John Fund weighs in. Ultimately, I really think that this is the only solution.
18 thoughts on “Marriage And Government Need A Divorce”
Comments are closed.
John Fund weighs in. Ultimately, I really think that this is the only solution.
Comments are closed.
Yep, the argument before the court should be that ANY law regulating marriage is a violation of the separation of Church and State provided for in the First Amendment.
Just out of curiosity, and not to grind an axe as I have really none, would that also apply to divorce courts also? Leave it to the churches?
I have heard all the arguments relating to entering into a marriage but have heard nothing regarding the exit thereof.
I know folks will bring up the subject of kids and contracts and such bit it seems to me that if the government (society) has no say on entry why should they have any say on exit.
Good point.
My preferred solution is to make marriage like any other contract; it needs to be between consenting adults, and like any contract, it has provisions for material breech and withdrawal. Divorce would still end up in the courts, just not as often.
When there are kids involved, they I do think there’s a role for the courts in custody issues etc. However, that’s already true with even non married couples.
Arizona,
The pre-nupital agreements that already exist would serve as a good starting for such contracts. But such contracts should be purely voluntary, not required by any government law.
Religious institutions only perform wedding ceremonies — technically they don’t “marry” anyone. Only the state can make a legally binding marriage — you get your license from the government, not the church.
Dave,
Except the state defines and only allows marriages that are in accordance with the beliefs of Protestant Christianity (not even Catholic since divorce is allowed…).
And that is the core violation of the First Amendment, raising the beliefs of one religion above the beliefs of other religions.
Michael,
Exactly, if the government doesn’t have any say on marriage they shouldn’t have any say on the end of it.
So… with the gov not regulating marriage, who establishes that minors can’t marry, or siblings can’t marry, or that parents can’t marry their children, or that multiple people can not marry each other, or that people can’t marry their animal companions? Or do we not care about this?
There are laws against incest and bestiality that are unrelated to marriage, but that such “marriages” would violate. You might have legal polygamy, but that’s already the case in a religious sense — (e.g., originalist Mormons, and Islamists). But such marriages wouldn’t be recognized by the State, just the churches in which they occur. And if people want to set up private contracts on that basis, on what basis should the State interfere?
The point is that marriages would be performed by churches, “spouse” in current law could be redefined as a domestic partner in a civil union, and most churches and synagogues would retain the traditional definition. You could still teach your children that SSM isn’t a true marriage and not have the State gainsay you.
And if people want to set up private contracts on that basis, on what basis should the State interfere?
The State doesn’t interfere. People can marry whomever they want. They just may not qualify for the benefits offered by the State. The push now is to *force* the State to recognize arrangements not currently recognized.
You could still teach your children that SSM isn’t a true marriage and not have the State gainsay you.
No, you could not. This is probably the most far reaching consequence of changing the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. Once SSM is the law of the land, any hint of a preference for the gender of the person you would want your child to marry would be considered bigotry and anyone expressing such opinions would be equivalent to a racist. This is what your children will be taught in school.
I think you’re missing the point. Divorcing government from marriage doesn’t make SSM “the law of the land.” There would be no laws that applied to marriage. And the preference for traditional marriage is already attacked as bigotry, so how would getting government out of the marriage business change that?
Bill,
There are already laws covering animal abuse, child abuse and the minimal age that sex is legal that would apply.
Really using those arguments to justify government regulation of marriage is no different than using a mass shooting like Newtown to justify government regulation of gun ownership.
The individuals who engage in such behavior aren’t going to be influenced by government regulation marriage anymore than laws on gun regulation influence those who commit crimes with guns.
Where do you get the idea that marriage is an inherently religious institution? It is a universal artifact of civilization, designed to regulate heterosexual activity by bringing order to the mate acquisition market and to keep immediate families together for the continuance of civilization.
Alan,
Your kidding of course? All marriage customs are rooted in religious belief. The government laws you refer to always have their foundation in the dominate religious beliefs of the respected nation creating the law.
There are laws against incest and bestiality that are unrelated to marriage, but that such “marriages” would violate.
There would be no laws that applied to marriage.
Seems like a contradiction here. Who makes the laws?
Governments make the laws. There is no requirement that governments make laws about marriage. Religions make laws about marriage, that only apply within those religions.
Why SSM should not be encouraged, by the numbers:
1. 10% of the male population and 5-6% of the female population are exclusively or predominately gay and lesbian
2. 60% of women are physically interested in other women. 1.7% of men identify themselves as bisexual.
3. There is a “marriage pre mium” of 40% – married males produce 40% more value for society than unmarried males.
So the story is this: far more females are bisexual than males – in other words, females can choose gay marriage while males just have to go with how they were made. If you encourage same sex marriage (or move from a position of active discouragement towards less discouragement), on the average less males will be able to get married. Each male that is forced into the unmarried column sees his income / value to society drop by about one third.
We currently have about a 3% per year GDP growth. It is fairly straightforward to calculate the impact of forcing males to remain single: each 1% of males that remains single decreases GDP growth by about 0.33%. So if about 10% of bisexual females choose SSM rather than dealing with us annoying guys, the economy stops growing. Add in the decrease in the birth rate, and now the economy is shrinking.
Basically, the end of society. You can argue that the numbers are a little different, but the basic trends discussed above are extremely robust. So, do we choose survival or freedom? Hard question.
That is the same “benefit to society” argument used to regulate how large sodas are, outlaw guns, and basically regulate other behaviors the “moral police” feel should be regulate for the “benefit of everyone”.
Based on your numbers the government should not only regulate marriage it should mandate it by some stated and if no offspring require a reshuffling of partners.
But it is not a survival or freedom issue. With today’s medical technology SSM couples have options for producing offspring if they wish. Its a purely freedom issue, namely, allowing individuals to be free of government controls.
This is also why I see the Radical Republican Right as being as much a danger to liberty and freedom as the Socialist Left.
The only difference is the Socialist Left want to regulate and control businesses while the Radical Republican Right wants to regulate and control individuals. Neither seems to understand what true liberty is or cares about the rights in the Constitution they wave around.