Why Not Separate Marriage and State? ZOT! And ZOT Again!

National Review ^ | 3/29/13 | John Fund

[Orangedog]

You’re welcome. Anytime.

[Orangedog]

Opinions vary.

[Responsibility2nd]

We are no longer governed by those constrained by the Constitution let alone any Natural Law or even the 10 Commandments. We are now subject to the whims of populism. There is nothing more revered to those who govern then their own selves and ideology.

____________________________________

I get this. I do.

But because this is so, you wanna argue that we should “follow along” and surrender our values and beliefs on tradional marriage to those bastards who are not governed by the Constitution, Natural Law or the 10 Commandments?

Not me. Hell No.

[wagglebee]

You're certainly correct in that the federal government shouldn't be involved in marriage (the 10th amendment makes this clear) because the States never delegated that power to it.

I am well aware that the 14th Amendment has long been a thorn in the sides of libertarians, but this very much DOES make it a federal issue.

Moreover, it is quite arguable if the states have the legitimate authority to regulate marriage -- you see, marriage is not a right, but a rite

What exactly DO you think the states have a right to regulate?

If you want to cite marriage in America as having Judeo-Christian roots and assert [implicitly or explicitly] the import of the ceremony then you have to explain the marriage of Isaac & Rebekah

You mean a marriage that occurred BEFORE God gave Moses the Law?

[Theophilus]

If the government were prosecuting adultery, fornication, sodomy and dereliction then marriage would eliminate many of the pretenses for big government. Instead the government encourages libertine license and takes over every right, prerogative and duty of the nuclear family.

[Responsibility2nd]

even a constitutional amendment defining marriage is dangerous this way: because once it is accepted as legitimate then it may be altered the same way it was created and, having ceded the power to define it, you no longer have a valid objection to the state defining it.

________________________________________

I get that argument. I do. But its wrong. Here’s why.

History proves that for over 200 years the government had control and power over marriage. They defined it. And yet it worked. America and our families grew and prospered.

Until LBJ came along. So. Would you argue that our Constitution and our laws for over 200 years were wrong in the first place? That LBJ proved it doesn’t work?

I wouldn’t.

[Gene Eric]

>> surrender our values and beliefs on traditional marriage

Actually, the motive is just the opposite. The goal is to change the ground rules by eliminating the third party enforcement of govt.

[OneWingedShark]

If marriage is exclusively a religious feature, how would non-religious people that aren’t a member of a church get married, considering the government-sanctioned course wouldn’t exist.

I actually have no problem with this — a sort of sucks to be you can be applied. (Parallel idea: you don't get retirement packages from companies you don't work for — you don't get them at all if you're unemployed — does this mean that retirement package qualifications are unfair? // Likewise, if marriage is a religious institution then by rejecting all religion you reject also all benefits thereof.)

[trisham]

LBJ was a blight upon this country.

[Responsibility2nd]

Well, it’s no longer a Constitutional govt that properly recognizes the found morality through which it was created.

_________________________________________________________

Yeppers. I can agree with that. But how? How will we ever return to a Constitional (Moral) foundation if we can’t even agree on basic fundamental values like marriage?

[PapaNew]

Actually, marriage is a God-given private right. Everything that does not interfere with the liberty of another IS a God-given right. And our rights and powers are limited on a federal level only by expressed powers delegated to the federal government by the Constitution. The federal government has no power to enforce our rights other than on a legitimate case-by-case basis in the Supreme Court (or lower federal courts). Giving the feds power to enforce our rights is to expand their power exponentially. That is why they are so eager to do it.

It is totalitarian states like the USSR that "creates" and lists the rights of individuals. That is why the first Ten Amendments are not a "bill of rights" but an expressed sampling of God-given rights already there. That is why the words in those amendments say things like "Congress shall not abridge" or "the right shall not be violated".

In totalitarian countries, State creates rights, the State then expands its power to enforce, and the State may take away those rights at any time. America is exceptional because it acknowledges the beginning point in the affairs of man as the INDIVIDUAL's God-given (not man-given) unalienable rights.The Constitution is aimed at binding the federal government to ensure it stays within those LIMITED rights and powers DELEGATED by the Constitution via the states and the people.

[Iced Tea Party]

If the government were prosecuting adultery, fornication, sodomy and dereliction then marriage would eliminate many of the pretenses for big government.

So, if we already had a totalitarian government that intruded into the most private affairs of citizens, there would be no demand to make it even bigger?

My brain hurts....

[Responsibility2nd]

I hope he’s rotting in hell. Even B. Hussein Obama isn’t as bad as Johnson.

He’s close. He may overtake him. But LBJ so far is America’s worst president ever.

[trisham]

Agreed.

[Rockingham]

The argument ignores the need for a set of rules and principles of decision to govern the traditional marital relationship. Traditional marriage has unique and fundamental effects on property, inheritance, and the rearing of children, with the courts available to resolve disputes.

Absent such a role by the state, in many instances, the stronger person in the marriage will tend to exploit and harm the weaker, especially when the marriage breaks down. In addition, the weakest of all -- children -- are especially vulnerable to mistreatment, abuse, and neglect.

For example, children are especially vulnerable to abuse when they live with their mother and an adult male sexual partner who is not her husband. In most instances, the best outside advocate for that child is a vigilant father and ex-husband who is alert to and ready to intervene if there are indications of harm to his child.

The better route is to preserve traditional marriage as exclusively and uniquely between one man and one woman, while also providing for the courts to determine disputes that arise out of other personal relationships by adults living together. In such cases, the courts should look to what the parties have agreed to and to traditional principles of equity.

Thus gay marriage and other relationships can be defined by the participants with the assurance that the courts will enforce such agreements and resolve disputes. A general domestic partners registry also makes some sense as a way to put such relationships on the public record without the full effect of marriage.

[Orangedog]

Until LBJ came along. So. Would you argue that our Constitution and our laws for over 200 years were wrong in the first place? That LBJ proved it doesn’t work?

So LBJ signed the first no-fault divorce bill into law? And I imagine he nationalized child support enforcement, subsidizing the divorce industry when his party took over congress...right? I knew LBJ was a son of a bitch, but I didn't know he did all that.

[OneWingedShark]

I get that argument. I do. But its wrong. Here’s why.
History proves that for over 200 years the government had control and power over marriage. They defined it. And yet it worked. America and our families grew and prospered.
Until LBJ came along. So. Would you argue that our Constitution and our laws for over 200 years were wrong in the first place? That LBJ proved it doesn’t work?
I wouldn’t.

Just because X wasn't abused for Y years doesn't mean that X won't be abused.
Just because Z didn't manifest as a problem for G years doesn't mean it's not a problem.

Some of our problems predate LBJ — the regulation of monies (which is authorized to Congress) is one example, and its apparently unaccountable delegation to the Federal Reserve is one example. (IMO, it would be better to amend the Constitution to [a] remove the power to regulate the Dollar from congress, [b] have a particular amount of gold of a particular purity associated with the Dollar, [c] reiterate b in a different set of units so as to protect the amount from tampering via Congressional control of the weights-and-measures.)

Another item [from the original/unamended constitution, which is still unamended] that has to be stopped is the unlimited incurrance of debt — this could be rectified by amending the constitution to [a] tying the amount of all debt which can be assumed to the amount of gold physically possessed, and [b] denying the validity of any unfunded liability or imposing a requirement on the states w/o funding it.

Note that these monetary issues didn't crop up for centuries, even though the seeds [powers] were there all along. Likewise is marriage — actually I believe that pushing marriage into the FedGov domain is the worst idea possible: given the indoctrination that federal trumps state [in all matters] a single loss here is a loss in all 50 states, whereas keeping it in the bounds of the states [if it really is a governmental issue*] keeps it from being corrupted in one fell swoop — or are you going to assert that it won't play out like abortion? If so, why won't it?

* Proposition 8 is an interesting/illustrative case here — the people decided to define marriage in the State's constitution, and yet the amendment has been blocked by federal courts and then the USSC denied the people of that state any standing to see their Constitution so amended despite the states own supreme court certifying the standing of the people.

[muir_redwoods]

Fine with me. If five want to form a partnership, it’s okay with me just don’t ask the state to call it marriage.

None of us should be married by the state; marriage, as a sacramental state should be handled by clergy.

[P-Marlowe]

Good try though, did you come up with that one on your own or did you have to take a few bong hits first?

Wags, Good to see you are back at Free Republic and back in form.

[Gene Eric]

>> if we can’t even agree on basic fundamental values like marriage?

If by ‘we’ you mean the Country as a whole, I don’t know.

As far a FR goes, I think the moral attitude on abortion and marriage is uniform. How to best achieve the outcome, however, is obviously in dispute.