Skip to comments.The Case That Destroyed Marriage
Posted on 09/06/2013 5:25:12 PM PDT by RBStealth
How did marriage lose most of its meaning? How has it gone from being regarded as an institution that formed the conjugal bond, established nuclear families, knit vital social ties across extended familial units, and forged the necessary social cohesion for the sheltering and rearing of children, to a more-or-less optional affirmation of love?
True, the same-sex marriage debate has rekindled some interest in the institution and its purposes. But that imbroglio seems more like the last flaring of a star before it goes cold rather than a true rekindling.
The weakening of the institution has been ongoing for so many years that it is difficult to discern the proverbial tipping point. But I have a good candidate: The 1976 California Supreme Court case, Marvin v. Marvin.
(Excerpt) Read more at firstthings.com ...
Don’t need to be married to have sex.
Don’t need to be married to live together.
Don’t need to be married to have children.
And a girl doesn’t need to be married to force the man to pay for supporting any children she has, no matter who else might really be the father.
This being the case, why should the state “marry” anyone? For sentimental reasons? Why?
(Don’t get me wrong: I believe in marriage in a sane society, one in which having a child out of wedlock and living with a man out of wedlock, were social stigmas. But in our anything goes society, the state needs to get out of marriage or we should return to the old tried and true mores.)
And this is why marriage is truly a religious rite rather than something the state gives permission for.
This being the case, why should the state marry anyone? For sentimental reasons? Why?
What is the history of gov't licensing of marriage? I suspect it is not very old.
Marriage is not about groinal bonding but children..
Marriage is a legal document to give children legal recourse to their parents..
WHich works both ways.. gives parents legal recourse to their children..
BUT it’s reason to exist... is for the children..
Gays cannot produce children unless they steal them.. by hook or crook..
Its obvious why gays would confuse and conflate the legal document..
Confusing this issue makes them seem LESS QUEER..
Reading it, and the comments, bring us all, full circle, back to certain biological and social truths.
1.Men are not mindless animals.
2.Women do not spontaneously self-impregnate themselves.
Gay marriage is an oxy-moron...
But it did lead to one of Saturday Night Live’s best moments ever:
It is the divorce, the estates, the children that require legal status, even tribal peoples recognized marriage law, and followed it, when dad/hubby died, there were established laws based on every one's legal status as a family.
It is very old, even the license goes back to the 1300s, and before that the church which was a government or authority, required banns to be posted.
If you remember back to ancient cultures like Greece and Rome, and even primitive tribes, you will remember that marriage was always a legal union. Remember "widow", and "first born son", "the estate", and all that.
The look of shock was amazing. Really, that's great she said, Wow! It is amusing; but, also rather sad at how amazed young women are that you can be married to the same man for decades. I looked at her and said that you just have to want the marriage to succeed. That, it has to be important to you and your husband.
I remember having a conversation with an elderly lady who volunteered at the local high school. She was speaking to some of the teens in a classroom about the fact that, that day was her wedding anniversary. She was married for 50 years. She said one of the girls looked at her and blurted out, "to the same man!". She thought it was very funny; but, as I said, it is also very sad that young women find it an impossible idea to even contemplate --- long-term marriage.
Marriage was taken over by the state as part of the Enlightenment project to deprive the Church and family of their roles in society.
I've gone back and read some of my posts and I'm not so sure I agree with you.