Skip to comments.Why Not Separate Marriage and State? ZOT! And ZOT Again!
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 As recently as 1989, voters in avant-garde San Francisco repealed a law that had established only domestic partnerships.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 Wisconsins 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 werent anything Im advocating for, but he gave voice to many people who dont think the gay-marriage debate should tear the country apart in a battle over who controls the culture and wins the governments 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 thats 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 wasnt 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 Europes 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 wouldnt 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, Id like to see all governments out of the marriage question. I dont think its a state decision. I think its 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 dont 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. Wadestyle 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.
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?
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.
Don’t put words in my mouth, I don’t “oppose” the fight, I’m just stating that it is, on all fronts at this point, a losing battle.
I disagree that it was dishonest, and even if it was, the points I was attempting to make were 1) unless once considers federal judges to be changeable by political means, there is no political solution to the so-called "legitimization" of homosexual marriage, and 2) the fact that I don't see a political will to impeach and remove these robed clowns for meddling in a fundamental tradition of Western Civ does is not the same thing as saying people should accept homosexual marriage.
As for "nasty," my hackles were up at wagglebee for her equating me with, well, her words were "These are the same people who were running around 160 years ago saying that slavery was the 'law of the land' and everyone should just accept it." You'll notice I didn't ping wagglebee to this, and that is because I have no interest in attempting a civil discussion with wagglebee, at this time.
You might consider me dishonest for that omission, and if so, fine by me. But the omission of your name on my reply to wagglebee was deliberate as well, for a slightly different reason, that being that my hackles were not up on account of your "Obama changed marriage policy at the federal level, politically we can reverse him with a conservative president." I merely disagree with that, for reasons given.
-- Why would someone as religious as you be arguing against conservative opposition to the gay agenda? --
Why would someone as honest as you misrepresent my point of view? I didn't knock anybody for being opposed to the gay agenda, and I am personally opposed to it. I don't think gay couples should be allowed to adopt, marry, civil union, etc. I am disgusted by the apparently common belief that there is nothing abnormal about homosexuality.
-- Most religious Christians support social conservatism. --
I count myself in that number. Or were you trying to insult me by insinuating that I don't support social conservatism?
-- Gay marriage seems to bring out your mix of holier than thou preaching and nastiness --
You get the last word. Tata.
You’re being coy again. You know and I know that civil unions are tools used by the queer community to dismantle tradional marriages.
Civil Unions aren’t even debatable any more since more states (and fag friendly courts) are now forcing queer marriages on us.
So to all who endorsed Civil Unions - Thanks a lot. You are to blame.
Truth is, you guys need us more than we need you.
Again with the us vs. them arguments.
OK, we get it. You keep repeating yourself over and over again. You resent us conservatives. You don’t like us. So why are you here, exactly? This is a conservative site so take your own words and...
“...get out and don’t let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.”
No one put words in your mouth, you have been making your own aggressive arguments for the pro-gay marriage side
When asked directly “”You want conservatives to stop politically opposing gay marriage?””
You answered as clear as day.
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.
248 posted on 6/4/2014 2:26:33 PM by Axenolith
Well, what I’d like to see is the traditional form of marriage we once enjoyed here in the United States.
I understand the point that without govt involvement in marriage, marriage is doomed to the arbitrary desire of depravity. And given the likelihood of that speculation, we know for a fact, right now, that govt today is effectively mandating through enforcement the depraved form of marriage that is feared to exist in the hypothetical libertarian space.
The govt is simply armed with too many tools — tools that are being used to destroy conservatism. I want those tools taken away.
>> That’s because the libertarians realize that they can’t just come out in favor of their liberal agenda
You can perpetuate that nonsense, but libertarianism is in opposition to statism, not conservatism.
Then do what you can to defeat the libertarians and the liberals. Support the conservatives.
I’m a conservative voting, registered Republican. Been that way for over 3 decades.
The 10th Amendment to the Constitution, that reserves all rights not specified elsewhere in the Constitution to the people.
I agree — the problem is that there are many people who are conservative (in the sense of
keep things the same) when doing so is supporting tyranny and statism.
(The WOD is an excellent example, given that the WOD [and attendant policies] has damaged 90% of the bill of rights you cannot be a Constitutionalist while supporting it.)
Wouldn’t the founding fathers who made and voted on the constitution have known if they were being unconstitutional when they were passing federal law in regards to marriage, in 1780, 1794, and 1798?
Then do what you can to defeat the libertarians and the liberals.
Support the conservatives, and it would be nice if you would help the conservatives on gay marriage threads.
Unfortunately, the debate gets lost in generalizations which, for example, makes it impossible to approach the WoD industry. That said, discussing WoD with a bunch of stoners wouldn’t be time well spent either.
IOW you reject my political goals, substituting my personal opinion for them, and then questioning where the political platform aligning to that opinion is?
This seems to indicates a deep dishonesty.
"If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to.
This is the last stand on Earth."
I regularly bitch about ‘homosexual marriage law’ and how it forces the citizens to service, support, and sanction homosexual behavior. I also make the regular complaint that LP and its Liberal band of idiots have no problem embracing the same laws. I’m not ambiguous about this.
You so wrong and hardheaded you’re not worth talking to.
No, I’m only interested in gay marriage on this thread, I thought you had been posting that you wanted government out of it entirely, and for it to be a religious thing only.
That wasn’t it?
Hi Aquabuddhist/freepersicne2001/et al!
Fine, then we can hope to see you on our side and joining the conservatives in our fight against gay marriage and libertarianism.
Currently the Undeaders are gnawing on The Producer.
See you tomorrow!
Just kidding in post 281, we both know exactly what you were saying.
You won’t be siding with us anti-gay marriage conservatives, and nothing is going to change that.
That’s the beauty of the written word. To say exactly what one means.
You having a good day today, FRiend?
I would say that you remain dishonest and are admitting that you will continue to fight us on gay marriage, but will never be open and honest about it.
That is why you made those typical slick and evasive last few posts, typical of the libertarians.
Trolls do that that, is pretty much how they are defined.
Thank you for the cool dragon graphic, my friend.
Have a good day, ansel12.
Hey, I just put a damned decent new strap on my gun.. by God!
My point is that even if they called themselves Christian, it would not in truth be a Christian church, but a renegade, false church preaching a false doctrine.
The ozone is thick around here these days...LOL.
Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my Viking Kitty/ZOT ping list!. . . don't be shy.
That is Alduin , The Bane of Kings, From the Game Skyrim Made by the Same Company the Published Fallout: New Vegas which has Joshua Graham.
So now on F.R. Auldin is the Bane of Trolls.
Or we could always do Smaug from The Hobbit...
I see what you did there. Well played!
Svetlana Petrova, FatCatArt
So are the trolls. They’re getting fed into the Viking Kitty mess
hall as fast as the Mods can find them and ZOT.
Most Viking Kitties enjoy a nice, crunchy, crackly troll.