The debate over whether or not to legalize same sex marriage has some people asking if the government should be involved in marriage at all. So I pose the question to my readers. After answering the poll, it would be helpful to explain why government should or should not be involved in marriage. What would the ramifications be if it withdrew from the institution both immediate and projected long-term?
Sifting Reality 
I voted “No.” In times past, marriage strengthened and stabilized society, thereby giving government a legitimate reason to promote the practice. But things are different today. Society has sunk so low that marriage is, for most people, an afterthought. Keeping marriage legal to promote stability is like keeping a band-aide on a gaping wound. It’s silly.
In fact, the institution would be better off outside the bounds of government. Eventually, same-sex marriage will be legal and equal to traditional marriage, thereby destroying the sanctity of the institution. But if marriage remains strictly a religious union, it will survive longer because most churches will refuse to marry same-sex couples. Pro-gay churches have no legitimacy anyway.
The government both federally and at the state level is already involved in marriage, no? And just for the record in the places where gay marriage has been given equal status, civilization has not come to a burning violent end.
Marriage is the stabilizer of civilization. A permanent union between one man and one woman is necessary to harness the brute force of men’s sexuality. Strong, permanent marriages are needed for the safety of growing children and the leading of quiet peaceful lives. A potentially procreative union is a benefit to society and should be protected and should be encouraged.
A same-sex union does not benefit society and does not need to be protected or encouraged. In fact same-sex unions are destructive to society. They cannot produce offspring. The type of behaviors practiced in same-sex unions produce diseases, mental disorders and suicides (not to mention obese, hazardous-drinking lesbians. See http://nation.foxnews.com/obesity/2013/03/12/feds-spend-15-million-study-obese-lesbians and http://cnsnews.com/news/article/27m-federal-study-why-do-lesbians-have-higher-risk-hazardous-drinking).
Marriage should be encouraged through public policy. Same-sex unions should not.
Nash, they may not have “come to a burning violent end,” but the data does show they are suffering. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9908951/Gay-marriage-will-destabilise-family-life-sociologist-warns.html
As long as federal tax structures, healthcare directives and legal matters involve married status, then yes, the government should be involved. If there was no discernible difference between married and not married, then the government should not be involved in the union between two consenting adults, regardless of your opinion of the couple.
There is no such thing as same-sex marriage any more than there is a square circle. You can call a tail a leg, but it remains a tail nevertheless.
It’s inevitable for the DOMA to be overturned and for marriage to be defined between 1, 2 or more parties of the same or different species/objects. I am not far-fetched and such a reality has been always around the corner ever since Obama voiced his support for same sex marriage. In our postmodern world that rejects absolute truth and reasoning your identity and choices are whatever you want them to be and our government will make policies that fit the times. I’m not making a statement for panic nor do I believe in Dominionism but every Christian needs to stand in what they believe and be a light and lovingly witness to whomever God gives you. I have no particular eschatological stance but to be ready because our world is very dark.
Glenn, it’s so true what you say. I made a comment on a post regarding the transgender debate and the fact is there is no such thing. What science does with that is give a patch and have people dependent on hormones and use plastic surgery to reform body parts. But once created a man you can’t really become a woman an carry a child and vice versa.
Man, if this website has shown me anything, it’s just downright frightening what runs through some people’s heads….
@zqtx as I said before the relationship pairing scenario I defined isn’t far fetched. Look up pansexuality. Then look up Mary Gonzalez who is part of the Texan state congress and who is pansexual. This is just an example because it is public information and she deserves the hope of salvation just like anyone else so I’m not damning her. But if you look around things are changing.
I think marriage (ie, committed, faithful, adult marriages) help stabilize society and improve communities. It helps discourage promiscuity and that, in turn, also helps stabilize and improve society.
Therefore, I think taking steps to encourage/support marriage (whether for gay or straight) is a reasonable action for gov’t to take.
But I’m open to the idea of gov’t getting out of the marriage business altogether and let churches, families, faith groups and the couples themselves arrange their marriages without gov’t involvement.
What I’m opposed to is gov’t endorsing/supporting ONE sort of marriage (ie, only between white people, or only between straight people) and not others, for reasons of justice and freedom of conscience. The gov’t shall not establish a state religion and the primary reason given for opposing marriage between some folk (interracial, or between gay folk, for instance) is only religion. Gov’t has no place in that sort of discrimination.
The thing is, this is a done deal. Marriage equity is coming and you will see that it does not destroy societies. Indeed, the CRAZY notion of encouraging faithful, monogamous marriages and families will ONLY have good results.
How could it possibly have anything other than good results?
“I think marriage (ie, committed, faithful, adult marriages) help stabilize society and improve communities. It helps discourage promiscuity and that, in turn, also helps stabilize and improve society.”
And you would be right – for traditional/natural marriage. However, in looking at countries that have already accepted SSM, the opposite is what’s actually happening.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9908951/Gay-marriage-will-destabilise-family-life-sociologist-warns.html
The problem with redefining marriage is that it renders marriage itself meaningless. At the same time it renders marriage genderless. It nulifies couples, turns children into commodities (a growing problem in other areas as well) and parenthood a state designation completely seperated from biology. Couples – all of them – are no longer husband and wife; they are spouse 1 and spouse 2 (or 3, 4, etc, if some activists have their way). Parents – all of them – are no longer mother and father, but parent 1, 2, 3 or however many the state decrees.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/10/24/johnny_has_two_mommies__and_four_dads/?page=full
Even the concepts of stability and monogamy are degraded. It’s extremely rare for SS couples to last more than 5 years, and LGBTT2QQPetc people have been found to be the most promiscuous, even while in supposedly committed relationship, particularly between gay men. Prominant gay activists don’t even bother arguing against that reality anymore. Instead, they argue that monogomy is unrealistic and that “monogomish” is superior.
http://www.mrc.org/articles/huffpos-cheatin-heart-more-anti-monogamy-propaganda
“…endorsing/supporting ONE sort of marriage (ie, only between white people, or only between straight people)”
Playing the race card is one of the more despicable and disgusting defences of SSM, and just one of a number of ways SSM defenders demonstrate they’re willing to plumb any depths to have their position forcibly validated by the state. The restrictions against interracial marriage were based on the social-Darwinist belief that the darker a person’s skin was, the less evolved – and therefore less human – they were. People who weren’t white were being denied their very humanity. Interracial marriage has NO equivalence to SSM, and that argument is an affront to those who fought to be recognised as human beings.
“The gov’t shall not establish a state religion…”
Endorsing natural/traditional marriage has nothing to do with establishing a state religion. The government’s role is to reflect what is best for a society, not force their will (or the will of whichever activist group has the most control over it) onto society.
SSM, however, forces government to intrude in the most private affairs of families. It forces people to formally recognise and validate sexual relationships, and criminalizes those who don’t (I’m in Canada, we’re seeing this repeatedly). By removing the biological connection to parents, it forced the government to decide who is or isn’t a parent. This has nothing to do with religion.
And that last question is serious. Consider it: What POSSIBLE harm can come from encouraging faithful, loving, committed marriages and families? In the real world?
Kunoichi,
Kudos on your answer to Dan’s question, whether you meant to answer it or not. He asked about encouraging committed marriages, but there’s no doubt he was referring to homosexual marriages. Committed marriages are what defenders of traditional marriage intend. But the “marriage” is the union of one man and one woman. Dan wants it to mean something else, but is dishonest in his activism for “equity”, as he only wants homosexuals to be included.
Yes.
As long as men and women want to have sex, there is a need for marriage to be a simple legal contract that clearly lays out each partner’s rights and responsibilities to each other as willing parties to said contract.
The ability to make babies necessitates a mechanism designed to help produce a good environment FOR THEM.
Can anyone name a part of marriage that doesn’t involve children?
Partnership?
Togetherness?
Support?
Intimacy?
Shared interests?
Mutual respect and love?
Shared responsibilities?
Being a strengthened part of their community?
Love of and support for extended family?
How many parts of marriage that don’t involve children do you want, because I could probably go on for a long time.
Do you all really reduce marriage down to “having children…”?
Dan,
The natural tie to children is what legitimizes the gov’t support for the traditional version. Two men cannot produce children on their own, nor can two women. Also, the children that a union of a man and woman produce require that THEIR needs be primary in consideration for gov’t support. Nothing on your supposedly incomplete list contains anything that demands gov’t interest. Not to mention the subjectivity of at least one point (#8) that is not supported by any evidence. Most of what passes as reasons in your world (and the world of the activist) is no more than another degree of friendship with the clearly deviant twist of sexual attraction. The gov’t has no compelling interest in the partnership of any two people EXCEPT as pertains to the procreative aspects of male/female unions. That is why non-married heteros were rightfully denied the “rights” to which homosexuals now mistakenly and dishonestly believe they are entitled. And it is why non-married heteros (are any heteros here feeling hated by my use of the abbreviation “hetero”? Just wondering.) would more often than not (in years past) plan to marry should the women get pregnant. Children are definitely an important factor in determining whether or not gov’t should support marriage. Nothing on your list matters toward that end.
Dan, I meant to say marriage law. But, since you mention all those wonderful things, I’ll answer them too.
All of the things you mention, I have with my golf buddies. The only difference is that we don’t have sex.
The government has no business in my personal relationships UNLESS there’s a possibility that a relationship will lead to the production of children.
The government has no stake in whether I promise to play golf with Joe and only Joe till death do us part. It’s just not that big a deal.
There’s something that makes a relationship a lot more worthy of societal notice, and it ain’t romantic love or a crush or ammorous feelings. And to answer your points, it’s not togetherness, support, and shared interests.
It’s sex. Not that two people happen to enjoy sex with each other, but that only one kind of sex produces children. One man and one woman. When one man and one woman intend to begin a sexual relationship, many people close to the couple hope and expect that marriage will be the first step. We prefer (or at least we should prefer) that they promise in front of witnesses (and make it legal) to stay together and submit to certain conditions and responsibilities… BEFORE there are children involved! That’s why marriage is a government concern. And that’s why we shouldn’t mess with it. It’s not for “any two people”. It has a very specific function: to ensure that those who can produce children have a better way to responsibly do so.
All the things you mentioned are good for A marriage. They certainly are reasons two people may want to get married. But they’re not reasons for the government to get involved.