Posted on 06/04/2014 10:19:50 AM PDT by Iced Tea Party
Cultural civil war can be avoided by getting government out of marriage
There is no question that the media, political, and cultural push for gay marriage has made impressive gains. As recently as 1989, voters in avant-garde San Francisco repealed a law that had established only domestic partnerships.
But judging by the questions posed by Supreme Court justices this week in oral arguments for two gay-marriage cases, most observers do not expect sweeping rulings that would settle the issue and avoid protracted political combat. A total of 41 states currently do not allow gay marriage, and most of those laws are likely to remain in place for some time. Even should the Court declare unconstitutional the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman for federal purposes, we can expect many pitched battles in Congress. The word “spouse” appears in federal laws and regulations a total of 1,138 times, and many of those references would have to be untangled by Congress absent DOMA.
No wonder Wisconsin’s GOP governor Scott Walker sees public desire for a Third Way. On Meet the Press this month he remarked on how many young people have asked him why the debate is over whether the definition of marriage should be expanded. They think the question is rather “why the government is sanctioning it in the first place.” The alterative would be to “not have the government sanction marriage period, and leave that up to the churches and the synagogues and others to define that.”
Governor Walker made clear these thoughts weren’t “anything I’m advocating for,” but he gave voice to many people who don’t think the gay-marriage debate should tear the country apart in a battle over who controls the culture and wins the government’s seal of approval. Gay-marriage proponents argue that their struggle is the civil-rights issue of our time, although many gays privately question that idea. Opponents who bear no animus toward gays lament that ancient traditions are being swept aside before the evidence is in on how gay marriage would affect the culture.
Both sides operate from the shaky premise that government must be the arbiter of this dispute. Columnist Andrew Sullivan, a crusader for gay marriage, has written that “marriage is a formal, public institution that only the government can grant.” But that’s not so. Marriage predates government. Marriage scholar Lawrence Stone has noted that in the Middle Ages it was “treated as a private contract between two families . . . For those without property, it was a private contract between two individuals enforced by the community sense of what was right.” Indeed, marriage wasn’t even regulated by law in Britain until the Marriage Acts of 1754 and 1835. Common-law unions in early America were long recognized before each state imposed a one-size-fits-all set of marriage laws.
The Founding Fathers avoided creating government-approved religions so as to avoid Europe’s history of church-based wars. Depoliticizing religion has mostly proven to be a good template for defusing conflict by keeping it largely in the private sphere.
Turning marriage into fundamentally a private right wouldn’t be an easy task. Courts and government would still be called on to recognize and enforce contracts that a couple would enter into, and clearly some contracts — such as in a slave-master relationship — would be invalid. But instead of fighting over which marriages gain its approval, government would end the business of making distinctions for the purpose of social engineering based on whether someone was married. A flatter tax code would go a long way toward ending marriage penalties or bonuses. We would need a more sensible system of legal immigration so that fewer people would enter the country solely on the basis of spousal rights.
The current debate pits those demanding “marriage equality” against supporters of “traditional marriage.” But many Americans believe it would be better if we left matters to individuals and religious bodies. The cherished principle of separating church and state should be extended as much as possible into separating marriage and state. Ron Paul won many cheers during his 2012 presidential campaign when he declared, “I’d like to see all governments out of the marriage question. I don’t think it’s a state decision. I think it’s a religious function. I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want.”
Supporters of traditional marriage know the political winds are blowing against them. A new Fox News poll finds 49 percent of voters favoring gay marriage, up from just 32 percent a decade ago. And among self-described conservatives under 35, Fox found support for gay marriage is now at 44 percent. Even if the Supreme Court leaves the battle for gay marriage to trench warfare in the states, the balance of power is shifting. Rush Limbaugh, a powerful social conservative, told his listeners this week: “I don’t care what this court does with this particular ruling. . . . I think the inertia is clearly moving in the direction that there is going to be gay marriage at some point nationwide.”
But a majority of Americans still believe the issue of gay marriage should be settled by the states and not with Roe v. Wade–style central planning. It might still be possible to assemble a coalition of people who want to avoid a civil war over the culture and who favor getting government out of the business of marriage.
— John Fund is national-affairs columnist for NRO.
-- I thought you were religious? --
I think of myself that way. I'm not as perfect as you are though.
Judges are part of the political system and voting.
We defeat them with conservative politics.
William F. Buckley and William F. Buckley, Jr. are dead.
National Review has been infiltrated by leftists. They toss us a
bone now and then, but they’ve turned left against the traffic.
Gay marriage seems to bring out your mix of holier than thou preaching and nastiness, at the same time.
Your “paraphrase” was dishonest, and posting it behind my back reinforces that it was dishonest.
Why would someone as religious as you be arguing against conservative opposition to the gay agenda? Most religious Christians support social conservatism.
If government did not exist, marriage would still exist.
Aw man. I told you not to leave. I said you should stick around and learn things from us conservatives. Looks like you blew it.
Do you notice how the pro-gay marriage arguers are sounding like bible waving ministers?
Every gay marriage thread turns into the libertarians and liberals making it look like a religion thread, with the pro-marriage people being the bad guys.
Well, if politically opposing it regularly results in resounding defeat, catcalls and ridicule by a libtardian controlled media, and waffly pansies are all our candidates ever appear to be when questioned on it, what do you think???
It appears to be barren ground upon which the seeds of conservative ideas go to shrivel and die.
*************************************
Is it your contention that I should put my faith in what someone who has given up on this country advises? Why would I, or anyone else, be willing to do that?
I like a lot of the Republican Party's platform — but that's all a lie. (The Republican party has no intention of striving for them.)
The Constitution party is probably second-best platform-wise, and I do like a lot of libertarian-philosophy goals (as opposed to Libratarian-party platform-planks [and even theirs are a lot more realistic/honest than the Republicans]).
It seems that your actual political goal, is what we see here at conservative freerepublic, persuade the conservatives to drop it as an issue in this election, and those to come.
No, I give my political goals here. That you reject this and claim my personal opinion as a political goal makes me doubt your honesty in any attempted discussion.
Yet even simple primitive tribes have marriage laws, and they can include polygyny and polyandry and other variations depending on the tribe.
Americans didn’t accept those practices.
If government did not exist, marriage would still exist.
_______________________________________
And conversely, if Religion did not exist, marriage would still exist.
I have always maintained that marriage is a holy contract between a man, woman and God.
But if you’re not religious, then OK. I don’t have to force my religous views on you. I can keep it secular.
And by that I mean that traditional marriage benefits a nation. The social and economic benefits of the family is the backbone of American Greatness. Take away marriage from our laws and politics and what you are left with is what we have since the days of LBJ.
A festering Welfare State where King Obama rules as our nation disintegrates.
Please don’t waste my time, the question was in regards to marriage only.
Where is there a substantive, real political movement to end all legal marriage and divorce, to remove them from all law, and government and common societal recognition, and to make all such unions purely personal and the realm of any and all religions, but limited to religion?
Hey, I can go there to.
[Great, another asshat so called conservative windmill tilter insuring election of libtards and blubbery kiss-ass republicans ad infinitum...]
But I won’t. My point is this is not the high ground to make our stand on when the government is plowing fertile tyrannical ground over a myriad of other subjects, any of which reach fruition and the subject of whom they sanction wedding who becomes moot.
Civil unions aren’r marriages. People can use them so if they’re in a hospital or die, that person is their primary custodian. Two divorcees could use them so if something happened to one of them, the other would get custody of the children. Assets can go to that person instead of greedy relatives. The house doesn’t have to be sold. etc
At least you bluntly admit to what you are arguing, and that you oppose our fight against gay marriage.
You guys almost never just come out and say it.
No, but you might take it into consideration for a plan B...
Yeah, because libertarians weren't told to get out and not let the door hit us on the ass on the way out. We are a former wing of your party until proven otherwise. Truth is, you guys need us more than we need you. Your demographics are horrible. The mexicans know you don't want them, the blacks will probably never trust you, women for the most part think you hate their kids. But the only group you have any common cause with that will still take your phone calls...you spit at.
The liberals treat us just as badly as you guys do, so we have nothing to lose if we sit back and watch. You see, we're used to being minorities in the political field. But we're not falling for the Lucy and Charlie Brown with the football thing again.
My point is this is not the high ground to make our stand on when the government is plowing fertile tyrannical ground.
__________________________________________
But this IS the high ground to stand on. Social issues are the key ingredient here.
We have had lame wanna-be’s (Romney and McCain) step up and be defeated. Why? Because they would not address the social issues. Hell, Romney had Nobama by the balls with his 47 percent remarks. But he was too chicken bleep to use that. And Mcain? Nothing moral about that loser at all.
And you know which single demographic group put Bush over Gore in 2000? and also gave him the edge in ‘08?
Evangelicals.
Point is... Traditional marriages are our ONLY option. Along with other such similar social issues. Hell, if you ain’t right on favoring traditional marriages, then to hell with you. I wouldn’t trust your fiscal policies either.
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.