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 ...
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?
“That’s it, that’s all it can ever be, there’s 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 doesn’t 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.
Freegards
“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.”
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?
Freegards
“It depends.”
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.
Freegards
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.
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.