Posted on 04/01/2013 1:42:04 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Last week at RedState, we spent a lot of time focusing on politics from a faith perspective because it was Holy Week. Throughout the week, many people who support gay marriage lambasted me and others that Christians were just trying to use government to legislate marriage or morality.
But I agree that we should keep the government out of marriage.
Last I checked, George and Martha Washington did not get remarried after 1776 when the United States declared independence from Great Britain. Nor did they do so after 1789, when the constitution was enacted.
In fact, not one of the founding fathers married prior to 1776 remarried the same person after the United States was formed.
Government did not create marriage. The only laws on the books related to marriage are state laws and federal laws that recognize the marriage structure that previously existed before the government established them.
To be sure, over time those marriages evolved. The age of consent and the ability to contract have changed and impacted marriage, but the structure and operation of marriage were still the same.
The most significant changes in the law regarding marriage have been on how to end a marriage, not how to begin a marriage or what constitutes a marriage.
But marriage pre-existed the state and has evolved institutionally over a few thousand years.
What’s happening now is that gay marriage advocates are attempting to use the state to change marriage. When they say Christians are trying to use the state to legislate their version of marriage, they are full of crap. All Christians are doing is defending an institution that already exists from being changed to something it has never been.
It is the gay marriage advocates who want to force, by the power of the state, a pre-existing institution to change. If the state has the power to change the definition of an institution that it did not create, the state can force everyone to do so. It is already happening in this country at the state level.
Marriage may evolve to include gays one day. But the time is not there year. The laws enacted across the country to preserve the status quo are just that — there to keep the state, via the courts or legislature from changing an institution neither the courts nor legislatures of the several states created, but chose to recognize.
Let’s be clear here — you can support gay marriage, but don’t tell me Christians are trying to legislate their version of marriage. The only people trying to legislate, from the bench or otherwise, are gay rights advocates who refuse to let the institution naturally evolve because of their own impatience for the trappings of normalcy in a society that has long viewed them as outside the mainstream.
That the loudest proponents of gay marriage cannot even be honest in what’s going on loudly suggests they are not being honest when they say they’re cool with conscientious objectors to the whole idea. Consider, for example, this blog post from the Cato Institute entitled, “We Support Gay Marriage but Oppose Forcing People to Support It.”
They filed an amicus brief in support of Elane Photography, which was punished in New Mexico for refusing to help a gay wedding. Cato bases its defense on photography being protected by the first amendment. But note this:
Our brief explains that photography is an art form protected by the First Amendment because clients seek out the photographer’s method of staging, posing, lighting, and editing. Photography is thus a form of expression subject to the First Amendment’s protection, unlike many other wedding-related businesses (e.g., caterers, hotels, limousine drivers).
So if you are a Christian caterer, bed and breakfast, etc. too bad. You will be forced to provide services to a gay wedding. You will be made to by the power of the state. That’s where we are headed. If the state has the power to change the definition of an institution it did not create, the state can compel your services to that institution.
So yes, let’s keep the government out of marriage. Its definition will change over time through the natural evolution of all institutions. That evolution may include gay marriage, but it might not.
Another good point. Although with an all volunteer army, you might say that service is now a privilege and as such the military may require a military marriage license, like requiring feet with arches. Trust me I know that wouldn’t happen under or current administration.
I know JAG law isn’t always consistent with civilian law.
Just a thought.
Aside from the fact that the military can’t find people in modern America who want that “privilege” of serving, the military already has to make a decision on the validity of your marriage, just as they did in 1780.
If everybody gets to legally define it themselves, from Mosques to atheists, then the feds would have to recognize them, as would eventually all the other states and court systems.
They were somewhat common by the late 1600s, although the population groups here were still tiny and pretty homogeneous.
what is not even acknowledged in these here debates, is the fact that if a heterosexual married couple has one die without a will, it goes to probate... PERIOD..
the only way to avoid probate is to leave a will..
fags can leave a will just like a normal couple can...
dirty little secret to spread around...
and where would that definition happen???
federal level???
show me where in the constitution the feds were given the specific right to regulate marriage...
state level???
now you got the 10th amendment working for you..
judging by your response, you are basically a totaltarian, nanny state type that wants to regulate what I think, feel, and do...
go to hell, and find a different website ( i recommend the young communists, you would fit right in there )
Personally I think eliminating the federal definition of marriage opens the door to real reform of social security.
What is your point?
Common-law marriage is still recognized by all 50 states and is legal in states like my home state of Texas.
But you asked about licenses, and they were common from the 1600s until today.
You go to hell. Your libertarian atheist bs just enables the left to destroy civilization. This is supposed to be a conservative site, so you should be the one leaving.
“Then anything goes, because in America, the Mosque and the atheist and the Mormon and the Episcopalian are on the same footing as whatever church you belong to.”
Welcome to Freedom of Religion. Or maybe you are in favor of establishing a State Religion?
If the Supreme Court says that Obamacare is constitutional because of the taxing power of Congress, then DOMA is constitutional tax policy.
Reynolds v. United States in 1878 already defined marriage as one woman and one man.
Leon Puñettas was so occupied with gay pride celebrations at the Pentagon, he forgot there was a war, a US Ambassador was murdered and US Navy Seals were completely abandoned to their deaths because everyone was being so fücking gay...
LOL, welcome to the world of being a lefty troll in service to the cause of homosexual marriage and polygamy and Islam.
You might want to check which forum you are on, this isn’t DU.
“What part of the government has the authority to validate the love and commitment between two people before God? Zip.”
Well, except that governments have done exactly that since civilization began.
The first Chief Og of the cave men gave protection to his people’s families- from each other. It’s the oldest government racket, the most successful, and possibly the most beneficial jusging by it’s fruits.
The Magna Carta had much in it to keep the King from messing with the laws of state-recognized marriages. Once we all felt as those nobles did, now we are less proud and more obeisant to the ‘King’. More like the peasants of those days than the nobles.
“So yes, let’s keep the government out of marriage. Its definition will change over time through the natural evolution of all institutions. That evolution may include gay marriage, but it might not.”
The funny thing about evolution is it survival of the fittest, and Homosexuals including any union among them is quite incapable of passing on whatever genetic or cultural defect that led them to a life of sodomy.
I think the only chance we have of winning is for conservatives to sacrifice the tax status that comes with state sanctioned marriage.
Unfortunately I think that tax status matters more than anything else to most Americans.
I guess if the state, fed included neither punish nor reward marriage, then there would be nothing to recognize.
If the military wanted to set different standards, via the UCMJ, I supposed it could.
BTW. I found this on answerbag.
The first marriage license was issued in Shawnee, Kansas to John D. Skidmore and Arabella Z. Rice. Their marriage was performed on February 24, 1856 and the first marriage license was recorded on April 18, 1856.
I would guess census data would show marriages before this without benefit of state license.
“I got a better idea. We define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, civil or religious, like it always has been. Then we label dissenters as the godless Commie scum they are, and treat them as such.”
Godless sodomites, but not commies.
Let us at least be accurate.
Look at the link I posted upthread in post 10. The left is behind the sodomites for a reason.
Lots going on in Kansas at that point in time. 2 years after being opened to settlement with pro and anti slavery forces battling for 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.