End Government Recognition of Marriage

16 July 2004 | Me

[society-by-contract]

Have you read anything that explores the disputes regarding social security benefits, employee benefit packages, etc?

As a voluntarist, I reject the idea of coercive government retirement schemes such as Social Security. As for private employers, that is their own business as to whether or not they want to provide benefits for private marriages.

[society-by-contract]

This is the position of libertarians (generally extreme secularist cultural liberals) who don't have the guts to say they want sodomite marriage

Oral sex is sodomy. Do you object to heterosexual oral sex (sodomy) within a state-sanctioned marriage?

[tortoise]

As any Sociologist will admit marriage is the vehicle for wealth generation and as many have pointed out the fundamental building block of society in general.

Family is, not marriage. It is a distinction that matters, and which many people here are oblivious to. "Marriage" is currently just a government bureaucratic institution, not to be confused with anything relating to "family".

Those two words stopped being synonymous a long time ago. Its time to stop pretending they are the same, because it certainly won't be true as long as the government is defining it. Marriage was nothing more than a popular social mechanism for achieving family. Family is not dependent on marriage, nor vice versa.

[Modernman]

And that is different from here in what way?

The welfare state in those places is bigger than in the US. As a result, marriage is in even worse shape. If our welfare/nanny-state keeps growing, marriage in this country will keep declining.

[ijcr]

Whoa,there hoss!

"Marriage" is currently just a government bureaucratic institution, not to be confused with anything relating to "family".

God defined marriage...and it is in the Common Good that government protects it.

Family is not dependent on marriage, nor vice versa.

May, I recommend a day in Probate Court...where vice versa,marriage and family meet in the arena of judicial mayhem.

[Voice in your head]

"I reject the idea of coercive government retirement schemes such as Social Security. As for private employers, that is their own business as to whether or not they want to provide benefits for private marriages."

I agree. I'm just curious if you've read anything that discusses likely disputes arising over those issues, if marriage were to be "privatized".

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Parallel argument: Some kids live in homes where two divorced women who do not have sex, help each other with the kids. Why deny benefits to them? Should we remove those kids from that situation? Some kids live in state run facilities. Shall we call the group of workers who take care of them "married"?

There are always situations outside the ideal. But if we are obligated to equate everything, then you are essentially saying that marriage cannot exist under the constitution. If it exists even as it does in Massachusetts, it leaves some people -- poeple with children -- out. The point of marriage (who knew a 5,000 year old institution was going to need such vigorous defense) is to encourage the ideal. The gov't has an interest because where parents fail, gov't steps in. It is perfectly logical and just for gov't to recognize and define a family according to how nature defines a family.

[Voice in your head]

"Your argument that government recognition be withdrawn from marriage is straight from Marxs' lips."

Even if that were true, which it is not, your posts in this thread have been straight from your intestines. Which is worse?

"The rationale that marriage when removed from State protection will prosper fails to take into account inheritance rights,immigration issues, plus the over 1000 Federal benefits and occasionally set backs that are available for married couples."

Did you read the article or are you just commenting on the title?

[asmith92008]

What's the difference between "civil union" and marriage except the word? A rose by any other name....

[asmith92008]

Well then let's just drop all requirements for marriage. I'm sure there are quite nice polygamous folks and probably few decent incestuous relationships out there too. Who needs culture and tradition, anyway?

[asmith92008]

Well, the same could be said for America. The majority disapprove of homosexuality and homosexual marriage but our "enlightened" leaders of both parties vote so that they'll still get invitations to the right parties.

[asmith92008]

When one quotes the Simpsons, he should at least have the courtesy to attribute the source. Common decncy here.

[asmith92008]

For several thousand years, government has done quite a job at protecting marriage. It is only in the last 40-60 years that marriage has been threatened and that threat comes from a libertarian - more accurately libertine - world view of do what you want if it feels good, no matter who it hurts. If we had the guts to stand up to those voices, no matter which party they claim, we'd be a lot better off.

[asmith92008]

In colonial America, homosexuality was a crime. Were the Founders "Hitler, Taliban, Stalin?" I believe the Founders did stand for a Constitution and could quite likely be described as conservative. Our nation once had a common sense of decency that was enforced by law and yet the more "mature" and "enlightened" residents of Europe flocked to the freedom assured by a virtuous society..

[Batrachian]

Go back to DU, you sorry POS liberal interloper. Your kind isn't wanted here.

[Batrachian]

Not necessary. I cut and pasted it from this person's FR homepage. It was meant for him, and he knows damn well where it came from.

[Voice in your head]

"For several thousand years, government has done quite a job at protecting marriage."

How so?