Marriage and Civil Unions

[Preacherman]

Lon -

I'm not the type to waltz down the city center acting like an angry care bear with hip displasia

ROTFLMAO!!! The mental picture is TOO MUCH!

You owe me a new keyboard - sprayed tea all over this one as I read your post! On the other hand, if you'll do that at the next TFL shoot, I suspect I might have to use my honorary chaplaincy to conduct funeral services for a number of our members, who will have died laughing...

 

[LonWilson]

You owe me a new keyboard - sprayed tea all over this one as I read your post! On the other hand, if you'll do that at the next TFL shoot, I suspect I might have to use my honorary chaplaincy to conduct funeral services for a number of our members, who will have died laughing...

You're on!!!

 

[Boats]

So where does accommodation end and insanity begin?

I can understand the motive behind gay couples wanting the societal stamp of approval that a marriage certificate would provide.

If I had my druthers, I'd also like to somehow force or shame society into being more understanding of the challenges faced by left-handers everyday. After all, I was born this way and no one would willingly choose to be left-handed in a right-handed world.

Unless I could accurately throw a baseball in the high 90s.

But the point I am making is this: What if my neighbor wants to have four wives? What invalidates his and his wives choice(s) other than some arbitrary and anachronistic bar against polygamy? What if a brother and a sister want to get married in deepest Appalachia? (Sorry for the stereotype). After all, the actual genetic risk of inbreeding is very small. The usual worst thing that happens is the offspring may one day be mistaken for European royalty.

My question, I guess is this: Once you expand the definition of marriage beyond a monogamous heterosexual union, where do you stop and why?

 

[LonWilson]

My question, I guess is this: Once you expand the definition of marriage beyond a monogamous heterosexual union, where do you stop and why?

Okay....

Again, I point out that marriage has primarily been a religious observance. The government issues marriage licenses, and discriminates in doing so. Expanding it causes even more issues with political rancoring. So...why not do away with the marriage licensing concept entirely?

If a man wants to have more than 1 wife, fine! All I'm saying is that they don't need a piece of paper any more than a regular one on one monogamous relationship between opposite-sex partners do.

"Gay marriage" is a misnomer, because it perpetuates the idea that marriage is a government sanctioned privilege like driving on public roads. It's not.

 

[Dex Sinister]

The condensed answer is we have state laws regarding marriage because when Henry the 8th of England dumped Catholicism because he was pissed off that he couldn’t get a divorce, the authority for the Episcopalian (Anglican) church became the government, with Henry VIII as the head, rather than the Pope.

Up until that time Roman Catholic ecclesiastical courts had handled church-legal matters, backed up by state power. After that time the ecclesiastical court law was dumped into English law, and we inherited it from there.

Marriage licenses, along with blood tests and such are leftovers from things like rH+/- factor testing, along with the state controls that come with adopting religious law as secular law. Prohibitions against incest are in there somewhere as well. The “civil ceremony” part is left-over religious.

Logically, you have to “register” your marriage with the state for the same reason a corporation has to register its creation with the state: So that the state has notification of the status of the contract, prior to someone questioning its existence (not the mutual parties, but someone external, like a hospital) so that the state can protect the automatic rights (and duties) that come along with the arrangement.

Ironically, this also gives them the power to forbid its dissolution, another bit of religious-based silliness for the state to be engaging in. [Note, I’m not saying a church can’t tell its members they can’t get unmarried in its eyes – just that it’s not a logical state function to “permit” people to unmarry.]

Since marriage, in the eyes of present-day states, is supposed to be a totally secular thing, there’s no particular reason that the state should really care whom it “marries.” I’ve never really seen any particular point to calling the religious and the secular marriage by the same term, except that the state recognizes religious marriages, and perhaps it seems silly to be both “married” and “unioned” [or whatever] if one got a church marriage.

Lon, you might want to check out the Free State Project we’re at 10% of our goal to get 20,000 liberty-oriented activists to move to a single state to attempt to roll back government in general – including gun laws, marriage laws, and as much of what some people call “the Nanny State” as we can abolish. We’re at 40% of our goal to have membership to pick which state to move to. Repealing/reforming marriage laws is one of the “hotlist” items the FSP will be attempting to change.

Dex

 

[BogBabe]

I've never really seen any particular point to calling the religious and the secular marriage by the same term

Dex, that's an excellent point, and one that needs to be emphasized.

In discussions on this topic, we so often hear "the sky is falling" rhetoric about how "expanding" the definition of marriage will cheapen or dilute it. IMO, having a state-required and state-sanctioned marriage system is what cheapens and dilutes the religious institution of marriage.

Think about a man and woman who meet in a bar, fly to Vegas, get hitched, and fly home. Or "open marriages," in which both partners are free to play around on the side all the want. In the eyes of the law, those couples are just as married as the childhood sweethearts who grew up going to the same church, started dating, got engaged, went through pre-marital counseling with their pastor, and then made solemn vows to each other in front of God and the world.

I read last year about some church (I think it was in Tennessee) in which it was discovered that the paster wasn't actually a "qualified" minister, and the many marriages he had performed within the church were suddenly not legal marriages, in the eyes of the state. Anyone think that turn of events did anything for the religious couples who thought they had married in the eyes of God and suddenly found out they were living in sin?

Religious marriage and secular marriage are two different things. One is a holy religious sacrament performed within a religious faith according to its lights, and the other is a legal arrangement that has nothing to do with morality or religion.

Oh, and I want to express my admiration for Lon and Preacherman for the exemplary manner in which they're both engaging in this discussion.

 

[BigG]

Bogbabe, your post brings up an interesting point. When you mentioned "qualified ministers" it made me think of licenses. What kind of licenses did Jesus, Peter, John, and Paul operate under? I don't remember reading where they had any diplomas either.

Bottom line: these things exist because there is REVENUE to be made. Other moral considerations, etc., are subsidiary to the MONEY angle, imho.

 

[BogBabe]

these things exist because there is REVENUE to be made.

Yes, there's that, plus there's the additional factor that it's one more way for the state to exert control over us in our private lives, by defining the legal terms of our most private relationships.

 

[LonWilson]

In discussions on this topic, we so often hear "the sky is falling" rhetoric about how "expanding" the definition of marriage will cheapen or dilute it. IMO, having a state-required and state-sanctioned marriage system is what cheapens and dilutes the religious institution of marriage.

and

Think about a man and woman who meet in a bar, fly to Vegas, get hitched, and fly home. Or "open marriages," in which both partners are free to play around on the side all the want. In the eyes of the law, those couples are just as married as the childhood sweethearts who grew up going to the same church, started dating, got engaged, went through pre-marital counseling with their pastor, and then made solemn vows to each other in front of God and the world.

Hear hear! That's what I've been saying all along. Me and my partner (whoever he may be down the line) could have been together, monogamously, for many years, and we don't even have the ability to get a marriage license that two people getting drunk and going to the Church of Elvis in Las Vegas to get married. It's so damned easy, with so many consequences.

The current system sucks in that it's totally discriminatory against me, but damned easy for most people, and if for some reason the state were to start "controlling" marriages by tests and so on, people would start crying foul on their freedoms. In Florida, there's a 3 day waiting period on marriage unless you go to a state approved marriage counseling course. 3 day waiting period!!! All supported by the same "conservatives" who typically support "less government". :barf:

Oh, and I want to express my admiration for Lon and Preacherman for the exemplary manner in which they're both engaging in this discussion.

I'm glad, too. It's been suprisingly free of the volatile nature of discussions on the issue. Just goes to prove my point:

Where things are licensed, government regulated, and taxpayer supported, arguments will arise and attacks on character made on those on opposite sides.

When you argue that government should get out of a particular business or licensure, there's a lot of common ground among us libertarian minded folks, where a better alternative then allow "gay marriage" is to eliminate state licensing of marriage entirely.

 

[Tamara]

I just wanted to point out that I am absolutely agog at the civility expressed in this thread.

Were this more common in society, this wouldn't even be an issue.

Carry on.

 

[Poodleshooter]

Poodleshooter: True, but if you work but then croak, she has SS survivor benefits as a benefit of being marriage in addition to inheritance advantages and a pile of other things.

Ahhh! Now I see, I get these "marriage benefits" after DEATH. Somehow that sours the deal somewhat I was wondering where the financial benefits went to...
Just for the sake of the argument, while I wouldn't trade my marriage for anything in the world, I would like that hour at the county clerks office back, as well as my income tax differential. I'm comfortable with the pastor's word that I'm married, lots of witnesses, and a shiny laser printed document from the church office.

 

[LonWilson]

I think there are significant financial advantages being sought but also that there is also another reason. That's to make their lifestyle socially acceptable, and that's pathetic. Who cares?

I don't think a piece of paper from the government would all of the sudden make our "lifestyle" socially acceptable, any more than CHL's with background checks all the sudden makes carrying a handgun acceptable to the anti-gunners who are trying to take our guns away.

Just to make this point:

Are the gay political leadership trying to make homosexuality just as acceptible as being heterosexual in terms of social acceptance? Yes.

Does that mean every gay person agrees with the gay leadership on every principle and statement? No, because the gay leadership in Washington and the state capitals support gun control quite overwhelmingly, and I don't, and neither do any TFL members who also frequent here who also have to be gay.

To quote my father, who may have nicked this off of someone else:

"God, give me the courage to change the things I can, and grant me the serenity to accept the things that I can't".

Though I'm not christian, this rings in me. Blackhawk, nor anyone else, have no idea the hell I went through during my teenage years, up until a month ago when I finally told my parents in Florida the truth.

Lifestyles are a choice. Some people, both gay and straight, can chose a lifestyle of hedonism. Sexual orientation is not, in my experience. From my experiences, chosing to be homosexual is akin to choosing to be a certain skin color. No one, I don't think, would willingly chose to be one of the most hated and despised minorities in the world.

Though this is straying from the marriage and civil union angle, and this could cause the entire thread to get shut down due to argument over this issue, it had to be said. I won't respond to any arguments referring to his post so we can continue to talk about government nanny statism.

 

[Blackhawk]

Again, I point out that marriage has primarily been a religious observance. The government issues marriage licenses, and discriminates in doing so. Expanding it causes even more issues with political rancoring. So...why not do away with the marriage licensing concept entirely?

Lon, you've hoisted yourself on your own petard.

As far as you're concerned, the marriage licensing concept is already "done away with" entirely because it doesn't apply to you. If the concept of marriage is based in religion (but you're not religious) and the government issues marriage licenses primarily because religious people want them, why do you care that the traditional "institution of marriage" is not open to you if not for either the supposed financial benefits or social acceptance of same sex civil unions?

Blackhawk, nor anyone else, have no idea the hell I went through during my teenage years, up until a month ago when I finally told my parents in Florida the truth.

True, because I don't know you from anybody else. But you went through that "hell" by your own choice. I'm not addressing the "born that way" argument. I'm saying that your mouth or your behavior or both caused you to incur the "hell" that apparently traumatized you. If you're a member of an untolerated group among a predominance of bigots, but you have the ability to appear to be "normal" to the majority, you bring their wrath upon yourself by standing out as a target.

You have got NO idea what bigotry and prejudice are like for Blacks, Jews, Asians, and other "taggable" minorities growing up among intolerant, stupid, and bigoted local majorities.

 

[priv8ter]

Good thread

I think people are bringing up a lot of good points in this thread.

Pittspilot: I agree with you that the instutution of marriage is in trouble. Divorce rates are skyrocketing, broken homes abound.

You say we need to strengthen the instutution of marriage. How do you propose doing that?

And how does allowing homosexuals to get married destroy the institution of marriage any quicker than it already is.

My wife used to work as a waitress at a resturant that is owned by a gay couple, and 90% of their clientel was of that orientation. The owners were together 25+ years, and had raised a boy from age 3. The boy wasn't gay...he was bright and what I would consider well adjusted. Several other couples were celebrating 20-30 year anniversaries at the resteraunt.

To me, those are pretty good examples of what an ideal marriage could be.

 

[LonWilson]

As far as you're concerned, the marriage licensing concept is already "done away with" entirely because it doesn't apply to you. If the concept of marriage is based in religion (but you're not religious) and the government issues marriage licenses primarily because religious people want them, why do you care that the traditional "institution of marriage" is not open to you if not for either the supposed financial benefits or social acceptance of same sex civil unions?

Who cares what a group of religious people want from the government? There are religious people who want a total federal ban on any form of pornography.

Does that mean they're any more right? Of course not. On top of being unconstitutional under the first amendment, there's also the issue of the 10th amendment as well....

If some religious people want a government approved license in order for their marraige to be "recognized", what about those religious people who don't?

This is the reason why government should no longer license marriage. There's no reason to pay a fee to the government for a license for something so holy to so many. It's like a license to preach christianity, or judaism....

 

[AR-10]

Lon,

This nation was founded on Christian principals, and the majority of voters wish to more or less stick to that concept. That may not be true a decade from now, but today it is a fact.

You don't want to do away with a government issued marriage license.

You want to do away with statutes defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman. That is a totally different subject than the concept you are debating.

 

[Blackhawk]

If some religious people want a government approved license in order for their marraige to be "recognized", what about those religious people who don't?

All they have to do is eschew applying for a marriage license or having it recorded by the county government after the ceremony. If they don't want a marriage or civil union or whaever else they call it "recognized" they don't have to do anything which invokes the process.

Neither do you.

So again I ask, if you don't want financial advantages (and bear in mind that a lot of married folks are wondering what they may be short of dying) or the social acceptance you presume may come from an "official government issued and recorded marriage license" , why do you care?

 

[Preacherman]

Lon, I think that AR-10 is perhaps on to something here. There are two concepts involved:

1. The definition of marriage as a monogamous relationship between a man and a woman.

2. The "right" of a government entity (whether national, State or local) to licence and tax the relationship known as "marriage".

On point 2, I think you and I are pretty much in agreement, even though we're approaching it from opposite sides: the government has no business telling people they can't marry without a licence, and I don't believe that there should be tax and other implications as a result of one's decision to, or not to, marry.

On point 1, we have a problem again, but I think it needs to be clarified. The traditional Judeo-Christian view of marriage is the basis of our modern Western legal definition of the relationship. However, this is not the case in, say, Saudi Arabia, where the Moslem religious viewpoint dictates what is, and is not, a marriage. A third approach might be encountered in a predominantly Hindu or Buddhist nation. What is "defined" as marriage is not just the sex of the partners, but the nature of the union, the expectations of each partner and of society, etc.

So, then, we have to ask ourselves whether the word "marriage" is even applicable outside a religious context. I don't know any nation in the world that has defined marriage outside the context of religious ethics and morals - even the Soviet Union kept to the monogamous, man-woman thing, after rejecting all things religious, because this was the traditional view after centuries of Orthodox Christianity.

Perhaps we need to rephrase the argument. Let's define "marriage" as a fundamentally religious term, and use a different term for unions that do not fit such a framework. If you want to have a homosexual union with someone, or my neighbor decides that she wants three husbands and an assistant wife to keep them in line, this would not be called "marriage", but something else. Would this solve the problem?

Looking forward to your feedback.

 

[LonWilson]

Perhaps we need to rephrase the argument. Let's define "marriage" as a fundamentally religious term, and use a different term for unions that do not fit such a framework. If you want to have a homosexual union with someone, or my neighbor decides that she wants three husbands and an assistant wife to keep them in line, this would not be called "marriage", but something else. Would this solve the problem?

Definitely. But it still won't solve the basic problem of getting the government out of the marriage (or, well, excuse me, but "civil union" for the politically correct) business entirely.

For instance, I oppose California's and other state's civil union laws. Why? Because it gives the government the authority to tax people for "legal recognition" of their common property, interests, and so on.

BlackHawk,

Understand also that I oppose heterosexual marriage licenses, too. My father should not have been forced to go down to the county courthouse, pay a fee, just for the "privilege" of being married to his current wife.

 

[pre-B '75]

I believe this nation was founded on Deist priciples, not Christian ones.

It would be more fair to say we evolved into a nation of Judeo-Christian values rather than were founded as such.



As someone who's at least somewhat opposed to homosexuality (despite my firm belief in both genetic and/or congenital basises and assuming the two not entirely mutually related) out of inate prejudice toward that which is "other" and out of rationally held beliefs that oppose what I see to be an agenda to force themselves upon everyone's consciousness rather than simply be accorded the same basic rights as anyone else and go their own way (usually by those who are the dysplasic care-bear set). I fully support legitimizing same-sex unions, even if they carry no religious sacrement and are strictly to accord those so bound the legal recognition and financial benefits (if any) as any traditionally married couple. I'd also extend it to polygamous unions.

It just isn't the government's business to regulate marriage (even if you designate it differently for the sake of semantics and prestige) beyond confining it to those who can and are able to give informed consent.

Practically speaking, I would think that by allowing homosexuals to form unions, we would give them some legitimacy, which I would view as a positive, since it may curb the promiscuity of glory holes and bath houses that spawned the HIV problem by allowing them to feel that monogamy is an appropriate "lifestyle choice."