left is good at using people’s need to feel good about themselves and to feel accepted to advance their agenda.
Read Reynolds vs the US and you’ll have your answer.
All well and good as a suggestion, but the social security abolition is never going to happen, at least not for a couple of generation, who have had money confiscated from them for decades and now have a reasonable expectation of recompense.
Anyway, I just listed those two off the top of my head, but there are many other relevant, compelling reasons for the government to recognize a marriage. Rights to protect against testifying against a spouse in court, benefits employers are obligated to offer the family of an employee, the conflict resolution and settlement in a divorce - all universally and practically require some kind of enforcement or arbitration. Saying this should be done on an individual basis through the courts is impractical and unnecessary when we have the universally understood institution of marriage to make the lion's share of these conflicts mute.
Marriage, real marriage, unites men and women into a single unit, in all important respects. Society understands this, has understood this for thousands of years. It's not unreasonable for government to merely recognize these realities and record, not manage, this relationship.
Do you believe the state has the obligation to protect Habeaus Corpus and Trial by Jury?
“Thats it, thats all it can ever be, theres no other way to do it”
Marriage is marriage - what it is doesn’t change. The state has the obligation to protect marriage just as it has an obligation to protect other things that come along with the package.
“Members of the community must witness the marriage.”
This is an important principle that libertarians just don’t get. A marriage must be witnessed, or else it is not a marriage. Why? So that it is public knowledge whom you are married to and why.
Gay marriage does provide a philosophical gateway for polygamy. But, at least for now, the pro-polygamy movement suffered a setback with Romney's defeat.
Exactly, and because the community is actually a partner in the marriage in that they receive benefit from the new family and help to hold the new family together.
I think libertarians and others who want to undermine marriage also forget that marriage merges two lines. If my son marries, her family is now part of my family. Their children are her parents' and our grandchildren. Blending of family lines, carrying on of culture and traditions, establishing a base for the future, these are all impacts the family has on society. Of course society is an integral part of a marriage.
Let's stop pretending it can be an innocent bystander.
“Marriage is marriage - what it is doesnt change.”
Correct, no matter what the state decides to call it at any one time.
“The state has the obligation to protect marriage just as it has an obligation to protect other things that come along with the package.”
Perhaps in a perfect world. But the bottom line is the definition the state uses is simply whatever judges, pols, or the majority think it is at any one time. They could care about this obligation or not. I don’t think they have for a long time. I think the state’s involvement is the major reason so many are willing to accept impossibilities like ‘gay marriage’ today.
“Perhaps in a perfect world. But the bottom line is the definition the state uses is simply whatever judges, pols, or the majority think it is at any one time. They could care about this obligation or not. I dont think they have for a long time. I think the states involvement is the major reason so many are willing to accept impossibilities like gay marriage today.”
Would you argue that the state has no right to enforce trial by jury or Habeaus Corpus? Marriage between one man and one woman is part of the package, and just as much the responsibility of the state to protect.
“Would you argue that the state has no right to enforce trial by jury or Habeaus Corpus?”
It depends. If the definition the state uses to define trial by jury and Habeas Corpus is the actual one, then no problem. If it decides trial by jury actually means a group of lemurs will judge you, then no.
If the state uses a definition that includes ‘gay marriage,’ would you argue that the state has the ‘right’ to punish those who will never buy into their impossible definition?
No, it doesn’t depend. These are fundamental rights that are a part of the constitution. The state has the obligation to preserve them, just as it has the obligation to preserve marriage.
“If the state uses a definition that includes gay marriage, would you argue that the state has the right to punish those who will never buy into their impossible definition?”
Preservation!= redefinition. Read the Reynolds vs the US decision. In redefining marriage - the state is abrogating their own constitutional obligations. All the marriages that they perform to those who do not qualify have zero force. The State cannot punish people who refuse to recognise it, because of the Reynolds decision. They can try, but it has no force of law.
“All the marriages that they perform to those who do not qualify have zero force. The State cannot punish people who refuse to recognise it, because of the Reynolds decision. They can try, but it has no force of law.”
Well that’s a relief. It’s good to know that even though it may redefine the way it recognizes the institution in an impossible way, it will never be able to punish those who disagree with this impossible definition. Because it has no force of law.
You ask an odd question. I can not imagine a circumstance where I would expect the State could suspend Habeaus Corpus or Trial by Jury except under extreme distress such as war. And in my opinion when Lincoln suspended Habeaus, he didn’t have sufficient grounds.
Bingo. Who you marry is no one's business, as long as you're both consenting adults. All you need to do is sign a standard civil contract.
The nanny-liberals want the state in on this because it breaks down resistance on other fronts. Make no mistake, the goal is not equality. It is control.
Any such recognition can be recognized via civil contract. This is not about equality, it is about control.
Not odd at all. It’s a package deal. All three are part of English Common Law. Suspend one, suspend them all. Obama gets this - most folks on our side don’t.
“Who you marry is no one’s business, as long as you’re both consenting adults.”
So Bigamy is no problem? I should think your wife has reasonable interest in knowing whether or not you are presently married.
If marriage is a moral province, let the church be the sole arbiter of the estate.
Let the state govern civil contracts; if it be only valid between two people, and you can't sign one without invalidating all others, so be it.
I fail to see the problem.
“If marriage is a moral province, let the church be the sole arbiter of the estate.”
So you’d be happy with an Imam telling you couldn’t be married?
What do I care what an imam thinks if I don't belong to his mosque?
You’ve just said that marriage is a matter for religion - which is exactly what Sharia law teaches too.
You can’t get married without it.
Now, if you are arguing that marriage is a state matter, then you can drop your dishonest argument.
We need two countries - one liberal - one conservative. Then liberals can do anything they want... open their borders to every 3rd world country... raise minimum wage to a hundred bucks and hour and drug all their school age children.
Here’s a nice link about the side effects of psychoactive drugs - ALL of the school killers were on ‘em. Yep, and the effing ‘press’ isn’t the least bit curious... With two countries they can ‘marry’ whatever they want. And as many as they want and brother and sisters whatever... Think how happy liberals would be if we weren’t always standing in their way? And how happy we would be NOT to have to deal with them? They could outlaw all guns too - Chicago has shown us how well that works... But hey, it’ll be their country... well - their half.
Again, we’ve had guns for hundreds of years - and schools for thousands. The “new’ thing on the scene is mind altering drugs like antidepressants.
Every one of the school shooters was on psychoactive drugs... If we want to ban something we know where to start... for the children...
"It's sick out there and getting sicker" - Bob Grant
You seem be in need of attention or something.
Here’s my view:
Marriage as a moral contract should be governed by the church.
Civil contracts should be governed by the state.
They’re completely different things.
The state should not be in the business of marriage.
Now please, go away.