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 As recently as 1989, voters in avant-garde San Francisco repealed a law that had established only domestic partnerships.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.
Just so I’m clear, that last post was me calling you a lying sack of sh*t.
__________________________________________
And on behalf of all conservatives everywhere, I acknowldge your insult. You’re not the first liberal to cuss me out, nor will you be the last.
And as myself and others on this thread have already documented, you have angry bitter issues against marriage and against moral conservative values in general, so we understand your hatred and hostility here.
I suggest you seek immediate psychiatric help for your many disorders. Either that or call me a lot more nasty names.
Your choice. I really don’t care.
Just out of curiosity, why is Responsibility2nd a "lying sack of sh*t"?
Does it have something to do with disagreeing with your libertarian desires to impose the homosexual agenda on America under the guise of "small government"?
Since the founding of the Republic there have been duplicitous libertarian types trying to advance evil agendas based on the pretense that it's not a matter for the government to concern itself with.
Let me ask you: how EXACTLY do you propose to keep same-sex marriage from being a Federal issue in light of the equal protection clause? People go to different states to get married all the time, what is to prevent the sodomites from doing this? Married people move to different states all the time, what is to prevent the sodomites from doing this? Or do you think there should be some sort of system where a person is married in one state but not another?
The libertarian position gives their allies on the left EXACTLY what they are demanding and the libertarians stand by and smugly proclaim that they don't like it anymore than conservatives.
Ah, so you are going to speak for conservatives everywhere. Problem is, you’re not a conservative. You’re a lying hypocrite. And you probably couldn’t spot a liberal if one kicked you in the ass. Considering how you love big government, you should probably go find some liberals to hang out with. You have a lot in common with them with your belief that the Constitution is a living, breathing document that means whatever you want it to mean, your intellectual bankruptcy and willingness to lie when backed into a corner by someone who calls you on your bullsh*t.
bye
By your own admission, YOU are not a conservative.
What you and the other libertarians need to realize the truth that President Ronald Reagan proved and that is that conservatism is a "THREE-LEGGED STOOL" and it only works when fiscal conservatism, a strong national defense AND social conservatism are attended to. Libertarians are typically okay on fiscal conservatism, generally oppose national defense and are far to the left on social matters.
In short, due to its duplicity, libertarianism is far more dangerous to conservatism than liberalism.
I did. I mashed Report Abuse. And the response was FAST from Viking Kitty Prime (JimRob)
I see you chose option two in my post 341. The nasty name calling choice.
How’s that working out for you?
Ooops. I see you’ve been zotted. Can’t anser.
Good advice. I hope he takes it.
wagglebee, look at his post from 11 years ago.
To: RogerFGay
While meaningless threats from activist social conservatives fill the air, it is unlikely that any effective action will be taken to address the root causes of this radical change. These people genuinely do not understand why hardly anyone is rallying to their "defense of marriage" cause. A large segment of society want nothing to do with fighting to save an institution that has turned their lives into a near nightmare via ruinous "family court" policies that these same groups either supported wholeheartedly or turned a deaf ear to. None of them said so much as boo about no-fault divorce laws or the blatant bias against men in the courts. Now they wonder why no one wants to take an interest in their agenda. "Save marriage...." What's left to save? These people stood by and either ignored or ridiculed all of us when their vaunted institution was used to screw over millions of us. Fighting to "save marriage" from homosexuals is like complaining about the poison ivy in their back yard when the roof and foundation of their house have caved in.
5 posted on 11/21/2003 6:07:39 AM by Orangedog (Soccer-Moms are the biggest threat to your freedoms and the republic !)
A well deserved ZOT. The obnoxious troll can now go to DU “to kill some time.”
Thanks for the ping, TOL.
Posted earlier on another thread but it applies here
“The other thing we have to accept is that there are no magic bullets. We are going to lose some. It will suck. But those screaming “purist” and the like do not want what we want. They want moderation.
The sooner we rid ourselves of the people blocking our progress, the sooner we can return to principle and move ahead rather than fighting this war within.”
You’re welcome.
I don’t get annoyed easily, but that one made me angry. It’s geniuses like that
who have assisted in the ongoing destruction of our country and our way of life.
I hoped for several days that he would go over the top, and he finally did.
*******************************
Interesting.
Thank you, TOL.
By “ridding ourselves of the people blocking our progress” do you
mean getting them off FR, or getting them to sit down and be still?
Both?
I do agree that the progressives are anything but.
Thanks, Jim. Ran up against him in a thread two days ago. He’s not a conservative, there’s no reason for him to be posting on this site.
I was surprised at how fast the ZOT hammer fell on that one.
We all had enough of that one, I’m sure.
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.