Posted on 02/14/2014 1:18:08 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Bookmark
I’ve tried some of these same arguments here over the years.
They were not... well received. No matter the logic, or the protection for our Religious institutions, they insist that the same government that is currently buggering things up is the only way to protect religious marriage.
They never seem to see the irony.
Suppose all relationships are fixed by contract. Who enforces the contract, then? Who decides whether the contract should be enforced? The government, that’s who.
An analogy can be made with wills and prenuptial agreements. Parties enter the contracts, but if there is a challenge, then a judge can declare the contract void, in whole or in part.
There’s also a similarity with the “Release of Liability” that one has to sign in order to engage in any recreation activity. Everyone signs it, but if a person is injured, it’s extremely common for him to sue the vendor, and not unusual for a judge or jury to rule that the release is invalid.
I don’t see it happening.
I was thinking about this issue just today in light of the many decisions of court judges striking down state gay marriage bans.
I agree with Ed M. in that the only way that traditional marriage is going to survive as something separate and apart from recognized “gay marriage” is to rename and reiterate what is meant by marriage in terms of being sanctioned by the church. After all, isn’t this what the left does? They have been successful in twisting and changing the meanings of words, until the word’s contemporary meaning bears no resemblance to it’s historical meaning.
The homosexual community is ultimately looking for acceptance of gay marriage and wants nothing more than their marriages to achieve equality with traditional marriages that are sanctioned by the church and between a man and woman. It’s not enough for gay marriage to be recognized by the government—it must be accepted and approved of by all (including the church).
I suggest that we change the word we use to describe the marriage between men and women (blessed by God) to “holy matrimony,” “natural marriage,” or something similar. Homosexuals can have their marriages or unions recognized by the government as a legal arrangement having tax and property rights implications, but the church should also have their own term that goes above and beyond this.
RE: Suppose all relationships are fixed by contract. Who enforces the contract, then? Who decides whether the contract should be enforced? The government, that’s who.
There ya go. What if a company or a business refuses to recognize your “private” marriage and refuses to extend your benefits to your spouse?
Of course there will be lawsuits and government will step in.
I assume that the company's freedom to make that decision would be eliminated. Some sort of standardization would be enforced by regulation.
I think the author makes some good points, but I simply don't think it would work in real life. For example, suppose a devout Christian couple gets married in their church. At the same time, they form a contractual partnership that specifies, among other things, that, if they separate, neither of them can enter another relationship unless it's accepted by their church - sort of like a non-compete clause when a person leaves an employer.
(This would fit the Catholic doctrine that a marriage may be declared null if it does not meet the requirements for the Sacrament, and the understanding of other denominations that divorce and remarriage is acceptable in cases of adultery, abuse, etc.)
Is a judge going to enforce that contract if one of the parties wants to break it?
In the Catholic Church, marriage is a sacrament. You have to go to confession (another sacrament) before you can receive the sacrament of Holy Matrimony. Try to reconcile that with homosexuality.
Why are there marriage licenses? Has anyone ever had a license suspended or revoked for being bad at marriage?
Look above at the article of Aussie cops arresting an Iman for marrying off a twelve-year old girl. Hope it need not happen here with an oh-well.
Years ago, I advocated that the best way to protect the traditional definition of marriage was to get government out of the business of it.
_______________________________________________
Morrisey is full of crap. The government has a tremendous interest in keeping marriage as the fundamental cornerstone of society.
Healthy marriages provide a great economic, social and moral benefit to any nation. And this has been true for all civilizations throughout history.
Get the government out of the marriage business? Sure. Lets start with LBJ and his Great Society Progams; lets replace the father with a welfare check; lets initiate no-fault divorces and now same sex marriages.
And what do you get? What is the result of taking the government out of marriage?
Look around folks. Its a liberal wet dream with welfare dependancy, illegitimacy, crime, lower educational standards, and a country on the brink of a total financial collapse.
As goes the American Family - so goes America.
Marriage is already privatized. Church’s, Sea Captains, and Justices of the Peace perform the marriages not government. Government simply records it.
The battle is over what Government will recognize as marriage and family and you can’t divorce Government from that. Government will always be the arbiter of failed relationships, especially those involving children.
And you’d have to modify the tax code and eliminate references to spouses and dependents. Otherwise we’re right back to who qualifies as a dependent and what’s defined as a family.
Gay "marriage" is just one weapon being used by the left to destroy the (conservative) church and the family. Education would also need to be completely privatized.
And how would privatization help the Baker who refused to bake a wedding cake to honor a gay couple? It wouldn’t.
Government would still be in the business of preventing discrimination by private businesses. So how does privatizing marriage keep government from getting turned upside down on what constitutes discrimination? It doesn’t do a thing to prevent that.
So government would still be ordering the baker to violate his conscience and bake a cake for the sodomic wedding.
Valuable insight IF the society accepts that government at the Federal level does NOT trump state or local.
...not the case in Amerika
RE: Valuable insight IF the society accepts that government at the Federal level does NOT trump state or local.
How does this work if a couple moves to another state that have different recognition of marriages?
IIRC, in Holland government officials conduct all marriages.
Religious persons go ahead and have the government ceremony; but they don’t consider themselves truly married until they have their second, religious ceremony.
(Both parties return to their respective homes after the state ceremony and don’t live together until after their religious ceremony— which may be a few days later.)
Being thus “married” by the state is considered just like getting a license; the real “marriage” takes place only later.
Secular people can do as they wish.
IOW, religious people are free to live by their own laws, without the interference of the government.
And vice-versa.
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.