Encouraging marriage is one of the few things that government does well.

First, we encourage marriage because its incredibly beneficial to society. If you want to know what a country without marriage would look like, look at those communities where 70% of children are born outside of wedlock. Almost all if not ALL the problems in the black community (crime, poverty, low education, etc) are the direct result of children growing up in sinlge parent households.

If we want a country with vastly more children born out of wedlock, more crime, more dropouts, more illiteracy, more dependence on government, worse health, more violence, etc… then by all means, get government out of the marriage business. turn marriage into something that only “those crazy Bible-thumpers” do.

Anyone who thinks government should stop encouraging marriage in order to protect marriage is, frankly, an IDIOT!

This is the way to go – get gubmint out of the ‘marriage’ business entirely.

Hard to believe there’s some sense coming out of California

And I’m still looking for a logical differentiation between gay marriage and polygamy/communal marriages. Especially with polygamy having in-depth historical and religious precedence. One ‘discriminates’ based on gender, the other based on number.

Don’t hold your breath here Michealo. I’ve made this same argument myself many times to gay marriage supporters and have yet to receive a consistant logic response. What’s really behind the gay marriage/polygamy inconsistancy is what I call the “ick factor”. As recently as a generation ago, the concept of gay marriage was laughable. For most people, it was just “icky” to think of people of the same sex marrying one another. Over time, mainly through the influence of the media and pop culture, the continuous portrayal of homosexuality as healthy and normal has diminished the feeling for most people that gay marriage is something icky. That’s not true of polygamy which has not been portrayed as normal in our culture, so that most people’s gut reaction is that polygamy is just “gross” or icky. What we’re dealing with now in our culture are emotional reactions to both gay marriage and polygamy, based on cultural conditioning. As you’ve pointed out, from a standpoint of reason and logic alone, it’s ridiculous to make an argument that one is a “right” but the other is not.

I am a Jedi.

MadisonConservative on March 12, 2009 at 2:17 PM

LOL! As an ‘old’ Star Wars fan, I salute you!

RegularJoe on March 12, 2009 at 3:00 PM

I agree. People have no tact or forward thinking these days.

Rambler on March 12, 2009 at 2:40 PM

Would be nice though if people didn’t talk out of their a$$e$ when they say something to someone, however.

Do the regulars dare to enter the fray?

DFCtomm on March 12, 2009 at 7:46 PM

Well okay sure. I’ve been here for a while, I guess I qualify as a regular.

Thing is, I trust individuals to decide what their own marriage is. If it’s got a lot of personal, religious, traditional or family significance then they know – morally – what they as individuals are supposed to do.

I want the government out of it. Let there be tax deductions for dependent minors, as there already are for parents and non-parental guardians.

If someone is a devout Catholic, for example, aren’t the religious factors the ones that matter anyway? The wedding Mass means a lot more than the signing of legal paperwork already. So have your huge party, become joined together in the eyes of God, declare to all and sundry your commitment to your marriage, and go forth and behave accordingly.

Sign a contract if that matters too. Or if you just want the contract without the other things then that’s up to you.

Marriage is really none of the government’s business.

Anyhow, time to stop playing defense people. STOP LETTING THE LEFT FRAME THE DEBATE. FFS.

NotCoach on March 13, 2009 at 2:49 AM

So let me ask you the following. Do you trust the government to define marriage and yet not impose itself into individuals’ marriages?

What are these laws? Give us an example.

Upstater85 on March 13, 2009 at 2:26 AM

The example is what this blog post is about. Marriage and how we define it legally.

NotCoach on March 13, 2009 at 2:17 AM

I’m not going to defend Frum (I think he would be classified a neoconservative), but I think it’s impossible to be a big-government libertarian leaning conservative… I did read your post about how the whore’s shouldn’t be punished by the government – I’m relieved.

I support laws that promote certain moral behavior.

What are these laws? Give us an example.

Who fits in this category? It seems somewhat oxymoronic.

Upstater85 on March 13, 2009 at 2:02 AM

David Frum.

Upstater85 on March 13, 2009 at 2:02 AM

Unfortunately you do not know how to read. I was quite clear in my post that I am opposed to laws that punish people for private behavior. I support laws that promote certain moral behavior. And it is society through government that sets the standard. That should be clear to you since we are quickly heading towards no standard when it comes to accepted norms while adopting a fascist view of speech regulation through such things as hate crime laws and the like.

Would those be the anti-federalist, pro-big-government, libertarian leaning conservatives?

Upstater85 on March 13, 2009 at 12:37 AM

Probably.

NotCoach on March 13, 2009 at 1:16 AM

Who fits in this category? It seems somewhat oxymoronic.

But some laws that promote a certain moral prerogative over others help to keep society strong.

NotCoach on March 13, 2009 at 1:50 AM

Applying the death penalty to adulterers would probably cut back on adultery. Yes this is extreme, but some societies apply this form of justice to keep their societies strong.

Here’s an example that’s not as extreme. Perhaps we should put all people in jail that use hate speech – whatever that definition may be. A society where people speak nicer to each other should be stronger, right?

Who sets the moral standard? The government?

Brown also “controversially” wrote the title and summary to Prop 8.

Not to put a dent in the snarky joy of this reader, but Brown’s writing of the title and summary of Prop 8 was indeed controversial.

He took it on himself to reword the language that was approved by the voters, in what was, I do believe, an unprecedented action by an AG.

He changed the language from “Affirms that only the marriage of a man and a woman is valid and recognized in CA” to “Bans all same sex marriage in the state of CA.”

However you feel about the validity of the language, the fact of the matter is that the public approved the former, and it should have gone on the ballot as the former.

It still passed despite the resulting loss of votes (it polled higher phrased the first way), but Jerry Brown did and has done everything in his power to sabotage Prop 8.

He, as CA’s Attorney General, was supposed to defend the people’s vote on this matter against legal challenges, but again, in what I believe was unprecedented, he is standing against his own voters.

It is fortunate that the CA Supreme Court allowed ProtectMarriage.com, the sponsors of Prop 8, to intervene and argue on its behalf. You know, the job Jerry Brown just won’t do.

—————–

Now, with regards to this thing, I wonder the following:

1) Do community property rules still apply in a domestic partnership? Off the top of my head, I believe they do. I could be wrong.

2) Assuming CP does not still apply, will the same hardcore feminists who moonlight as gay marriage activists be so quick to support a measure that removes the right of the female to lay claim to 50% of all the assets purchased in a marriage?

Gotta love CA. This thing is going to be a battle here for years to come.

Romeo13 on March 13, 2009 at 1:35 AM

These are not meaningless symbols, they are the backbone of our society. Yes, the war on drugs is a waste of dollars, but that does not mean drugs should be legal. Yes, you can whore yourself out, but that does not mean society should not disapprove. We destroy society by allowing ourselves to believe that nothing is bad and all things are permissible. There is no more shame and very little moral expectation left in this country. Please explain to me how this has improved our society.

Government backed marriage promotes a certain lifestyle over another and that is a good thing in my view. For one hundred years now we have been slowly destroying the family structure and its impact on society shows. We don’t need laws to try and stop you from being a whore. But some laws that promote a certain moral prerogative over others help to keep society strong.