Good article describing the replacement of traditional marriage with civil contracts.
Let the homosexuals have civil contracts. We stand for traditional marriage as between one man and one woman.
Like the government knows what is best for children.
It’s a scam by the dim-witted libertarians. They give us gay marriage THEN they tell us that “government should get out of the marriage business”, which it never will.
It was a big bait-and-switch by the pothead wing of the Republican party.
Only one reason is necessary to state -
IT’S NOT ABOUT “GAY MARRIAGE”!
It’s about criminalizing Christianity, and they’ll find another “issue” if this one doesn’t work.
Simplify. There is a public interest in recording legal contracts. Define a type of legal contract that includes certain elements that we now accord only to marriage. County clerk records the contract without having to morally sign up for same sex unions. Children cannot sign legal documents. Then, go to a church if you want a religious ceremony. Done.
No offense to John, but the new status quo already does all the harm he mentions. We have to act to distinguish between the government’s role in contract law and the religious role of marriage. Leave marriage to the church and let the government deal with tax breaks, hospital visits and other contractual roles. The idea that we undo what’s been done by separating marriage and civil unions is frankly 5 years too late. The court has spoken so we mush re-write the rules and take it back to the court to settle the next round. Removing the religious ceremony of marriage from government is the only remaining option. It’s up to states to remake their laws and remove marriage from government lexicon all together.
Moral Absolutes Ping!
Freepmail Responsibility2nd or wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list. FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search [ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Saw this one coming, which is the point of the article:
It would overburden courts and side-step legal protections for children and abandoned spouses, replacing them with court ordered damages, penalties and state-coerced action.
Nope. The courts would be freed by contract, though it is possible Obama coukd decree “If you like your pre-nup, you can....”
This article is an attempt at slamming the barn door shut after the horse has run out.
Heterosexual marriage in the US is dying. In a generation it’ll be a relative rarity. Word has gotten around and few men will consent to it.
To those who object to returning marriage to the private sphere: if you concerns are so valid, why have you been so silent as the rate of illegitimacy among black children now is in excess of 70%? Where were you when communes allowed people to produce feral children?
We don’t worry a bit today that black babies who are born to a single mother will lack for rights of inheritance or medical direction.
The complaints just prove to me that too many social conservatives love big government. I pray that they begin to see that big government is now hostile to the very values they seek to preserve. In fact they want to use government just like liberals do— to impose values on citizens. Let conservatives eschew using government as a proxy for religion.
Marriage is a church sacrament. The government should never have become involved. Follow the money.
I believe it is time for the church to stop acting as an agent of the state. If a man and a woman want to make their vows to one another in the context of their faith, they should do so in the church. If 2 people (or soon more...) want to make their vows to each other in the context of a government recognized “contract”, then they can do that in the form of a civil union/contract/marriage or whatever you want to call it. No reason why a couple couldn’t do both a public wedding in a church and then take the steps to certify that to the government as well.
This does not depend on a change in law as this author implies. It depends on a change in the church.