End Government Recognition of Marriage

Government recognition of marriage has largely removed all meaning from the institution. A couple that is legally married does not need to enter into a union of holy matrimony. They only need to get the government’s permission to marry and take the necessary steps to complete all formalities associated with the marriage. That there is greater outrage over the government recognition of “same-sex marriage” rather than over clergy members agreeing to conduct the ceremonies is an indication of how far the nation has sunk in its view of marriage as a union of holy matrimony versus a legal contract.

The government is an entity that serves the purpose of, among other things, enforcing contracts. Among the most common contract is the contract that is entered into by couples when they marry. By getting legally married, every couple in the same state enters into a similar contract. This should change. The assumption that any two people from any social and economic class can enter into the same legal contract is absurd. Each couple should have its own contract for its specific circumstances. Some couples already do this via pre-nuptial agreements.

As an action that is half corrective and half symbolic, I think that government should discontinue the issuing of one-size-fits-all, marriage “contracts”. Discontinuing this recognition would be corrective in that any contracts formed would need to be specifically tailored to each couple, because each couple would need to draft their own contract. Discontinuing the recognition of current marriage contracts would be symbolic, in that it would send the message that marriage is a religious union that is inappropriate for government to have any involvement in. I can think of no more effective way to pervert a religious ceremony than to taint it with a stamp of approval from the government. For those who marry for spiritual reasons – love and commitment – the marriage will take on greater meaning as a solely religious and spiritual endeavor. For those who seek to form a union for the purpose of shared benefits and legal protections, the marriage will be more of a legal arrangement.

From the perspective of the government, a contract should be just a contract, whether it applies to a man and a woman committing themselves to one another or between a bank and a customer agreeing to the terms of a loan. It is insane to use government as a tool to morally sanction a couple’s lust or love or as a moral compass for our society. There is nothing that so easily gets manipulated for the advancement of our vices as government. To let it continue to have a role in marriage will only further erode the bedrock institution of our society. The surest way to retain the sanctity of marriage is to emphasize the religious and spiritual aspects of it, by giving full responsibility for the recognition and ceremonial procedures to the church.

To take this approach would seem to have many unintended consequences. For example, does this allow “same-sex marriages” or bigamy or polygamy? If there are religions that recognize such unions and will carry out the ceremonies, then the answer is yes. However, the government would not recognize those unions as marriages, because there would be no such thing as a government-recognized marriage. Marriage would be between the family and the church. Would this encourage polygamy, bigamy or “same-sex marriage”? The answer is no, because people who choose those lifestyles already live them, but they do so without government recognition. Nothing would change, because government would still not recognize those arrangements as marriages. There would be no more government-recognized marriages; only religious institutions would recognize marriages. Will this encourage “marriages” between adults and children or people and animals? The answer is no, because those are already forbidden by laws regarding child abuse and animal abuse.

Some would say that my recommendation would further erode marriage, because it would “expand” the definition by opening it up to everyone. I say the exact opposite is true, because it would leave the definition of marriage up to the church. I have infinitely greater trust in the ability of religious institutions to make moral and ethical decisions than I do in the government. Some would also say that this issue needs to be fought and won as we currently debate it, because allowing “same-sex” couples to enjoy the same benefits as traditional couples would only be an entitlement money grab and/or a further encroachment of political correctness upon our society. I say that this point of view is incorrect, irrelevant and ignores the fundamental problems that underlie our society today. Most government entitlements (social security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, most notably) are nothing more than legally sanctioned thievery that people participate in, because they were forced to contribute to them. In simple terms, entitlement programs are government actions whereby your money is taken from you and given to other people who did not earn it, on the assumption that their “need” entitles them to the money. To accept this assumption and use it as the basis for opposing “same-sex” unions (the opposition being that those couples will share in the money grab) is yet another step towards surrendering to an increasingly statist society – and it illustrates the point of view that worries not about the spiritual and religious aspects of marriage, but rather the bottom line: money and control. The future of marriage is too important to be weighed on the basis of money and politics.

To truly ensure the preservation of marriage we must rescue it from the political arena and place it under the watch of our religious institutions. As government and politics are further dominated by more extreme communist elements, we need to separate government from matters related to morality. Otherwise, morality will be redefined (legally) by the likes of the Klintons, the Kerrys, and the other Dasch-holes in congress.

"If you are going to quote the Constitution out of context, quote it correctly. Slaves were counted as 3/5 for purposes of apportioning representation."

I stand corrected. 3/5ths, not 4/5ths. Regardless, this FF provision holds no legal or moral authority today. Why? Because TIMES HAVE CHANGED.

"Until the 1960s (maybe earlier on some things, later on others) we did quite a good job of enforcing morality. Obscenity was outlawed and distribution through interstate commerce a crime. Acts like adultery were actually allowed to be civil torts against the person who helped break up the marriage and the law punished the married party in the property split. These are jst two examples of how the law helped enforce, and reinforce, the traditional morality"

Yeah, and until the 1960s, interracial marriage was outlawed in many states, with the people against it making similar arguments for segregated marriage as those today who make arguments against homo marriage.

I'm a happily-married hetero whose marriage is not at-all threatened by two pillow-biters wanting to engage in some legal civil union that gives them the same legal benefits as I. My institute of marriage is far more threatened by the farcical marital behaviors of Britney Spears, et al and the 50%+ divorce rate - a rate that's occurred without ass-pirates getting married, btw.

I do like that anti-adultery law you cited. Perhaps if a Marriage Amendment had some provisions to prevent negative Hetero behavior, I'd be more in favor of it. Also, I'm still NOT in favor of homo couples being able to adopt, as the mother/father relationship is proven to be best for raising kids.

"So if times have truly changed, "

They have. Which is why non-property-owning women and blacks can now vote. It's also why Prohibition - previously a Constitutional amendment - is an archaic piece of history now, as we learned that you can't legislate morality.

BTW, I'm thoroughly enjoying this exchange, as you are intelligent and have taught me a few things. Thanks for keeping this above the beltline!

1. AS to your typo, I once posted on here that China had 6 billion people. Brain farts happen. I just couldn't resist pointing it out.

More seriously, although the 3/5 compromise is morally indefensible now, the choice was either no Union, as the South would not ratify without some provision for slaves or a Union in which slavery allowed the slaves states to exercise enormous power if their slave populations weren't counted. Do you think either of those alternatives were better than forming a union in which slavery could eventually be banned?

2. The things that you all point to as "times have changed" all refer to democratically enacted processes. Suffrage issues and prohibition were all issues dealt within the constitution and ratified by the people. The only way that any state in the Union recognizes homosexual marriage is because of the acts of judges. As we speak, the democratic processes in Massachusetts are working to overturn that decision. I prefer to defer to the electorate on whether times have changed.

2. The arguments against homosexual marriage and interracial marriage are qualitatively different.
A: Anti-miscegnation laws discriminated on the
status of individuals, i.e, their race. Outside
of Michael Jackson, no one can change their
race. Homosexuality is a behavior and choices
are made to engage in that behavior. Thus,
comparing homsexuality to race is comparing
apples to oranges. and please no comments on the
fruit pun.
B: In overturning anti-miscegnation laws, the
fundamental definition of marriage as a union of
one man, one woman did not change. Homosexual
marriage is a fundamental redefinition of
marriage.
C: Anti-miscegantion laws were just as much an equal
protection violation as to whites as to black.
What they said in essence was that while a black
man could marry a black woman, a white man could
not.
The FMA is not arguing that homosexuals cannot
marry. It is simply saying that they cannot
marry someone of the same sex. As heterosexuals,
you and I are bound by the same restriction.
Therefore, there is not the same equal-protection
violation as in denying mixed race marriages.
3. You argue that homosexual marriage does not threaten heterosexual marriage. First, I suggest you read Howard Kurtz's analysis of the Scandinavian countries that have legalized same-sex marriage. There traditional marriage rates have plummeted.

Secondly, I point to the case of Bishop Gene Robinson of the Episcopal Church. In his case, he left his family for his homosexual lover when the stigma, both within his church and the community at large, was much tougher against such things. When the state essentially gives society;s blessings on homosexual marriage, isn't it likely that other marginal marriages that might otherwise be saved will hit the tipping point? Who knows what the numbers will be, but for those families, the results will be disastrous.

4. Legislating morality. This is my favorite argument. I'll hit you with (should have been Justice) Bork's though experiment on this issue. Do you support criminalizing animal cruelty, not discussing food/medical testing, in a situation in which the torture of the animal takes place in a soundproof room? People know it happens but it does not constitute an actionable nuisance, so the rights of other humans are not being violated. If you think the SOB torturing Fluffy should be dealt with in whatever fashion by the state, you sir ( I assume sir because your name gives no clue, Advanced apologies for any mistake) are legislating morality.

Indeed, your argument that interracial marriage should not be outlawed is also a form of legislating morality. If a state wants to outlaw such marriages, you are imposing your morality to say their morality is wrong. And, quite frankly, I agree with you.

5. I'll grant you that the divorce rate and the idiotic Spears marriage are threats to the institution. They are also results of previous attempts to monkey around with marriage in the name of greater "freedom." The sorry shape of marriage today is evidence as to why we should try to be preserving the institution and not morphing it into an anything goes party.

6. Wrapping it all, I have to apologize for the length of this post. I too am enjoying intelligent, above the belt line hits.

1. "More seriously, although the 3/5 compromise is morally indefensible now, the choice was either no Union, as the South would not ratify without some provision for slaves or a Union in which slavery allowed the slaves states to exercise enormous power if their slave populations weren't counted. Do you think either of those alternatives were better than forming a union in which slavery could eventually be banned?"

Excellent reply, to which I counter (i.e. concede defeat on slavery) with a request of an explanation of Prohibition, which was a direct 'product of the times' aka WCTU protests, etc. and ended up a disastrous attempt at legislating their morality?

2. "As we speak, the democratic processes in Massachusetts are working to overturn that decision. I prefer to defer to the electorate on whether times have changed."

This is a draw, then, as I am in favor of states' right to decide an issue such as this. No Amendment to the Constitution.

3. "...Homosexuality is a behavior and choices
are made to engage in that behavior. "

While I actually agree with you, there is no scientific evidence emphatically proving either point. Personally, I see it more as a mental illness...but handicapped people are allowed to marry in this country, to my knowledge. Also, given the really negative lifestyle that constitutes the stereotypical, multi-partnered, 'flaming', 'perverse' gay , I think someone would HAVE to be mentally ill to choose that lifestyle of alienation from normal society.

3. "There traditional marriage rates have plummeted."

As they have here...

"he left his family for his homosexual lover..."

This guy's marriage sounds doomed anyways, honestly. I have known of several hetero couples that were all briefly involved in a 'swingers' lifestyle (with different sets of people), all of whose marriages collapsed. How is this not worthy of legislation also, as I personally consider anyone who'd watch someone else bang their wife to be as 'perverse' and immoral as the flamingest of pillow-biters? This minister should've never been looking in the first place and probably shouldn't have married in the first place.

4. "Do you support criminalizing animal cruelty, not discussing food/medical testing, in a situation in which the torture of the animal takes place in a soundproof room? People know it happens but it does not constitute an actionable nuisance, so the rights of other humans are not being violated. If you think the SOB torturing Fluffy should be dealt with in whatever fashion by the state, you sir ( I assume sir because your name gives no clue, Advanced apologies for any mistake) are legislating morality."

You got the gender correct - LOL! It's short for 'Beelzebubba', which is already taken here, believe it or not. It was a character name from an online game played long ago, but I digress....

I don't feel that animals should be given the same rights as humans, so I wouldn't support legislation to the contrary.

5." I'll grant you that the divorce rate and the idiotic Spears marriage are threats to the institution. They are also results of previous attempts to monkey around with marriage in the name of greater "freedom." The sorry shape of marriage today is evidence as to why we should try to be preserving the institution and not morphing it into an anything goes party."

So what do we do - shut down Vegas 24 hr. chapels? Require people to sign something saying that they've dated X years and are thus, ready for marriage? How do we stop people from making mistakes of the heart? Good luck here - you could make a TON of cash if you figure this out. Hell, you could have your own TV Talk Show! Smack Oprah for me, if this happens.

6. Wrapping it all, I have to apologize for the length of this post. I too am enjoying intelligent, above the belt line hits."

Just to guarantee a response, I going to claim victory, based on my numerous, irrefutable points above! (joking? :)

If that's not proof enough, what will be accepted?

You can't remember if George Washington had made statements about homosexuals as the other poster claimed, but I'm supposed to believe it happened and that it's proof in lieu of a "way back" machine?

C'mon, give the world a break. The poster said something imbecilic, and until you can prove it wasn't with hard proof, it remains imbecilic.

George Washington never said the things the other poster attributed to him, so save yourself some time. And save me some time by dropping this goofy contention.

The statement was, "".. homosexuality is a filthy and evil perversion and not only shouldn't be approved by the government, but should be vigorously stamped out. "

He never said that nor anything like it, the poster made it up, and then disappeared. You should too.

1. Prohibition failed because the Mann act lacked sufficient powers to enforce the law. Enforcement was given to the Treasury Department instead of the Justice Department and FBI. So while that was a failed attempt at moral enforcement, it does not prove that morals cannot be enforced by legislature, it merely requires a well drafted statute and proper enforcement.

2. The states rights retreat will not work because of the Full Faith and Credit clause. Right now, it looks like the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) will be struck down by a federal judge in Florida and the federal rule allowing states to ignore the marriages of sister states will be voided. If that happens, Full Faith and Credit will be used to force folks to accept a Massachusetts marriage.

3. I knew plenty of folks who thought homosexuality was chic and dabbled in it during high school/college. As society's stigma against homosexuality ends, there is less pressure for people to conform to traditional norms.

4. Marriage rates have gone south farther in the Scandinavian nations than the US.

I do not deny that Robinson's marriage was in trouble. That's my point. If a marriage is on the margin, society has to do everything to support the marriage. De-stigmatizing homosexuality, as we have done with adultery, does not do that.

5. Okay, so you'll let Fluffy be tortured. Yet where do you draw the line before what you consider an unacceptable enforcement of morality? I support animal cruelty laws, not based on animals having any rights except to taste really good with barbecue sauce, but just that I find such activities repugnant.

6. To making marriages like the Spears fiasco harder, that is a hard problem.

I like the idea of covenant marriages. They do have waiting periods, both for getting in and getting out. If we could figure out a way to encourage them, that would be a good thing.

Ending no fault, divorce on demand would be another. Even if you consider marriage as just a basic contract, rather than a scared covenant, it shouldn;t be easier to break a marriage contract than a contract to pay for your Dominos Pizza. Unilateral divorce should be limited to cases of adultery, abuse or addiction. The wrong party, i.e the abusive drunk who can't keep it in his pants, should not just get half.

I do have to give major props to "Beelzebubba."

5. I believer your declaration of victory is a tad premature.

1. Animals eat their young as well. Should we follow that example?

As to its destructiveness to society, ask the Spartans and Romans how helpful it was for their civilizations.

2. Your first Amendment argument is incorrect. Read the debates from the Congressional drafting of the amendment. Madison, the drafter of the amendment, said that it would not have the effect of disestablishing churches that were official churches in their states, as a majority of states had such institutions. At the same time, he also drafted the legislation creating the office of a paid Congressional chaplain which was passed by the same Congress that passed the First Amendment. That Congress also re-authorized the Northwest ordinance which compelled federally funded religious education in the territories. Clearly the establishment clause was meant to do exactly what it said, to forbid a federally established Church, like the Church of England.

The concept of the "separation of church and state" came from Jefferson. He had nothing to do with drafting or passing the First Amendment, as he was in France at the time. Jefferson's views on the First Amendment have no relevance on its meaning. It would be akin to asking a lobbyist to provide meaning rather than the legislators who passed it.

1. " it does not prove that morals cannot be enforced by legislature,"

Maybe not, but it does show the collossally negative results of such an attempt.

2. " Full Faith and Credit will be used to force folks to accept a Massachusetts marriage."

Good points here.

3. "As society's stigma against homosexuality ends, there is less pressure for people to conform to traditional norms."

Would legislation prevent this ending to the ending of society's stigma? Would legislation prevent gays from falling in love with each other? No. Gays aren't going away. As long as they are born American and pay taxes, I don't see a legal reason to prevent their civil unions.

4. "If a marriage is on the margin, society has to do everything to support the marriage. De-stigmatizing homosexuality, as we have done with adultery, does not do that."

Yeah, but 'society' can do NOTHING to bring people back together who've fallen out of love. You can be a matchmaker and encourage healthy relationships to thrive and continue, but good luck on getting bitter people who've fallen out of love back together, regardless of orientation.

5. "Okay, so you'll let Fluffy be tortured. Yet where do you draw the line before what you consider an unacceptable enforcement of morality? I support animal cruelty laws, not based on animals having any rights except to taste really good with barbecue sauce, but just that I find such activities repugnant."

I support animal testing that benefits humans and would support legislation to make it (testing) as painless and effective (so as to not waste the animal's life) as possible. I would also support legislation that makes just-plain-cruel behavior (teenagers torching kittens,etc.) a crime. Other than that, animals should be petted, eaten, or left alone.

6. "Ending no fault, divorce on demand would be another. Even if you consider marriage as just a basic contract, rather than a scared covenant, it shouldn;t be easier to break a marriage contract than a contract to pay for your Dominos Pizza. Unilateral divorce should be limited to cases of adultery, abuse or addiction. The wrong party, i.e the abusive drunk who can't keep it in his pants, should not just get half."

We're in agreement here.

"I do have to give major props to "Beelzebubba."

[nods and tips cap]

7. "5. I believer your declaration of victory is a tad premature."

5? My declaration was only a joke to ensure a good, intelligent response. To which I say "Mission Accomplished"!

My apologies for the brevity of my past posts. I was on brief study breaks and couldn;t address all your replies

1. Prohibition showing a negative effect because of bad enforcement does not argue against morals being enforceable. Another example I can think of where there's no real reason, outside of moral repugnance, for government to regulate the issue. You heard of the German cannibal case, where a consenting adult allowed himself to be killed and eaten by another consenting adult? Three was no evidence of mental illness on the deceased's part. I don't see how anyone's rights were violated but I'm still happy the gourmet is in jail.

2. Glad we agree.

3. Legislation is a sign of society's stigma. Laws passed, or repealed by, democratic representatives reflect society's norms.

As to civil unions, it's just marriage by another name. I'm not in the argument for the word but the institution.

A better solution would be to have all the ACLU lawyers seeking to overturn democratically enacted marriage laws to turn their energy to educating their constituents. The issues brought up for the need for "gay marriage" are things like inheritance, medical issues and other legal matters. These can all be addressed with wills and powers of attorney. Just as Ian leave my estate, meager as it is, to my Mom without marrying her, a gay person can will property at will (factoring out any spousal election rules for Bishop Gene types).

The fact that this easier and less controversial solution is ignored tells me that the issue is not equal protection. It is about forcing society to not only tolerate their behavior but to give it gushing endorsement.

BTW, the equal protection argument fails. The law does not say that gays cannot marry. It simply says that a man cannot marry a man. I, as a heterosexual man, cannot marry a man. The law applies equally to all.

This is qualitatively different from anti-miscegnation laws. The laws back then said that a black man could marry a black woman but a white could not. That was an equal protection violation because not everyone was covered by the same laws.

4. As to getting bitter people back together, society did a pretty good job before no-fault divorce. That genius of an idea - originally said to help women but ending up screwing them because they were not usually the at-fault party - again eased up on social pressure to try and make a marriage work.

5. Glad we agree on covenant marriage. The South has some great legal ideas, some of the greatest historical theorists. When I was working in DC, they had this thing in Virginia called project exile where if you committed a crime with a gun, the state gave you to the feds when they were done. It brought the crime rates way down because the parole rules are so much harsher in federal prison and it showed that existing gun laws work when enforced as opposed to just writing more laws that won't be enforced. Anyway, a long way to say, Virginia and the other southern states have some great ideas.

6. So I think mission may not be accomplished but more accomplished than before.

Prologue: "My apologies for the brevity of my past posts. I was on brief study breaks and couldn;t address all your replies"

None are necessary. What are you studying and where? I'm a degreed engineer from GaTech whose now in IT as a developer. Go figure.

1. "You heard of the German cannibal case, where a consenting adult allowed himself to be killed and eaten by another consenting adult? Three was no evidence of mental illness on the deceased's part. I don't see how anyone's rights were violated but I'm still happy the gourmet is in jail."

Yeah, but a human being was killed by another, which meets the legal definition of murder. Closer to home, there's still assisted suicide laws in Oregon and obviously, abortion - both of which are legal. I'm personally in favor of the former (assisted suicide) and against federal funding of the latter.

2. Ditto

3. "Laws passed, or repealed by, democratic representatives reflect society's norms."

Yet those 'norms' can change, and have done so throughout history.

"A better solution would be to have all the ACLU lawyers seeking to overturn democratically enacted marriage laws to turn their energy to educating their constituents."

What - and figure out that the ACLU is full of hor$e$hit 95% of the time? NEVER!

"It is about forcing society to not only tolerate their behavior but to give it gushing endorsement"

Which will never happen. Too many people like you & I have no intention of ever endorsing that lifestyle.

"The law does not say that gays cannot marry. It simply says that a man cannot marry a man. I, as a heterosexual man, cannot marry a man. The law applies equally to all."

True, but allowing them to have false hetero marriages is as big of an insult and 'threat' to traditional marriage as anything else.

Gotta run - work calls. Thanks again for the polite civil discourse. It's becoming rarer and rarer to find these days.

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.