Marriage on the rocks

In modern journalism, radical change is often announced by a yawn-inducing headline. For instance, "Legal Group Urges States to Update Their Family Law" (New York Times, November 29). The headline, one step up from "Don't Bother to Read This," refers to a ponderous 1,200-page commentary and set of recommendations by the American Law Institute, a group of prominent judges and lawyers. The proposals, "Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution," may seem like dry, technical suggestions about custody, alimony, and property distribution. But what this "update" really amounts to is a devastating legal assault on marriage.

The institute report says that in many important ways, domestic partnerships should be legally treated like marriage. It defines domestic partners as "two persons of the same or opposite sex, not married to one another, who for a significant period of time share a primary residence and a life together as a couple." When breaking up, the report says, cohabitants are entitled to a division of property and alimonylike payments, just like married people who divorce. And after a relationship ends, the cohabiting partner of a legal parent may share custody and decision-making responsibility for the legal parent's child.

The report validates homosexual relationships and gives them a status comparable to that of marriage. If accepted, this idea would lead immediately to the next legal argument: If gay and straight commitments have the same status in state law, isn't it picky and discriminatory to withhold the word marriage from the gay version? Heterosexual couples who live together would also get the same status as husbands and wives, blurring or eliminating another line between marriage and serial affairs.

War on tradition. The most drastic notion embedded in the suggestions is that marriage is just one arrangement among many. Marriage is being deconstructed here, downgraded and privatized. It is no longer the crucial building block of the social order and makes no special contribution to civil society that justifies any distinctive honor or status. This report, says Lynn Wardle, professor of law at Brigham Young University, "continues the war on the traditional family and traditional sexual morality that has been waged for over three decades."

Wardle has a point. Marriage is in trouble for a lot of reasons, but surely one important factor is the relentless hostility unleashed by the 1960s counterculture, which portrayed marriage as oppressive, patriarchal, outmoded, and destructive to children. The attitudes of today's elites reflect that never-ending campaign. Now we have lots of "marriage" counselors who never use the word marriage and textbooks on families bristling with hostility to the nuclear family. As I wrote in this space several years ago, "One of the problems in trying to shore up the institution of marriage is that so many of the professionals who teach and write about it-counselors, therapists, academics, and popular authors-really don't support marriage at all."

What they do tend to support is known as "close relationship theory," the idea that sexual and emotional satisfaction comes from intense, fragile, and often short-term relationships that aren't necessarily going anywhere. One advocate calls them "microwave relationships," cooked up fast, served, and consumed, presumably with other similar meals to come. It all seems like the dream world of a randy adolescent chasing cheerleaders. Marriage is knocked off its pedestal, and the family itself fades away. Children tend to fade away, too, in close-relationship theory, as emphasis comes down hard on adult fulfillment.

The state shouldn't be in the practice of giving anyone benefit for being married, or being single, or for living with their dowager aunt and flea-bitten dog.

The issue in all of this is the tax code and the benefits conferred by it. With a national retail sales tax system instead of our "reward/punishment via the income taxation system," then benefits wouldn't be conferred by tax schedules, deductions, and special benefits.

All the other so-called marital issues are easily handled by a decent will disposing of one's estate.

(Donning flame suit)

I agree that the state should not be giving anyone benefit for being married, but it is the state that for all practical purposes marries people. If any of you think it is a religious thing, just ask your local clergy to marry you. I am sure he will ask to see your marriage license, which is of course issued by the state.

On the other hand, run on down to the court house and ask a judge to marry you, and again with a state issued license the ceremony will be held. A marriage just does not happen until two people go and get permission from the state to enter into a legally binding contract to share their resources and wealth. (This is were the flames will start) A marriage should be just that, a legally binding contract between two consenting adults, who chose to share their lives and fortunes together "till death do they part".

And as you pointed a decent will would handle everything after that.

just ask your local clergy to marry you

I am my local clergy...LOL.

Marriage does not require the stamp of the state to be valid. It existed long before the state came along. The union is between the parties of the marriage. In the Christian faith, of course, we consider God to be one of he parties to the covenant. With God and the husband and wife in the presence of the church affirming their marriage, there is no need for the state.

The marriage license itself is viewed an unnecessary by the state. The "common law" marriage recognizes that the reality of a union precedes the intrusion of the state.

As a Christian bound by scripture to follow human laws which offer no offense, I struggle with determining if this "marriage license" requirement is an intrusion in God's domain. I've come to believe that it is.

The taxation/benefits issue grows out of the "marriage license" question. No one should be asking for or getting special infusions of tax money.

I think the "common law" element comes into play when the two parties decide that the living arrangements are no longer workable, and seek the protections provided to legal spouses under the same duress. I would suspect that most parties citing the common law have not been married by the state or church.

I know when I got married by a preacher who is a very good friend of mine, we still had to have a witness sign the license, and a copy of it is on file at the local court house.

BTW, I would hope you did not take any offense, as none was intended.

No offense taken. In fact, I didn't recognize anything to be offended about.

Common law is a law that predates written law if I understand correctly. In its application to marriage, it is used for legal purposes other than just divorce.

I have no problem with folks getting a license. However, if two senior citizens, for example, cannot marry because of weird tax provisions that would strip them of their income, I would certainly counsel them to be married rather than to simply live together. I just wouldn't counsel them to get a marriage license.

They are just as married by God without it.

"marriage license" requirement is an intrusion in God's domain

God says: "vengence is mine", but he establishes the state as his ministers of vengence. Marriage licenses are a vestige of when our government used them as a tool in order to defend marriage.

Next is incestual marriage, intergenerational marriage, so-called “bisexual” marriage triads and the bestial domestic partnership. The slippery slope begins.

I honestly did not read the entire body of the post before responding. I am in complete agreement with your response for a number of (other) reasons/issues. I would send your response to the Methodist Church/Board & Society in Washington DC, if it wouldn't fall on deaf ears... When the Methodist Church denounced the Boy Scout organization for excluding gays (homosexuals/sodomites) I left. This wasn't by any stretch of the imagination the only reason, just the straw that broke the camel's back. You have stated simply, that which is profound.

Always amazes me when we agree..the state is the regulator of contracts. Secular marriage is a three way contract..man , woman and state

A Christian marriage is a covenant between a man , a woman and God...in the case of the elect of God ..we do not NEED the state to regulate our marriage.

As I was writing this it occurred to me that probably no other civil contract is treated with as little respect nor so often broken.

My concern is always for the children. I have become much more a libertarian in my old age..I feel little desire or need to control the lives of others, in any way. The exception is helpless kids..

The state has an interest in minors..for that reason the "Domestic Partnership" idea is troubling..kids could end up with many many "mommydaddys " to visit..because the state says they have an "interest" in them..imagine the possibilty for abuse..

Other than that I do not care what they call themselves

I can't tell which direction you're taking in this. My point is that marriage precedes state and is a prerogative of God.

The state interference is marriage is an "allowance" by virtue of the state's proper handling of the estate of marriage. When it fails to properly administer the estate, then ministers of God can withdraw their permission for the state's involvement.

Render to God that which is God's.

Seems like some problems could develop. For instance, if there is a critical illness, would the hospital recognize the right of the able partner to make decisions. I know a living will would come into play, but blood relatives might have a different take on it.

Also, while God recognizes the marriage I don't think the state would, while if the couple was married by a judge I think the church would recognize it as a legal marriage.

So that takes me back to where I thought I would flamed. If two consenting adults are wedded in the church, it would stand to reason that every church would recognize that wedding, though the state may not because of the lack of a legal document. Hence, a gay couple; if they are able to locate a willing man of the cloth should be able to get married. (I am not advocating, just observing). Likewise, if a gay couple wants to enter into a legally binding contract to share each others assets, lives, and fortunes; as legally consenting adults they should be allowed to do so, with the blessing of the state.

Judaism’s Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality, by DENNIS PRAGER

"When Judaism demanded that all sexual activity be channeled into marriage, it changed the world. The Torah's prohibition of non-marital sex quite simply made the creation of Western civilization possible. Societies that did not place boundaries around sexuality were stymied in their development. The subsequent dominance of the Western world can largely be attributed to the sexual revolution initiated by Judaism and later carried forward by Christianity..."

I would certainly counsel them to be married rather than to simply live together. I just wouldn't counsel them to get a marriage license.

We agree again..WOW...I believe in a comittment service between them and God..The state should have no interest in who I spend my last days with..

If any of you think it is a religious thing, just ask your local clergy to marry you. I am sure he will ask to see your marriage license, which is of course issued by the state.

The clergy is not exempt from having government guns aimed at them. They must gain the permission of government to proclaim people married or suffer the consequences.

If you notice, the licence doesn't make you married, the ceremony does, whether it is performed by clergy or government employees who are appointed for that and other purposes.

You might also give some thought to the legal standing of common law marriages.

Government permission doesn't make one married, it allows it. It is totally illegitimate.

This report, says Lynn Wardle, professor of law at Brigham Young University, "continues the war on the traditional family and traditional sexual morality that has been waged for over three decades."

Anyone else see the irony here?

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.