Posted on 04/01/2013 1:42:04 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Last week at RedState, we spent a lot of time focusing on politics from a faith perspective because it was Holy Week. Throughout the week, many people who support gay marriage lambasted me and others that Christians were just trying to use government to legislate marriage or morality.
But I agree that we should keep the government out of marriage.
Last I checked, George and Martha Washington did not get remarried after 1776 when the United States declared independence from Great Britain. Nor did they do so after 1789, when the constitution was enacted.
In fact, not one of the founding fathers married prior to 1776 remarried the same person after the United States was formed.
Government did not create marriage. The only laws on the books related to marriage are state laws and federal laws that recognize the marriage structure that previously existed before the government established them.
To be sure, over time those marriages evolved. The age of consent and the ability to contract have changed and impacted marriage, but the structure and operation of marriage were still the same.
The most significant changes in the law regarding marriage have been on how to end a marriage, not how to begin a marriage or what constitutes a marriage.
But marriage pre-existed the state and has evolved institutionally over a few thousand years.
What’s happening now is that gay marriage advocates are attempting to use the state to change marriage. When they say Christians are trying to use the state to legislate their version of marriage, they are full of crap. All Christians are doing is defending an institution that already exists from being changed to something it has never been.
It is the gay marriage advocates who want to force, by the power of the state, a pre-existing institution to change. If the state has the power to change the definition of an institution that it did not create, the state can force everyone to do so. It is already happening in this country at the state level.
Marriage may evolve to include gays one day. But the time is not there year. The laws enacted across the country to preserve the status quo are just that — there to keep the state, via the courts or legislature from changing an institution neither the courts nor legislatures of the several states created, but chose to recognize.
Let’s be clear here — you can support gay marriage, but don’t tell me Christians are trying to legislate their version of marriage. The only people trying to legislate, from the bench or otherwise, are gay rights advocates who refuse to let the institution naturally evolve because of their own impatience for the trappings of normalcy in a society that has long viewed them as outside the mainstream.
That the loudest proponents of gay marriage cannot even be honest in what’s going on loudly suggests they are not being honest when they say they’re cool with conscientious objectors to the whole idea. Consider, for example, this blog post from the Cato Institute entitled, “We Support Gay Marriage but Oppose Forcing People to Support It.”
They filed an amicus brief in support of Elane Photography, which was punished in New Mexico for refusing to help a gay wedding. Cato bases its defense on photography being protected by the first amendment. But note this:
Our brief explains that photography is an art form protected by the First Amendment because clients seek out the photographer’s method of staging, posing, lighting, and editing. Photography is thus a form of expression subject to the First Amendment’s protection, unlike many other wedding-related businesses (e.g., caterers, hotels, limousine drivers).
So if you are a Christian caterer, bed and breakfast, etc. too bad. You will be forced to provide services to a gay wedding. You will be made to by the power of the state. That’s where we are headed. If the state has the power to change the definition of an institution it did not create, the state can compel your services to that institution.
So yes, let’s keep the government out of marriage. Its definition will change over time through the natural evolution of all institutions. That evolution may include gay marriage, but it might not.
This is true, but its also true that such benefits are for the posterity of the man(his children) not just the wife that produced them.
Abandoning all benefits under the title of “marriage” and instead replacing them with family(child rearing) benefits might be the economic sensible thing to do.
After all why should the state or an employer or society at large care where or not your bonded to a particular woman? Women work for themselves now. What matters is your children.
“Knowingly or not, he serves their ends:
http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
“
On that list are most of the vices of the last 50 years.
That is impossible and why we had federal law as early as 1780 in that regard. Besides, there is much besides punishment and reward in government being forced to recognize marriage, and that recognition goes back thousands of years.
As far as licenses, they have been issued in America since the 1600s, from genealogy magazine "However, the customary “banns” (public announcements made in church), used in the old country to notify family, friends, and neighbors of an impending marriage, were unsuited to the widely dispersed settlements in the colonies. Some historians claim that marriage licenses, issued by county clerks, developed to replace the banns. By the late-17th-century, the use of license spread northward to the Middle Colonies."
DESCRIPTION: Chapter 12, Laws of 1777: An ACT concerning marriages
CREATED/PUBLISHED: 1777
NOTES: Set forth table of Degree of Kindred and Affinity within which marriage not allowed. Marriage allowed only by religious official. Marriage allowed only after license from county court or publication of banns. Provision against marriage outside of Maryland continued. Every Church had to be registered in county court or not esteemed for publication of banns. Marriage without parental consent forbidden for males under 21 and females under 16 and not before married. Form of license set forth. Quakers allowed to marry according to their own practice.
SOURCE: Archives of Maryland Online
REPOSITORY: Maryland State Archives
Passed in 1790--BE it enacted, by the General Assembly of Maryland, That so much of the act of assembly, entitled, An act concerning marriages, as prohibits and declared void marriages between persons related within the following degrees of affinity, to wit: A man with his wife's sister, or brother's wife; a woman with her husband's brother, or sister's husband; shall be and the same is hereby repealed and made void; and all marriages heretofore made and celebrated by and between persons related within the degrees of affinity before mentioned, are hereby confirmed and made valid in law, to every intent and purpose, from the time of the celebration of such marriage respectively; and all penalties, forfeitures and consequences, which may have been incurred under the said recited act, by any marriage within the degrees of affinity aforesaid, are hereby released and discharged, and the parties for ever acquitted of the same; and no penalties shall hereafter be incurred under the said act in consequence of any marriage within the degrees of affinity herein before mentioned, but every such marriage shall be good, sufficient and valid, in law, any thing in the said recited act to the contrary thereof in anywise notwithstanding.
A status that is only symbolic of the govt’s (past) endorsement of wholesome marriage — nearly meaningless now.
We must stop electing legislators and start electing abrogators. We’re being suffocated by the manipulation of once purposeful legislation and precedent.
If you want to do away with the military taking into consideration the needs of the married soldier and his family, then go after that, I’m not interested in fantasy.
“If you want to do away with the military taking into consideration the needs of the married soldier and his family, then go after that, I’m not interested in fantasy.”
I don’t want to do away with the military, merely most of the Federal forces and not because I don’t honor and admire them but because we can’t afford the risk to future domestic liberty, or frankly the price tag.
In regards to the soldiers families I have nothing but the utmost of honor and admiration. I wish very much to encourage and support the procreative efforts of the men and women that risk their lives for freedom.
I simply suggest that we aut to do so more directly as to address actual procreative unions rather than wast what little resources we have left supporting dead-end(homosexual) association.
Excellent and true. Fundamentally marriage is the union of a man and a woman and always has been - state or no state.
I didn’t interpret your idea as being against the military, but I know that the military must, and will continue to recognize the spouses of GIs, a job that entails living in back water places where careers and work cannot be pursued, in marriages where the husband may spend a year or more at a time away from the family while engaged in work against international enemies, where the husband is involved in work that requires his willingness to die and be maimed.
Sometimes people here just suggest things that aren’t realistic when talking about actual real life political issues, like the libertarians who think that they can explain away completely opening our nation to the world today in unlimited immigration, by combining it with a bizarre fantasy of how that would be OK and would work just fine because they would eliminate all welfare and social programs in America.
Perhaps something as simple as designating a dependent. No licence no nothing. Just pick someone(anyone) and you can change at any time almost like an insurance policy.
I don’t think that you know much about military life.
Your right, I don’t Im tring to come up with suggestions to alternative systems of support anyway.
Perhaps you have an idea, is it even possible in your mind that we might return the military personnel management to something more akin to pre-civil war financing?
Could we for example abandon most all of the life time and family services in favor of higher pay? Let the solder decide how to allocate his hard earned resources, and for the most part cut the ties after the end of their military service.
Military families have to be accommodated, sometimes they live in unpleasant places where they have to live on post with their own school system, health care, and base security and social life.
Travel can be frequent and being an extended part of the military makes that uprooting and relocating, even in foreign lands, easier for a family.
The Indian fighting army had base accommodations, and that was a situation where some wives carried pistols to kill the children and themselves if capture was imminent, and even in 1780 laws were being passed for wives by the Continental Congress.
What alternative is there to families living together?
Guess my info was incorrect. But: (From the State Farm commercial)
I read you couldn’t put anything on the internet that wasn’t true.
Where did you read that?
The internet :)
But doesn’t your info exempt “Quakers” from needing license?
It seems the Maryland law defines marriage but does not mention the issuance of a license.
“LOL, welcome to the world of being a lefty troll in service to the cause of homosexual marriage and polygamy and Islam.
You might want to check which forum you are on, this isn’t DU.”
ROFL. A William F. Buckley, you ain’t. Try reading the Constitution before you start calling people names. BTW, your post is pure Alinsky; belittle those who dare state something you disagree with. Who’s the leftie now?
It did mention a license, and I never said anything about licenses being universal or required in all cases, don’t try to say that I have.
Maryland- “Laws of 1777: An ACT concerning marriages
CREATED/PUBLISHED: 1777
NOTES: Set forth table of Degree of Kindred and Affinity within which marriage not allowed. Marriage allowed only by religious official. Marriage allowed only after license from county court or publication of banns.”
Virginia- “Some of the earliest laws enacted in the colony of Virginia were
concerned with marriage. References
to articles about marriage take up
three full columns in the Virginia
Historical Index, by E. G. Swem. For
over three centuries various governing bodies, whether colonial, county,
city or commonwealth, have paid
great attention to the definition and
regulation of parties eligible to be
married, of ministers and others
authorized to perform marriages, of
fees to be charged by ministers and
clerks, of recording requirements, of
bonding and licensing, etc.
An act in 1628 forbade marriages
“without lycence or asking in
church.”
You are the lefty, and your support for homosexual “marriage” is totally inadequate.
Travel can be frequent and being an extended part of the military makes that uprooting and relocating, even in foreign lands, easier for a family.
The Indian fighting army had base accommodations, and that was a situation where some wives carried pistols to kill the children and themselves if capture was imminent, and even in 1780 laws were being passed for wives by the Continental Congress.
What alternative is there to families living together?”
I've heard it suggested by some military families that, the frequent rate at which the military moves personnel around is to prevent acclimation to a given area, and thus unwillingness to attack it upon federal orders. (Something that didn't normally happen in the “Civil War”)
If we are maintaining the same bases around the u.s. and world for long periods of time and those bases retain more or less the same basic manpower requirements, why is it that we should move so much of the military around so frequently?
Why not try to save money by keeping personnel where their needed until they are no longer needed, and then first looking elsewhere in the same base for the next assignment before moving them to anther base.
I understand that many of our basis around the world are not in the best locations, some are places you don't want to leave the base, while others still are places you can't take your family.
In theses situations I can see a rotation based system, but bases in situations like this in general I think basis should be largely temporary. At least to the extent that we can't call the area home.
The point is if we can't make a home, if the population is too hostilities we should be weary about keeping a base there.
In my nonprofessional opinion being acclimated to the local area is a vital component to defending that area.
Finally I have great issue with the lengthy tour of duty demands. I think this is mostly so that the military can recoup their training and services costs.
I think if we drop most of the veterans benefits for new solderer and instead pay them a much higher salary to make up the difference, we could also shorten the commitment time. Thus allowing solderers who's family situation changes to adapt their life better.
Being a solderer in this country should be less a career and more a job. In which you can get in and out of based upon needs of both the employee(solderers) and employer(Government).
I am a little stunned.
You don’t just not know much about the military, you know absolutely nothing about it.
Talking to you about the military is senseless and would not serve any purpose, you are way beyond ignorant, not above nutty conspiracy theories based on ignorance, but definitely way beyond ignorance, for you to have become an adult yet be so ignorant of the subject, indicates that learning about it is beyond your capabilities and outside of your interests.
Without getting into insults, perhaps you could inform me better.
In any even tell me this. How could you expect the military to refuse an unlawful order when it is lawful to replace any man in that does with someone who will “see things differently.”
This is what Lincoln did when generals refused to carry out his orders to invade the south. This is what any future tyrant would do when s/he wants to issue any unlawful order.
Indeed even the Federal court’s could not stop Lincoln when he suspended habeas corpus. Lincoln simply had his men ignore and arrest the judge. Of course that is normally academic as a ruling takes time by which time all the president’s enemys can usually be eliminated.
I am under no dilutions about the potential evils that could be committed, we cannot afford such a dilution.
Quite an argument. Not well done.
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.