Why is the state involved in marriage at all?
posted at 10:10 am on August 7, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
Now that a judge has issued an incoherent ruling that the federal government has a 14th Amendment interest in the definition of marriage after more than 140 years of apparent disinterest, it may be time to reconsider government involvement in marriage entirely. Townhall’s David Harsanyi offers the argument that government involvement may do more harm than good to the institution, and results from a historical mistake in the first place. Time to get on with the divorce, Harsanyi insists:
In the 1500s, a pestering theologian instituted something called the Marriage Ordinance in Geneva, which made “state registration and church consecration” a dual requirement of matrimony.
We have yet to get over this mistake. But isn’t it about time we freed marriage from the state?
Imagine if government had no interest in the definition of marriage. Individuals could commit to each other, head to the local priest or rabbi or shaman — or no one at all — and enter into contractual agreements, call their blissful union whatever they felt it should be called and go about the business of their lives.
I certainly don’t believe that gay marriage will trigger societal instability or undermine traditional marriage — we already have that covered — but mostly I believe your private relationships are none of my business. And without any government role in the institution, it wouldn’t be the business of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, either.
Be sure to read it all. I’ve written about this repeatedly over the last several years, and while I don’t think that this is an easy path to adopt, it’s going to be the eventual solution. Not only does it take government out of people’s private lives, it also means an end to a divisive and essentially meaningless debate — and it protects houses of faith and ends a potential government interference in matters of religion.
Let’s first dispense with the idea that the government protects the sanctity of marriage. It doesn’t; if government ever did that, that ended with no-fault divorce. Marriage, as run by the government, is the only contract in this country that can be broken by one party alone with no adverse consequences. (Well, that and professional sports contracts, I guess.) Partnership agreements in the business context would disintegrate without at least the threat of government enforcement of its provisions. Marriage as run by government has been disintegrating for decades, as the divorce rate shows, and that has nothing to do with gay relationships.
We would do much better to require people to create partnership contracts in the civil context than get marriage licenses for issues like property sharing, access to family, and so on. If people want to live together and share their lives to that extent, it’s healthier and much less confusing later to have those issues expressly spelled out in an agreement up front, just like any prenuptial agreement today. If two people don’t want to go that far in formalizing their relationship, then they shouldn’t be considered married anyway — and shouldn’t get access to “palimony” and have debates over oral contracts, and so on. If you don’t get it in writing, it doesn’t exist, in the context of personal partnerships.
Then, if people want to get “married,” they can go to the institutions that actually care about marriage: churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, and so on. Marriage can be a private, faith-based recognition of a sacramental relationship that exists outside of the civil context entirely, and houses of faith can set their own requirements as to what it means and who can participate — just as they do now. Not only does that protect the sanctity of actual marriage much more than a government, but it also means that government has no way to poke the camel’s nose of intervention into the religious tent, as it were, to force houses of faith to conduct marriages that violate their tenets in the name of fairness. Divorcing marriage from the state and dissolving the partnership between government and religion benefits the latter more than the former.
Let government define and enforce contract law, not marriage. If we don’t follow that path, people will shortly become very unhappy about the eventual government definition.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5
Jenfidel on August 8, 2010 at 3:09 AM
Fine. Ignore the facts as cited everywhere (and by yourself).
Jenfidel on August 8, 2010 at 3:08 AM
If you want to go with Biblical tradition then women are chattel.
sharrukin on August 8, 2010 at 3:15 AM
Yes, marriage was a contract between families… not necessarily the participants… but often the husband was one of the contractors. The more wealth involved, the less likely that the woman would have any say.
We have come a long way and it is a good thing that we have seen a number of traditions related to marriage consigned to history rather than being preserved.
lexhamfox on August 8, 2010 at 3:44 AM
Excuse me, but you’re the one ignoring facts and trying to rewrite history…from a Leftist, lying perspective!
The Bible treats women as every bit as equal as men.
Your statement is blatantly false!
You are no more right about the Bible than you are about History!
No.
Marriage is a sacred, mystical union of heart, mind and soul between one man and one woman.
That contract stuff is a man-made head-ache (usually by lawyers) and has nothing to do with real marriage.
The Prop. 8 ruling is mainly a boon for divorce lawyers who can’t wait to get all those new same sex divorce cases.
Jenfidel on August 8, 2010 at 3:52 AM
Okay, from what I’m seeing this basically boils down to saying “if the government weren’t involved in marriage, it wouldn’t want to be involved in marriage.”
Which is absolutely ridiculous.
Ryan Anthony on August 8, 2010 at 7:42 AM
Then certainly you don’t need marriage as a governmental institution, and partnership contracts will do for the state.
blatantblue on August 8, 2010 at 8:21 AM
Pointing out a simple fact about why divorce rates are rising.
–
I love this idealizing of marriage, too. It’s humorous. It’s been a broken and rather miserable institution for its entire existence. People yearn for the “good ol’ days” when people stayed “together,” and the institution of marriage was “healthy,” but those who think the institution was ever healthy are delusional.
blatantblue on August 8, 2010 at 8:26 AM
Sure, there have been plenty of good marriages throughout time, and that is a great thing. However, for a large portion of humanity, I’m willing to place a bet and posit that it hasn’t been so wonderful.
blatantblue on August 8, 2010 at 8:27 AM
Yes, let’s throw out what has worked successfully for centuries, because we’re hip and with it.
That’s worked so well.
Skyrocketing crime, incurable sexually transmitted diseases running rampant, skyrocketing child abuse and neglect, morally and intellectually bankrupt politicians fooling the American people on a massive scale (e.g. Barry Obama).
Just a general decline all around.
But by all means, let’s through away a few more of the traditions that helped make western societies and this country elevate humanity. What could possibly go wrong?
NoDonkey on August 8, 2010 at 8:29 AM
blatantblue on August 8, 2010 at 8:27 AM
You are a great example of what passes for “thinking” these days.
All humans are flawed and all institutions designed by humans are flawed.
This flummoxes the hopelessly naive (like you) who try to pass off ignorant cynicism for sophistication and knowledge.
Your solution is to just get rid of what’s worked over time, in favor of something that not “hypocritical”.
And when your idiot side is successful and the unintended consequences start rolling in, your side is never around to take responsibility.
But by all means, let’s get rid of something that’s worked well for centuries, in favor of what the people who brought us the Nehru jacket think is cool at the moment.
NoDonkey on August 8, 2010 at 8:34 AM
yes the bible has been shown to be true…and you have not posted a single thing to disprove the archeology of the bible. because you cannot. all you can do is dismiss it, like a good liberal does.
You twisted what I said, either you can’t read very well, or you needed to make a good strawman, since you can’t argue with what I said, but you just don’t like it…again nice liberal wacko debating tactics.
oh yes anyone who doesn’t agree with you is an ‘extremist’ a ‘zealot’ but you are so above it all, so ‘moderate’ and all-knowing and wise….laughable.
and your once sentence where I mentioned you were on drugs was totally incomprehensible.
spare me the whining on personal attacks…you attack me personally calling me an ‘zealot’….you can dish it out, but you can’t take it…poor baby.
and you sure haven’t addressed the substance of my post, other than to dismiss it. keep twisting and distorting, its what you liberal wackos do best!
right4life on August 8, 2010 at 8:58 AM
The commerce clause? It’s used for everything else.
darwin on August 8, 2010 at 9:41 AM
it wasn’t a personal attack on my part, just an observation of your following sentence:
do you read what you wrote? its nonsensical. I don’t know what this means…hence the comment that you must be on drugs….at least that is some excuse..otherwise…really sad.
you didn’t make an argument, all you did was create a strawman by twisting and distorting what I said. again a typical liberal wacko debating style.
I never said the bible was an ‘archeological expert’ only a person can be an expert. thanks for lying about what I said. I did say the archeology has shown that the bible is true, again and again and again. and you cannot point to any archeological discovery that disproves the bible. So logically, if the bible is correct about every other detail, why would it be wrong about Adam and eve??
again another lie or distortion of what I said. but hey I know you cannot deal with the substance of what I said, so you have to create a strawman. lets see if you can dispute what I actually said. whats funny is that you have not posted anything to back up you ASSertions…but we are supposed to bow before your wisdom…right…again you sound like a typical liberal wacko. not a personal attack, merely an observation.
amusing since you sure claim to be the ‘be all end all’ to the matter of history.
right4life on August 8, 2010 at 9:55 AM
good times for us…not so much for you!! you’ve heard about the last laugh….have a nice day!
right4life on August 8, 2010 at 9:57 AM
you know what they say…if the jack-boots fits honey!
and with the gay marriage movement, no other word describes them better than fascist!
its amusing watching you debate, you obviously have no understanding of what the constitution really says..
right4life on August 8, 2010 at 10:00 AM
Would tend to agree with you. Saw some of your earlier posts in this thread and it reminded me of something an instructor in a women’s studies class had pointed out. The combination of the introduction of the pill and emphasis on women entering the workplace were drivers in what we are seeing today. Being able to work allowed people to leave a bad relationship and the pill allowed women to behave/experiment as guys had been doing for millenia.
Only problem was that the pay inequity left the women with a burden of child care and lower wage while the father/husband moved on. Laws have changed to correct some of that and it is better now but it left us a generation of kids influenced by the new norms.
Marriage is a difficult endeavor and not everyone makes the journey a lifelong one. Lots of factors contribute such as age of marriage, previous kids, different core values, etc.
Look at some of those pictures from the 1850′s with a family of nine kids in the midwest. the women in most of those pictures looked far from blissful – it was a hard life. In addition due to disease and deaths in childbirth the mail order bride was a choice at the time. A little correspondence and badda bing badda boom the new wife to be arrived. It seemed to work but there was little mysticism involved with the choices. Two adults rolled the dice that they could make something work.
Bradky on August 8, 2010 at 10:01 AM
And the intolerant liberal name-callers have joined right in! Wheeeee!
rockmom on August 8, 2010 at 10:03 AM
Would you kindly point me to the scripture or passage in which Jesus said “…we will dwell in the house of the lord forever and ever laughing at the ones who didn’t make the cut amen”
Because it sounds like that is the only joy the promise of eternal life gives you.
Bradky on August 8, 2010 at 10:04 AM
don’t you think justice is a good thing? but dakine doesn’t think any of those things will ever happen anyway..so why try to be serious with a fool?
right4life on August 8, 2010 at 10:07 AM
Why is the state involved in marriage at all? Duh !! > The usual reason > money and control. In MN a marriage license is either $110 or $40, depending on whether the couple took premarital education or not.
Dasher on August 8, 2010 at 10:07 AM
Eternal justice is not mine to dispense – or yours for that matter. Very offputting to hear people revel in the thought someone will burn in hell forever and make it a matter of “Who will have the last laugh”.
And you cannot point to any passage that remotely suggests God or Christ thinks it is funny.
Bradky on August 8, 2010 at 10:13 AM
ever read psalm 2?
so yeah He does think its funny.
didn’t mention burning in hell..but hey nice lie. so ‘christian’ of you.
right4life on August 8, 2010 at 10:21 AM
He laughs in derision and then gets angry — far cry from you and Jesus sitting around yukking it up the rest of eternity because Dakine didn’t make the cut.
Spin it any way you like but that is exactly how you come across.
Bradky on August 8, 2010 at 10:24 AM
I find grim humor in this too, as well as people who pine for the Beaver Cleaver days. Oddly enough they always seem to be middle-class in economic status at least – and almost always white.
We aren’t just worshiping cultural idols, the idols are made of gilded plywooed!
Dark-Star on August 8, 2010 at 10:28 AM
If a civil contract remains a legal prerequisite for a private marriage ceremony, does the state not retain a veto over the latter? Or is it entirely up to the parties whether to iron out their prospective or potential conflicts to the state’s satisfaction in advance before proceeding to the altar?
Conversely, if a denomination chooses to examine the particulars or predicates of a partnership agreement before deciding whether to formalize the arrangement, that does not disentangle church and state either.
For example, I suspect that many of the problems associated with Islam worldwide could be ameliorated if incest laws were tightened. (Incest may still be relevant in Appalachia too for all I know, but less explosively so.) Will the state simply look the other way instead under this proposal – and if it doesn’t, won’t Muslims sue?
Seth Halpern on August 8, 2010 at 10:48 AM
Sheer nonsense. Married people are happier and there is nothing more pathetic than an aging single individual with no children, either sitting in bars trying to pick up drunk 50 year olds or sitting at home with multiple cats.
The “institution” is as healthy and as flawed as every other human invention.
How happy and well-adjusted are childre with parents who never marry? They don’t do well when compared to children whose parents stay together and biological parents are far less likely to abuse their children than are step parents or whatever scumbag the mother or father picks up at a bar that night.
You people just love to throw out century old institutions, makes you feel validate and powerful. But what you propose to replace these social institutions with (usually nothing at all, in this case), have a number of unintended consequences that you will subsequently deny then have no idea how to deal with.
Following progressives always leads to the same dead end road – throw out admittedly flawed (what human devised system isn’t?) for a deconstructed, shallow replacement built on sand. And when what you propose washes away, there’s no going back.
NoDonkey on August 8, 2010 at 10:54 AM
What’s In A Name?
In one account, known as the Judgment of Solomon, two mothers came before Solomon to resolve a quarrel about which was the true meaning of Marriage. One mothers son married a very beautiful women whose marriage fell apart as so many marriages do. The other mothers son fell in love with a very handsome man but no jurisdiction would allow them the benefits of marriage. In the absence of the wisdom of Solomon, a judge has ruled that denying members of the same gender to marry is discrimination. If society deems self-esteem, self-aggrandizement, self-gratification and self-edification trump natures law and Gods law then so be it. I will neither recognize nor willfully accept that those marriages are lawfully beneficial to society nor would they diminish or embellish the traditional marriages of millions of people of many cultures and religions . What really matters is what something is, not what something is called and a marriage is that which we make it not that which some judge says it is. The traditional family will always be a rock in the shifting sands of time, a mother and father can never be reduced to whim or fancy when it comes to giving children the love and nurturing they deserve and God expects of us.
fourdeucer on August 8, 2010 at 10:55 AM
Why must my understanding of the world in which I live, my nation, change? If it is an “alternative lifestyle” then why must it be legally recognized as a norm?
FeFe on August 8, 2010 at 10:58 AM
Amen. Let’s end this social nonsense so there is one less god damned thing for leftists to get their panties in a bunch about.
And then let’s start preaching the real message:
The left has destroyed our economy. Let that be the focus from now through November 2012!
JeffB. on August 8, 2010 at 11:33 AM
JeffB. on August 8, 2010 at 11:33 AM
Oh, but it never ends.
You give “progressives” a victory and that just gives them more time to scamper on to the next cause.
And their causes all have to do with screwing up our lives, rather it be taxing us to death in order to institute more harebrained, counterproductive social programs, order us around as far as our health and lifestyles are concerned, etc.
While the left won’t regulate anything you stick up your rectum (because that they hold sacred), they’ve reserved the right to order us around in pretty much every other aspect of our lives.
Give the left no victories, roll back the idiocies they’ve enacte previously, that’s how to beat them and make no mistake, leftists deserve to be beaten in every sense of the word.
NoDonkey on August 8, 2010 at 11:40 AM
Let’s get a divorce, let the federal government run WDC, we run the states ourselves. See which is more productive and happy.
tarpon on August 8, 2010 at 11:50 AM
I believe in marriage between a man and a woman. My parents believed in it and their parents before them and so on.
Marriage is not the screwed up institution. Divorce is.
I went into marriage with the idea that it was for life. I have never regretted my decision to this day, which is my 23rd wedding anniversary. Marriage is not easy. It is a lot of work and give and take. It is about giving in — not winning — for both the man and the woman. It is about knowing and accepting flaws in your mate because that mate accepts your flaws. It is about appreciating and recognizing sacrifices made by your mate when you, personally, had a rough patch — like when your parents need care and you have to do it, or your mate’s mother and sister die within 2 weeks of each other.
It is about loving each other and being there for each other. No matter what.
Greyledge Gal on August 8, 2010 at 1:16 PM
I don’t get angry, I just laugh in derision…
but so good of you to see the intent of my heart!! didn’t know you do that…thought it was only Jesus who could judge a man’s heart!
I didn’t realize you were taking His place!!
now why don’t you take a flying leap you arrogant, holier-than-thou hypocrite.
right4life on August 8, 2010 at 1:43 PM
Allahpundit seems to be Dede Scozzafava, the one against traditional marriage. Ed is Newt Gingrich supporting Dede saying what the big deal about traditional marriage issue.
PrezHussein on August 8, 2010 at 1:43 PM
The only reason the govt needs to be in marriage at all is for tax filing. This has been my opinion for some time now.
jeffn21 on August 8, 2010 at 2:52 PM
And yet poll after poll shows that blacks are much more strongly opposed to same-sex marriage than whites. A rather inconvenient truth for you liberals.
rockmom on August 8, 2010 at 3:52 PM
One of your best posts, Ed. That’s a long list to top, too!
SouthernGent on August 8, 2010 at 3:54 PM
Oh my! Dark Star, aren’t you going to tell us how evil and ignorant African-Americans are for opposing this liberal sacred cow? Or does your contempt only extend to caucasions?
theCork on August 8, 2010 at 6:00 PM
The state is involved in marriage because marriage is about the perpetuation of civil society and the passing on of property more than it is about personal relationships. So long as the government is required to manage the transfer of property, recognize the conferring of legal status, and protect the nurturing of children, government will have a role in marriage.
It’s the shift in view from marriage as a social institution to marriage as self-fulfilment that doomed Europe; their birth rate is now so low that they’re going to die out in less than 50 years. If we make the same shift, we will suffer the same fate. Getting the government out of marriage because “your relationships are none of my business” is a sure indication that we’ve chosen that road.
philwynk on August 8, 2010 at 8:14 PM
.
There is just so much going on in here. I have written extensively on this topic as well Ed:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/32729365/Roman-Epicurean-ism-Natural-Law-and-Homosexuality
Also, (for others here) not only does Genesis mention Adam and Eve, but in the Christian tradition Jesus is viewed as God, the Creator of all things (even the space/time continuum), He references Adam and Eve as actual realities or historical persons. Now, evolutionary thinking posited that three racial lines of humans came from separate evolutionary lines and periods. Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid. This was one of the main basis for the excess in evolutionary racism, which Stephen J. Gould said “increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.” All along the Bible mentioned all peoples coming from one man and one woman. A fact that science later proved via mitochondrial DNA. Much like since Grecian times the Universe was thought to be eternal (as it is in Eastern philosophy still).
In fact, science thought this until the “static universe” was replaced by the Big Bang theory (even Einstein inserted math in his original calculations to try and keep the universe static… his famous fudge factor). Again, I defer to science:
(see: http://religiopoliticaltalk.com/quotes/)
papa_giorgio on August 8, 2010 at 8:42 PM
Is that like why is the state involved in abortion at all? I’m just askin’.
~ Halli Casser-Jayne
http://www.thecjpoliticalreport.com
The CJ Political Report on August 8, 2010 at 9:14 PM
You sound pretty angry there pardner. Sometimes it hurts when someone holds up a mirror and you you don’t care for the reflection you are looking at.
That is what happened here. Sorry if it cut too deeply…
Bradky on August 8, 2010 at 9:31 PM
well you of course would know, since you the Judge of men’s hearts!
how does it feel to be SO holy? I’m surprised you can even talk to someone as sinful as I am!
you should try the mirror yourself, and take the log our of your own eye before you take the spec out of mine.
what happened here is you lied about me, you judged me, and you think its just fine..such arrogance and condescension. amazing. bet you think your shit don’t stink..
not angry at all…rather laughing at such arrogance and foolishness…but think what you will…I know you need to put others down to feel good about yourself
right4life on August 8, 2010 at 9:51 PM
oh and if you were really the christian you claim to be, you’d apologize to me for lying about me.
that you don’t speaks volumes.
right4life on August 8, 2010 at 9:55 PM
No lies about you – your own words painted the picture you wished to portray – in short you would laugh if Dakine went to hell.
Oh and right4life instead of hanging around on the computer all day hitting refresh to see when I might reply might I suggest you go out of the house and participate in the real world. Lots more fun than stalking a handful of political blogs I can assure you.
Ta ta
Bradky on August 8, 2010 at 10:05 PM
more lies, no surprise.
you wish don’t you sweety?
right4life on August 8, 2010 at 10:07 PM
Obviously, the scientists tracing humanity back to a single woman were not really assuming she was the Eve of the Bible. The name Eve was more of a homage to the original Eve.
But whether they interpreted her as the same as the Biblical Eve is beside the point. They established scientifically that there was a woman who was, quite literally, the mother of all mankind.
It just so happens that, before this was discovered, people would have mocked the idea that the entire human race could have sprung from a single female. In fact, the prevailing theory was multiple origins, in keeping with the basic concept of evolution.
Regardless, the Bible says we all came from one man and one woman, and science confirms at least the part about a single woman. If it doesn’t prove the Bible, it sure is a remarkable … coincidence.
didymus on August 8, 2010 at 11:11 PM
Nice try, but I was referring to society in general.
One of my favorite hobbies is to ask ‘nice old people’ (who are usually self-described ‘conservatives’) how better everything was ‘back in the day’…and then ask them about things like the polio epidemics or minorities being refused business on the basis of skin color.
The responses are as interesting as they are varied and colorful – from stony silence to denial to the painful truth.
Dark-Star on August 9, 2010 at 12:32 AM
.
@ Didymus, Yes, what a coincidence. I do realize (although I do not believe you were directing this at me) it is a name given in keeping with neo-Darwinian thinking. However, anything before this first woman is preferential belief and not based in science, but rather, based in materialism, or, naturalism. As Dr. Lewontin points out:
This brings “origin [or historical] science” into the realm of scientism, a metaphysical position. Just as presumptuous and absolute as any religion out there. In other words, there are two metaphysical views at war with each other. Which one is less absolute?
.
papa_giorgio on August 9, 2010 at 12:34 AM
Perhaps in a Revisionist Bible, but certainly not in original text.
Get real. Inheritance ALWAYS went to the oldest SON, not the oldest child. Throughout the Old Testament, stories of marriage entailed dowries. Who was the guy who wanted a girl he served 7 years, only to find he had to serve another 7 years to her father before getting to marry her? It wasn’t because she was either his equal or superior in that “true love” story. To marry, men bought women from the woman’s father. PATRIARCHY. Women certainly did not have the right to propose marriage to men. Why did Jews stone only women for adultery? There was no guilty adulterous man for Jesus to forgive in the story.
maverick muse on August 9, 2010 at 9:41 AM
Again, another prime example of how the government is able to pull a Clinton “what is is”?
In particular using the words of the 14th Amendment (out of context) just as they use the Commerce Clause to penalize those that do not want to tow the line. My primary example is that much of how wage, labor, pricing, organizational structure etc. of the Railroad Act drive the way the aviation industry is run.
MSGTAS on August 9, 2010 at 9:41 AM
Getting government out of the marriage business would be a great idea. But government officials never vote to reduce their influence.
hawksruleva on August 9, 2010 at 9:55 AM
This.
Count to 10 on August 9, 2010 at 9:55 AM
The funny thing is, if the Judge had really found that it was unconstitutional for CA to legally recognize heterosexual marriage but not homosexual marriage, the obvious solution consistent with the new CA constitution is that no marriages are to be recognized as legal.
It probably would have been shocking to many people, but would have gone a long way to defuse the issue.
Count to 10 on August 9, 2010 at 10:03 AM
Why would that be at all interesting?
The degradation of society is not particularly related to the advancement of science or the elimination of certain racist laws or sentiments.
Unless you just have fun confusing people, imagining yourself as superior to them.
Count to 10 on August 9, 2010 at 10:10 AM
Totally agree, Ed. This has proven the downfall of the American family.
What a crappy deal when someone can wake up one morning, declare they just don’t love the other person, or better yet, cheat on them, then leave with the kids & half the stuff & no penalties.
The government does have a vested interest in maintaining healthy familial relationships & IMHO should support hetero marriage only through tax benefits.
Otherwise, civil unions for everyone (but no polygamy or interspecies unions) bcs in essence it’s a legal contract you’re entering into.
If the states want to make special laws, let them.
Badger40 on August 9, 2010 at 10:26 AM
Misery loves company. Sorry for your broken home experience. A real marriage never was “easy” and had you simply said that, most people could agree.
Too many Americans, even Christians, are all about themselves. Selfishness just doesn’t commit through time in a contracted and consecrated relationship. Beyond intercourse, go figure how two can be one for life before trashing what makes life-partners willing to sacrifice from within in order to endure together when facing destruction.
We’ve been devoted in marriage since 1978, and our children are glad to have been raised in a loving home. My parents and MARRIED siblings could express the same experience I share about FAMILY being traditionally experienced today. We certainly do not have the monopoly on monogamy.
maverick muse on August 9, 2010 at 10:30 AM
I think you have cause and effect reversed on that one. No-fault divorce sprang out of the pop-culture revision of marriage from a contract for family-making to a license for sexual activity (with a fluffy revision of the word “love” to mean “sexual arousal”).
Count to 10 on August 9, 2010 at 10:33 AM
Perhaps in this long thread someone already answered it but IMHO the govt has a vested interest in somehow encouraging it’s populace to raise not only physically healthy, but psychologically healthy future citizens.
People who are in a contractual obligation together should not be able to get out of it willy nilly (no-fault divorce).
And hetero marriages are IMHO the best environment to raise kids, though gay couples should not be discouraged from raising kids.
Badger40 on August 9, 2010 at 10:34 AM
Bradky @ 10:01
Perhaps you read it, as well. Ace of Spades wrote a post a month or so ago about the behavioral/emotional effects of the pill on women. Pharmacological science just won’t publish those damaging records from research that expose the hormonal neurological negative effects on the thought process.
maverick muse on August 9, 2010 at 10:37 AM
My post never gave the reason for no fault divorce coming about.
No fault divorce, however, IS the main reason for our high divorce rates in the US.
You cannot legislate morality & expect it to stick.
But you can discourage it through well placed incentives, IMHO.
I don’t think gay couples should really be raising kids.
But if someone’s gay & has a kid, you can’t just take it away.
And civil unions should really be about enforcing a contract between 2 people.
Marriages are a contract not only with the govt, but with a church.
So gay people shouldn’t be able to force a church to marry them, but should be able to enter into a contract with each other in the govt’s eyes.
The govt should, however, recognize the importance of hetero families raising kids over homosexual ones through tax breaks, IMHO.
Badger40 on August 9, 2010 at 10:40 AM
As a woman who was once on the pill, I can totally agree.
The pill gives a woman the idea that she can do someone without consequences.
This ‘freedom’ is actually nothing but harmful to women.
It allows us to sell out our bodies to men for nothing in return.
And it’s why the attitude in men & women aborting their babies has risen over time.
Men have become so detached from their responsibility to women bcs of ‘feminism’.
Women, & men, need to get control of their own bodies & emotions without relying upon some pill.
Sex outside of marriage has not only physical consequences, but hugely emotional ones.
But telling that to our kids today is nigh impossible.
Badger40 on August 9, 2010 at 10:43 AM
No-fault divorce started because people realized that you can’t force people to love and care for each other if they no longer do. All “fault” divorce did was to force the party who wanted out to manufacture grounds for divorce from such things as “emotional abandonment”, “mental cruelity” and similar things.
Jimbo3 on August 9, 2010 at 10:44 AM
I agree that the government has cause to support such families, but tax breaks are a bad means — having any at all causes corruption of the tax system.
Count to 10 on August 9, 2010 at 10:52 AM
Then people should then be allowed to legally separate instead.
Marriage or civil unions are not just about ‘loving’ each other.
They are about living together & potentially raising a family.
It should be allowed for people to divorce if there’s no kids more easily, but the one wanting the divorce should have to ‘pay’ for it somehow if there’s no real reason for it.
When you add kids to the picture, things change in a big way.
Kids need both their parents married.
And no fault divorce takes away a parent’s constitutional rights in the family courts.
So if you’re married with kids, no fault divorce should NOT be an option, IMHO.
It is not the govt trying to make you ‘love’ someone.
It is the govt recognizing that divorce is hugely destructive to children & will result in the loss of rights to not only a parent, but the kids themselves.
Kids have a right for their parents to stay together if ultimately possible.
Those of us who are married I think can understand that there are some days when ‘love’ just doesn’t cut it.
Sometimes people are in marriages for other reasons.
Love is great, but you have to work at it.
Badger40 on August 9, 2010 at 10:53 AM
Your opinion. And I have mine, which I already stated.
Taxes by themselves cause corruption.
The govt does have a vested interest in promoting some type of responsible social behavior.
The govt is only as corrupt as we allow it to be.
This is why local control is so important.
Badger40 on August 9, 2010 at 10:55 AM
You are missing the point.
The very fact that you even mention “love and care for each other if they no longer do” means you are already buying into the revision.
Marriage was supposed to be a commitment, not merely an official recognition of infatuation, and love was supposed to be something you worked at over time, not merely some random thing that comes and goes.
Count to 10 on August 9, 2010 at 10:56 AM
I’m just saying that one set-aside invites others. I agree that the motive and is there, I’m just saying that the tax system should be devoted to raising revenuers in an unbiased fashion, and not used to venture into social engineering.
Count to 10 on August 9, 2010 at 10:59 AM
I dunno. Don’t you think the kids would understand that their parents don’t like (or can’t stand) each other? I think it would be tough living in an environment like that.
All “no fault” divorce means is that there doesn’t have to be any grounds (like adultery, physical cruelty, mental cruelty or abandonment) for one party to ask for a divorce. It doesn’t have anything to do with property settlements, custody/visitation rights, etc.
Jimbo3 on August 9, 2010 at 10:59 AM
Ditto.
BTW-does anyone know what a civil union entails in the vows that are uttered?
Is there the standard ‘love, honor, & obey/cherish’?
Jimbo-you really are missing the point, though.
When 2 people commit to each other, & one wakes up with the whim one day that they just don’t ‘love’ the other person anymore, it should not be easy for them to abandon their partner that way without paying dearly.
Badger40 on August 9, 2010 at 11:00 AM
Our Constitutional Republic has that vested interest. But you’ve certainly noticed the politicians giving way to Marxist globalism that ignores any sovereign state or nation, and particularly is bent on destroying the Christian faith by refusing to admit it public presence.
The illegal aliens (amnesty citizen or not) provide today what authoritarians require, cheap labor. Traditionally assimilated US citizens are quickly becoming overrun.
Our three no longer separate branches of government are working to make anyone and everyone within the US a citizen (soon, offically no borders). President/General Santa Anna made it perfectly clear that (because of the Latin Catholic institution) Mexicans are always going to be peons that only respond to rule by autocrats. Whether those remain in Mexico or migrate into the US would not change Santa Anna’s premise, whether it’s the Spaniard Inquisitional Catholicism or the drug cartels to blame. His point is that peons (whether Mexican or by transference laborers) are to be exploited, though to his “credit” he had nothing against the autocrat being “benevolent”.
Irony: Catholic Mexican drug lords and illegal aliens facilitate Marxist destruction of Christianity in America.
LBJ Democrats destroyed the unity of Black Christianity in the name of the Great Society to endow Marx with power in America, with the aid of black supremacists, to remove the vision of Martin Luther King, Jr. from public presence. Black Panthers and Black Liberation Theologists would stone MLK, Jr. as an Uncle Tom.
Socialists certainly disemboweled European Christianity, and along with neoconservatives, they are feasting on it globally today. Where are the indigenous Christian populations of Dafur and African nations, Bosnia, and now Iraq? America and Western European nations along with the UN specifically attacked the self declared Christian Constitutional Republic of Honduras, unjustifiably coercing them into an authoritarian and anti-Christian totalitarian state.
maverick muse on August 9, 2010 at 11:00 AM
Is the religious “Annulment” of a marriage something that can happen before any child is born?
Count to 10 on August 9, 2010 at 11:01 AM
So, what’s the remedy if there no longer is the emotional commitment? Require people to live together? Require them to love each other? At some point it’s dumb to insist on keeping them together for legal purposes if they no longer want to do that.
Jimbo3 on August 9, 2010 at 11:01 AM
“No fault” doesn’t mean that there aren’t significant financial and emotional penalties. Assets are divided, financial support is required in many cases, houses are generally sold and divided so people have to move, kids lives are changed. There’s a whole lot of emotional stuff, as well, as you can imagine, like feelings of betrayal, loss, failure, etc. I don’t think anyone decides to institute divorce based on a one day “bad experience”, given all of this.
Jimbo3 on August 9, 2010 at 11:05 AM
Badger40 on August 9, 2010 at 10:43 AM
Yes. But beyond the affected behavior and the mood swings, at the root was a chemical affect on the brain, disconnection, detached, impeding both logic and emotion.
maverick muse on August 9, 2010 at 11:06 AM
Not all remedies are a matter of law.
But it is not in the interest of the law to encourage separation by recognizing new relationships.
Count to 10 on August 9, 2010 at 11:06 AM
Having had huge amounts of experience with the courts in regards to divorce matters & kids, as well as having parents who constantly quarreled (cheating father)but stayed married til I was 25yo-kids do FAR better living in a home with disgusted parents than they do in a divorced situation.
A kid is better off with married parents who don’t like each other than divorced parents.
And it doesn’t matter if the divorced parents are wonderfully civil to each other.
Kids need BOTH parents living with each other to really be stable emotionally.
I have watched personally both situation where civil divorced parents living separately vs uncivil divorced parents living separately-it’s still terrible on kids.
People who say that kids will survive & are adaptable are full of crap & don’t know kids at all.
And yes-no fault divorce DOES have a LOT to do with custody & property divisions.
Are you a family law lawyer?
Family law is the biggest scam & perpetrator of the broken family.
When a woman can go & cheat on her husband & then turn around & steal the kids & half, or more than half, of the father’s stuff, that’s CRIMINAL.
When you disregard a contract to love honor & obey or cherish, you should NOT PROFIT from it.
Consequently, a man should not be able to just leave his spouse for no reason & not have to lose ‘stuff’.
The instigator who breaks the marriage contract should be the loser.
Badger40 on August 9, 2010 at 11:08 AM
No, I’m a corporate lawyer, not a family lawyer. I went through a divorce (without kids, thankfully) roughly twenty five years ago from a very short first marriage. Have been married again (with kids) for about twenty three years.
The state where I went through the divorce had a law which didn’t allow for a no-fault divorce until the parties had been separated for two (or three) years. Before that, there had to be some “fault”. What that did was allow the party who didn’t want the divorce some time to negotiate a better financial (and other) settlement, and penalized the party who wanted out. That wasn’t a bad solution.
Jimbo3 on August 9, 2010 at 11:16 AM
Jimbo-obviously if 2 people are violently opposed to staying together, the govt cannot ‘make’ them do anything.
But it certainly doesn’t have to grant them a divorce, rather a legal separation, or even the other spouse suing for abandonment or something to that effect.
And NO, the current system does NOT make the breaker of the contract PAY anything.
If a woman or man wakes up & says she/he doesn’t love her/his husband/wife, she/he should not be allowed to take his/her kids from their home with him/her & get alimony, child support, & half his/her stuff.
The current system allows that to happen & it’s created nothing but a payment crony system for the courts, judges, & family law lawyers.
And if a legally separated man wants to marry again, he should be allowed to until he’s sued for abandonment or something to that effect.
Well said.
I’m not sure what you are trying to say here.
A truly Christian person does not sell drugs to people.
A truly Christian person does not support political ideologies that harm the family unit, etc.
What are you saying here? I have no clue.
All I can say to this is I don’t care if someone has a chemical imbalance, they should not be able to divorce no fault.
Badger40 on August 9, 2010 at 11:17 AM
When there are no kids, I think this is more than acceptable.
But the instigator should not be able to ‘profit’ from a no fault divorce.
Badger40 on August 9, 2010 at 11:19 AM
oops!
Badger40 on August 9, 2010 at 11:22 AM
Ha ha, guess you should have read the BEGINNING of the book.
kg598301 on August 9, 2010 at 11:32 AM
The state is involved for one main reason:
Children.
By making your marriage a matter of state, you pledge to the state to participate in the care of whatever children come along from it.
So the state will always have to have laws regarding the care of children. Take away the state marriage contract and they will have to get involved some other way.
The state will always be involved, whether encouraging marriage or chasing down paternity, in order to make sure both parents are doing their part to take care of children. I’d like them to be encouraging and fostering heterosexual marriage. I’d like them to be encouraging pre-marital counseling that helps people figure out if they should even be getting married in the first place. Per-marital counseling ministries find a 10% rate of “oops, we shouldn’t get married.”
The fact that liberal judges want to change the definition of words should not discourage us from the benefits of encouraging healthy marriage through higher fees for uncounseled licenses, lower taxes for married/civil union couples, automatic division of assets laws, etc.
Again, if the gay marriage movement was just about equality under the law, then it wouldn’t involve the word marriage. Churches will “marry” them. The state can give civil unions all the legal rights, including the same pain of divorce costs. It’s about changing blue to mean red. It’s about defining rain as sunshine, a dog as a cat. All so the schools have to change what they teach.
PastorJon on August 9, 2010 at 11:52 AM
That has worked out so well for muslims (& other religous sects), hasn’t it?
Stop with the red herrings please.
Many of us have put forward intelligent debate on this subject here.
Why don’t you add something of intelligence.
Wonderfully said.
Badger40 on August 9, 2010 at 11:57 AM
You forgot TAXES.
Also, when is Rosie getting her divorce?
moonsbreath on August 9, 2010 at 12:21 PM
I NEVER SAID THIS!!!!!
lexhamfox seems to be attributing this too me, but I never said any such thing!
I agree, the bible clearly treats women far better than any other ancient society we know of.
The statement is blatantly false… but it isn’t mine!
sharrukin on August 9, 2010 at 1:17 PM
Jenfidel was speaking specifically in the context of marriage, and in that context she is right. Men and women had different roles in marriage, but they had different roles in life, so that should be obvious.
Read, for example, Proverbs 31, describing the virtuous woman. She was involved in business, seeing to her household, considering land, and buying it. Her husband didn’t have to get involved in the purchase, because he trusted her to manage things well.
But there is nothing anywhere in Scripture that describes women in a marriage as chattel. It’s hardly part of a Bible tradition.
As for adultery, the Old Testament law clearly said, “the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.”
So if the Jews only stoned the women, they were breaking the law. In fact, when they brought the adulterous woman to Jesus, one of the very significant facts was that they claimed they had caught her in adultery, “even in the very act,” but somehow didn’t catch the man! If they were really trying to enforce the law, they would have brought both.
But then, the Roman rulers didn’t allow the Jews to put anyone to death anyway. They had to seek permission from the authorities. Which was part of the trap, to try to provoke Jesus into pronouncing a sentence that He had no authority under Roman rule to pronounce.
tom on August 9, 2010 at 1:40 PM
Ha ha. I missed this.
ernesto, the Well of All Knowledge, can you please tell us more truths,since you are obviously privy to information that no one in the universe, so far as we know, is absolutely sure of?
The scientific community awaits your presence!
Badger40 on August 9, 2010 at 1:44 PM
The government recognizes marriage because marriages exist. They affect the way people live together, the way they spend money, the way families are joined, the environment children live in.
So the solution to same-sex marriage controversies is for the government to pretend that marriage doesn’t exist?
No disrespect to Ed, but that is seriously delusional. People will continue to get married, and they’re not all going to huddle with lawyers for contract negotiation. The very first thing that would happen would be some sort of default marriage contract that would be assumed to apply unless you make a separate one, and then you’re right back where you started from.
If we’re going to base our actions on pretending something doesn’t exist, then as a practical matter, it would be a lot smarter to just pretend that same-sex marriages don’t exist. There would be a lot less to force government to ignore.
Nor is there any reason to believe that homosexual activists would accept the new status quo any better than the existing one.
Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
tom on August 9, 2010 at 2:13 PM
A good anti joke:
A horse walks into a bar. Bartender says, “Hey, why the long face?” Horse says, “Because judicial restraint really does not mean anything anymore with this Prop 8 reversal, this is an example of federal overreach, and the separation of power issues are making me colicy.”
Oh yeah, what Chapman said.
Mr. Joe on August 9, 2010 at 3:40 PM
Okay, off topic, but I think both McCain and Hayworth are on the same side of this issue (against it). A good anti joke:
A horse walks into a bar. Bartender says, “Hey, why the long face?” Horse says, “Because judicial restraint really does not mean anything anymore with this Prop 8 reversal, this is an example of federal overreach, and the separation of power issues are making me colicy.”
Oh yeah, what Chapman said.
Mr. Joe on August 9, 2010 at 3:44 PM
A horse walks into a bar. Bartender says, “Hey, why the long face?” Horse says, “Because Mac Daddy McCain and his Parliment of Suck is going to get reelected and unfortunately the best candidate we could come up with is looney J.D. Hayworth.”
Mr. Joe on August 9, 2010 at 3:46 PM
The only issue I see is the impact this will have on divorces. Who will one see if the government is removed from the system? Who will ensure that child support is paid? Just my two cents.
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 9, 2010 at 4:08 PM
I did not attribute it to you. It might look that way if you cut and paste it but you certainly did NOT say that.
That was my response to something someone else said.
Hope that clears up any confusion.
lexhamfox on August 9, 2010 at 6:18 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5