Skip to comments.End Government Recognition of Marriage
Posted on 07/16/2004 8:09:37 AM PDT by Voice in your head
click here to read article
" I guess we can't enforce any morality "
Nope. It's America, supposedly the land of freedom. That means the freedom to do whatever you choose, as long as it's not illegal and doesn't impede life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.
I guess I see women as the "producers", since getting a sperm donor takes only a matter of a bit of money, sometimes it can happen for free. And, yes, one can go outside the relationship to get the needed gamete, but the children are raised within the relationship that the parent(s) provide.
In times when test-tube babies, surrogate mothers, and artificial insemination were not possible, and sperm donation through actual intercourse was the only (deeply frowned on) way, family law was set up. Today, with effective means of conception control, and the forms of offspring creation outside of traditional marriage being considered legal, marriage and family can indeed be considered separate and distinct in the lives of at least some people.
Does this destroy "the family"? The vast majority of our fellow citizens are going to reproduce the old fashioned way, by finding a partner of the opposite sex, marrying and mating (I suppose not necessarily always in that order), and about half of them staying together at least through the period of time necessary to raise the children to their own reproductive age.
I guess being an adopted child gives me a perspective on "family" that might be different from others here.
It is exactly that.
WHAT?! Speak for yourself.
Absolutely. In the early days of this nation, a young feller and his girl thinking about getting marriage would NEVER have thought about asking their government for permission. The church was the source of marriage. Government should be out of the marrying business altogether.
I'm all for it. I use my wife's situation as an example. Her mother lives with us, and her daughter is going off to college, out of state, this fall. If I (or any other man) had not come along, my wife and her mother would be the sole members of the household. Why shouldn't they be able to inherit from each other, tax-free? Why shouldn't they be able to make medical decisions for each other in case of disability? Why shouldn't the survivor have the right to make burial arrangements for the other?
But if we are obligated to equate everything, then you are essentially saying that marriage cannot exist under the constitution.
Marriage is not a Constitutional institution. Civil marriage is a state-sanctioned institution, with state rules. Even the IRS follows state rules on marriage, with regard to who is married, and what property is separate and what is community property for tax purposes.
It is perfectly logical and just for gov't to recognize and define a family according to how nature defines a family.
I guess the difference between some of us in dealing with the question of "who is a family?" involves whether or not we want to examine people's genitals first.
That sounds like a statistical approach. More marriages not resulting in divorce is not necessarily a preservation of strong families.
You wrote: "If folks trying to get married were not men and women, no marriage." I proposed leaving that responsibility to the churches. Can we trust the government to uphold that standard, more than we can trust the churches? I think not.
I'll try and answer that one.
The reason is to protect the family. Historically and Biblically the family is the central institution in law and in society. Although we do not think of the family normally as a law-making body, the family is nonetheless the basic law-making body in all of history. Every point of power and authority is also a point of law, and historically, family law has been the basic law of mankind. In any society or institution, there are basic rules of conduct, and these rules of conduct constitute its law structure. The family is man's basic law-making body because of a variety of reasons, but certainly one of the first of these is the fact that its is the first place man, as a child, encounters law, rules of conduct, and his idea of law is shaped and defined to a great degree by the family. Life is seen through a law-structure which the family gives to the child, and this law structure defines life for the child. But this is not all. The child's attitude towards every other institution and its laws is largely shaped by the family. How the child approaches and reacts to church, school, state, and society depends greatly on his source of law, parental authority. He can face these other law making bodies rebelliously, or he can face them obediently. His attitude can be constructive, destructive, or indifferent, depending on his family background to a large degree. Every parent daily is a law-making person, a focal point of law-enforcement, and the delinquency of parents in this respect is the delinquency before God, their Lord and sovereign.
The family is man's first and basic school, and it is the first government in the life of a child. It is the father that is ordained by God as head of the household and his government is under God is the child's basic government. The child is not the only one governed by the family. The mother is governed by her activities by the requirements of her husband and children. The father is governed by the necessities of providing for the family, protecting them, and giving them the example and leadership they need. Where the family is not self-supporting, there is neither power nor authority in the person of the father. Welfare families, from the days of the Roman Empire to the present, have been notorious for their undisciplined, immoral, and delinquent characters, and welfare families have always been marked by a general lack of male authority. A man who will not provide for his family, accumalate respect, and cherish private property, will have neither the authority nor the ability to govern with wisdom and honor. Lacking self-government, he cannot govern others.
This brings me to another function of the family...it's economic function. The father provides for his family, not for strangers. Welfare agencies provide somewhat for millions of Americans, but the family system provides far more support for hundreds of MILLIONS! Under the family system, children are not only intellectually motivated for the best educational results, but they are economically financed through grade and high school, college, and sometimes graduate school. In terms of sheer economic effienciency, nothing in all of history has ever equalled the family. Compare this to the Communist failures. The family brings social stability and order to society.
This is one of the TRUE reasons for marriage. If the government chooses to redefine marriage, they will most certainly destroy the family and destroy our civilization.
Statistics have shown that children in "weak" marriages, that is parents who feel personally unfulfilled, still ending up having less social pathologies than those who grow up without a mother and father. A mother and father act as a support system and guard dogs from the outside world. There's a reason that predator's target children in broken homes. secondly, we can trust the government to uphold that standard because no people has ever voted for homosexual marriage. Even now, it is being imposed by courts. In a democratic republic, the people can, and must be, trusted to guard their social institutions. The trouble we have had has not come from the exercise of democratic will. It seems to me that libertarian minded people have some paranoid fear that their fellow citizens cannot be trusted with guarding society's traditions.
Homosexual Agenda Ping - a vanity on how to preserve marriage (by getting the government to not recognize any marriages... hmmmm.)
I don't agree with the assertion of the article. There is much discussion, pro and con, in the thread. Check it out.
Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.
Read the thread, and here's one comment.
Voice in my head is saying: the patient is sick so therefore should be killed.
I say cure the disease, don't kill the patient.
Why not just let them read the article, rather than giving them a dishonest summary?
The reason is to protect the family."
I was asking how the government has protected marriage, not why it should.
"If the government chooses to redefine marriage, they will most certainly destroy the family and destroy our civilization."
Redefining marriage is not an issue that I raised.
Geez, you're being a little thin skinned. I run the Homosexual Agenda Pinglist, and I usually (almost always unless I'm dropping with exhaustion) give a little commentary about the articles I ping the list to. I don't discourage the people on the list from reading the articles and threads; on the contrary, I encourage them to read, and join in the discussion.
You're getting off easy because I'm tired. If it was morning, you'd get a lot more commentary. Not all negative, mind you. Just more.
The shortcoming of statistics is that, when all is said and done, they are just numbers. What about divorces that result in one or both of the people getting happily re-married, rather than remaining in a miserable marriage? I know of several (my mother) such cases. Which kids have fewer social pathologies - those who grow up in a household where parents have "strong" marriages or those who grow up in a household where the parents have "weak" marriages?
"we can trust the government to uphold that standard because no people has ever voted for homosexual marriage. Even now, it is being imposed by courts."
Are the courts not part of the government?
"In a democratic republic, the people can, and must be, trusted to guard their social institutions."
Why the insistence that they use government in this endeavor?
Government must be involved in marriage.
At the start of this nation, marriage was only recorded in a non-uniform means. church records were not reliable and inconsistent. Additionally people went to the courts to disolve a marriage with only a church record to prove a marriage.
Thus the governement has to have the central role of record keeper. A license is just a recording and a means on making sure those that marry are legally able.
Laws such as inheritance, incompetency, medical surrogacy are all dependent on a consitent and uniform rule of marriage.
Additionally as a society we reward the insitution not the individual. Marriage is about promoting the insititution which proliferates the society for future generations. Homosexuality only proliferates recreational sex.
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.