Posted on 04/16/2014 7:50:44 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd
I’m not sure if the complaint isn’t a little 2-faced. Surely a true ‘government out of my life’ person would be against the state involvement in their marriage the first place. Could it be, they like the goodies?
Divide and conquer, baby.
Bill Clinton’s successful “triangulation” strategy.
Q: Why are divorces so expensive?
.
.
.
.
.
.
A: BECAUSE THEY’RE WORTH IT!
Surely a true government out of my life person would be against the state involvement in their marriage the first place.
___________________________________
Perhaps this is true. But who cares what those liberals want. You see, a true conservative recognizes the value of a strong and competent government upholding the values of traditional marriages whereas libertarians don’t care about or even deny the social and economic benefits of marriage to a society.
It IS a fringe idea and it will receive opposition from me.
The next big C conservative that advocates this...and the complains about the Federal Leviathan will have exposed themselves as a statist.
Either you want small government, or you don't.
Now, I WILL NOT say this is a Constitutional issue. Clearly the states are empowered to enact such laws.
But I will choose to live in a state that doesn't believe it can compel two people to stay married when they don't want to be.
Our response is that we are not libertarians.
It is very simple, but supposed conservative who don't have their intellectual ducks in a row usually fall for this line. That's why a Romney loses a debate, for example.
These restraints were overturned in the cultural revolution, which is popularly associated with the 1960s but had its roots much earlier, with the rise of skepticism and liberalism among the Ivy League educated upper classes around the beginning of the last century and the impact of the Frankfurt School refugees in the 1930s on academia and the overall culture. By and large, libertarians are in agreement with the elimination of such laws to their own detriment. In pre-1960s America, there was always the ability to leave an overly puritanical area to a more libertine one. If you didn't like Podunk, there was always a New Orleans, a San Francisco, or a Bohemian district in New York or Chicago. A decentralized society is more conducive to libertarian ideals than a centralixed one.
We replaced a patchwork of laws with a declaration that legitimacy doesnt matter. Around the same time, we ushered in no fault divorce with very strong bias towards mother custody, while leaving in place the punitive practices of child support and alimony........."
http://no-pasaran.blogspot.com/2014/04/starting-in-late-60s-child-support-and.html
Isn't this more or less the way it was everywhere before no-fault divorce became the way to go, in the late 60s IIRC?
By and large, libertarians are in agreement with the elimination of such laws to their own detriment.
A decentralized society is more conducive to libertarian ideals than a centralixed one.
Folks had to go into court to PROVE a wrong by the other party.
Giant "he said, she said" fest. Enormously expensive.
But it was not one sided. If a man could prove infidelity, drunkenness, neglect...he could avoid alimony and gain custody of the kids.
If they really want to promote more marriage and stronger families, they should make it more difficult to get married in the first place.
In the past, some states had anti miscegenation laws. Now, .gov marriage has 'allowed' gay 'marriage'. Group 'marriage' is just around the corner.
I'm not sure that would promote more marriage.
How many young men would choose to marry if they knew the details of that unwritten contract?
Exactly and extremely correct. And I might add that the removal of the State from marriage has led directly to the Welfare State we are now mired in. Replacing the father with a welfare check is a libertarian nightmare come true.
That's not a libertarian idea. That's a socialist-statist idea.
Not so today (which you are probably aware of). Even if the husband can absorb the enormous legal bills of going through "divorce court", fault divorces are hardly issued anymore. No-fault is easier for the state and usually ends up leaving the aggrieved spouse destitute with debt for a number of years.
Isn’t this more or less the way it was everywhere before no-fault divorce became the way to go, in the late 60s IIRC?
___________________________________________
You are correct. And even the liberals began to realize that a full frontal assualt on marriages by the State was a bad idea. Hence the Defense of Marriage Act signed by none other than the Adulterer in cheif himself; Bill Clinton.
Fast forward 20 years and we see a marital anti-Christ (Obama) has now struck down that law and is intent on removing any and all traces of traditional marriages from our laws.
And the bastard libertarians are supporting this.
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.