Skip to comments.End Government Recognition of Marriage
Posted on 07/16/2004 8:09:37 AM PDT by Voice in your head
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 governments 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 couples 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.
You're wrong. As homosexuals submit to their perverted, deviant behavior, they have no self-control or discipline which eventually surfaces in other aspects of their lives. Those who aren't wise look at what is done now and convince themselves there are no immediate consequences, so they think they can continue to engage in risky behavior. They don't connect their long-term destruction as a result. Then, they errantly conclude there are no negative end results to OTHER behavioral issues.
It's no wonder many are or become drug abusers, pedophiles, exhibitionists, and the list continues. It is on that premise that what they do DOES impact society - every aspect.
For "straights" to be forced to accept them as "normal" only exacerbates the problem. No one can be corrected if they're never told they're wrong or can prevent hurt when they're not told that what they're doing is harmful to both them and those around them.
Communicable diseases are found to be more rampant and much harder to contain and cure among the homosexual community. Their health care cost alone, and its impact to society is enormous when they seek treatment and dangerously caustic to society if they remain undiagnosed..
"Marriage should be privatized. Let people make their own marriage contracts according to their conscience, religion and common sense. Those contracts could be registered with the state, recognized as legal and arbitrated by the courts, but the terms would be determined by those involved."
For those with the money and the interest, that can be done now. Gov't recognition of marriage is a least common denominator approach to providing legal protection to those being married and any children from the marriage.
So if a flasher has a family life simmilar to the one above, should his flashing be lawful? How about groups that do all of the above? Why legislate the term "couple" if a group of three can be a family? Especially if they like to watch tv and walk the dog together.
Paine was married a couple of times. His issue was with England and the Monarchy.
I have been saying for many years, follow the money, always follow the money.
I believe it.
Here are some others who agree with you.
This article ASSUMES that civil law has no deterant value which IMHO is incorrect.
Karl Marx and Frederick Engels
of the Communist Party
Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.
On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among proletarians, and in public prostitution.
The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.
Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.
But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.
And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, etc.? The Communists have not intended the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.
The bourgeois claptrap about the family and education, about the hallowed correlation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labor.
But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.
The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.
He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.
For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce free love; it has existed almost from time immemorial.
My,my...your ideas seem to have been espoused in 1848.
Government is the easiest tool for hedonists to use in destroying marriage, which is why we should get government out of the business of selling marriage certificates and, in the process, defining what a marriage is.
I've never seen this point of view published or heard it spoken. Do you have a URL?
Thanks. Some good points in there. Have you read anything that explores the disputes regarding social security benefits, employee benefit packages, etc?
I agree. However, I believe that they are also acting in concert with those who want to see all of our moral and legal traditions, marriage included, destroyed. While this may simply be "collateral damage" so far as the Homosexual Agenda is concerned, such tactics are also at the heart of the Left and their agenda.
I find it essential for me to oppose both of their agendas.
How does post #49 relate to my article?
Amen......you said it all!!!
I totally agree with that. I think the most logical way to ensure that marriage remains sacred and protected is to have an institution with morals safeguard it. Government has no morals - it is a tool for the most dispicable elements in our society (politicians) and gleans its power by appealing to the lowest common denominator (majority of voters).
>>I know several gay couples, and guess what? Their 'family life' is surprisingly similar to that of all the straight couples I know! They wake up, make coffee, walk the dog, go to work, come home, make dinner, watch tv, do the dishes, mow the lawn, etc...<<
Yeah, kind of like the "Odd Couple." Then again, neither can possibly produce kids, and would not be considered a married couple and family - Which is why marriage exists, and why the state has a vested interest in preserving and nurturing the next generation of good citizens.
Remember, homosexuality is not sex. It is sexual perversion and not to be tolerated as "normal and healthy," for it is neither.
>>In places like the Netherlands and Scandinavia, marriage is in decline due to the pervasiveness of the socialist nanny-state which has eliminated the need for a stable two-parent family to provide for children.<<
And that is different from here in what way?
Maybe you're unaware of the fact that gay couples can adopt nearly everywhere in the US, and that lesbians can always find a sympathetic friend and a turkey baster. Quite a few have kids from a previous straight relationship. I hope that all of them are trying to raise their kids as good citizens.
In any case, are you going to make the kids in these relationships suffer because of the circumstances of their parents? And no, you're not going to be able to take all of these kids out of those homes and put them with Ozzie-and-Harriett families, there just aren't enough of them out there waiting to adopt non-infants.