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.

"It is right that the government encourage stable families and societal groups. It is not right for the government to impose a religiously held view upon its citizens without their expressed consent. And Americans, by dint of the First Amendment, have expressly denied the government that consent."

I do not think that the government is imposing any kind of religiously held view on us, by recognizing and/or giving preferential treatment to married couples. I do not see the traditional, committed, man-woman, monogamous relationship as a religious phenomenon, though it is has obviously been encouraged by Judaism and Christianity. Partaking in a religious ceremony, vowing before God commitment to one another, and then fulfilling that sacred vow throughout their life together is a religious phenomenon. If government were to require that a religious ceremony be a criterion for eligibility for recognition as a married couple, then that would be an imposition of a religious view.

It is certainly noble that government has long encouraged stable families and social groups via marriage. However, the fact that the goal was noble does not give the policy merit in regard to whether it is a proper function of the government.

I'm actually just graduated from law school, the University of San Diego School of Law. I'm sitting for the California Bar next week. I'm working on getting into the Navy JAG Corps, though for some reason I don't think I'll ever get in a dogfight or foil an international assassin.

1. How can you favor assisted suicide but condemn the German case? If a human being killing another is the legal definition of murder, then so is assisted suicide.

3. I agree that norms change. The fact that no democratic action has ever allowed gay marriage in America is proof to me that times haven;t changed much on that issue.

As to endorsing the gay lifestyle, if we recognize "gay families" we will have to change our language. The words mother and father will vanish. "Heather Has Two Mommies" will become a standard textbook. If the state recognizes "gay marriage" its organs will have to promote that lifestyle as acceptable.

Finally, I'm not arguing that they be forced into false heterosexual marriages. Rather, they are simply bound by the same law as everyone else. There are lots of relationships society refuses to recognize. This is simply one of them.

"1. How can you favor assisted suicide but condemn the German case? If a human being killing another is the legal definition of murder, then so is assisted suicide."

I'm in favor of sane people being allowed to choose the method of their passing, given that they have some uncurable, life-ending affliction; whereas the Kraut in question was simply a nutcase into S&M&C(cannibalism). Honestly, the world's probably a better place without a guy who expressed a desire to be eaten. Oregonians seem pretty happy with their current asst'd suicide laws.

3. "3. I agree that norms change. The fact that no democratic action has ever allowed gay marriage in America is proof to me that times haven;t changed much on that issue."

Although this doesn't constitute the actions necessary for an Amendment, I'd have no problems with this issue going on the ballots in November and letting the people decide. I'd go along with whatever 'our' decision would be.

"I'm sitting for the California Bar next week. I'm working on getting into the Navy JAG Corps, though for some reason I don't think I'll ever get in a dogfight or foil an international assassin."

Good luck to you, btw!!

1. Just 'cause you don't agree with nutcase Krauts who are into S&M&C, doesn't make them crazy. Do I detect enforcement of morals here?

As to the assisted suicide laws, there are plenty of issues that we as a society have felt important enough not to leave to the states. Voting and not owning slaves come to mind. Those are things that society feels are so important to a functioning society that we don;t let states experiment with them. I think sanctity of innocent life (assisted suicide) and the definition of marriage are issues of similar importance.

" Just 'cause you don't agree with nutcase Krauts who are into S&M&C, doesn't make them crazy. Do I detect enforcement of morals here?"

Actually, I think cannibalism does (or should) qualify as some sort of mental illness. What you detect here is an enforcement of societal norms, as legalized cannibalism has no place in a civilized society. Simply put, you can't allow people to go around eating each other without ramifications other than a stomach ache.

"It must have been someone's something I ate" can never be used to describe one's stomach pains.

While I quite agree that one's food should only disagree with him after the meal and not before, this comes from a moral judgment that human life is precious. Therefore, the law can stop consenting adults who had no history of mental illness, i.e. they can distinguish reality from fantasy, event though they are not infringing on other's rights.

I believe the fact that we don;t see more incidents like this, even though there appears to be quite a subculture on the net from the news reports about this case, is attributable to the effectiveness of legislating morals. Folks might want to eat each other but realize they'll get sent to a place where their potential meals are certainly not free range.

Thanks for typing these comments - I've had a good laugh already and it's Monday AM...

"While I quite agree that one's food should only disagree with him after the meal and not before, "

LMFAO!

"where their potential meals are certainly not free range."

Brilliant!

I also think that the subculture you refer to has a bunch of phony pretender types who, if they had the chance, wouldn't go thru with the deed.

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.