Get the Government Out of Marriage! King Solomon’s Baby Dilemma

solomon1

The Quest for Marriage Equality Takes a Familiar Twist

Remember Biblical King Solomon who tried to figure out which of two women a baby belonged to?  One woman’s baby had died in the night and both women claimed the living child as their own.  He offered to cut the baby in half to give each party an equitable share in what they wanted.   One mother said yes, half a baby was better than no baby, but the other offered to give the baby away rather than see it be killed.   Solomon knew who the real mother was by her true love for the child regardless of her own personal desires.

What does it say about proponents of “gay” marriage that they’d rather see the entire institution of marriage be destroyed than be content with domestic partnership?  Isn’t this offer to “get the government” out of marriage akin to cutting the baby in half?

See this editorial from the L.A. Times:

A way out of Prop. 8

If the state licensed civil unions, couples could choose a religious group for their marriage vows.

What if California got out of the marriage business altogether? What if the state merely licensed or just recognized private, contractual civil unions with all the benefits of marriage, and couples went to the religious or private institution of their choice to sanctify their vows? Would that resolve the legal differences between Proposition 8 and the state Supreme Court’s 2008 ruling that gay and lesbian couples were entitled to the same marital rights as heterosexuals?

These were the questions Justice Ming W. Chin posited during oral arguments on the proposition Thursday before the high court. To which both sides responded: Why, yes, it would.

The subject has come up repeatedly in blogs and conversations, but this was the first official, public forum to give it voice, and it shouldn’t be the last. The argument frequently raised against same-sex marriage is that marriage represents a special bond, traditionally and biblically reserved for a man and woman. But under this approach, religions and other belief groups could continue to sanction marriage in accordance with their definitions, and the state could concern itself with the civil rights and responsibilities of two people who decide to share life, home, family and the remote.  See the rest of this editorial here.

Isn’t this ignoring the reason society protects and promotes marriage?  Statistically, no other group of adults is as effective in raising children as a man and a woman joined in marriage and committed to each other for life.   No other group is as effective.  That is a strong statement.

That is why societies promote gold standard marriage, and no other coupling.

The idea that “If I can’t have marriage, no one should!” is the product of self centered rhetoric that robs marriage of it’s connection to children and family in order to achieve seeming equality with homosexual unions.

Marriage is more than sex and self gratification.  It is more than social acceptance and a societal stamp of approval on sexual behavior.  Marriage is the glue of society.  It is the nursery of our future generations and men and women who enter into marriage, promise to each other, God, society and their posterity that they will provide a stable loving environment for their children.  Only marriage as defined provides the stability necessary for civilization’s values and societal mores to be passed from one generation to the next.

That this “half a baby” “scorched earth” idea can be taken seriously as public policy by gay advocates is laughable.  It shows their lack of interest in marriage as an institution and illustrates activists’ perfect willingness to see the marriage institution destroyed if it furthers their own personal ambitions.

Whether society scraps marriage altogether or whether it promotes gay unions and marriages equally, the net result is the same.  Marriage as an institution is destroyed.

—Beetle Blogger

Advertisements

13 Comments

  1. Euripides said,

    March 9, 2009 at 9:58 pm

    I can hear the aftermath of the “leave marriage for religion” argument as well. If that should happen, it would take about a trillionth of a second for a lawsuit filed against a church for not performing a gay wedding. The line of reasoning with these folks is unfathomable.

  2. Jesus Loves You said,

    March 9, 2009 at 11:06 pm

    It saddens me to know that there are actually some heterosexuals who like the idea of abolishing marriage altogether. On another blog, someone sugggested the idea of creating a ballot initiative that would convert all existing marriages into civil unions, and the owner of the blog loved the idea. It made me so angry, that I had to post a comment and let them know exactly what I thought of that idea. What about people like myself, who have happily married parents? My Mom and Dad have been happily married for 44 years, and the idea of their marriage being converted to a civil union is heartbreaking to me. I love my Mom and Dad and I want them to stay married. They love each other and want to stay married. If this whole “civil union” thing ever came about, my Mom and Dad would not want to live together in the same house, even though they love each other dearly. It wouldn’t feel like a family anymore. They both believe that a man and woman should not live together if they are not married to each other. I know that there are many other people like myself who have happily married parents and they do not want to see those marriages converted to civil unions. And I definitely would not want to simply live with a guy and have children with him if we were not allowed to marry. (I am not yet married.) This may rub some people the wrong way, but that’s how I feel. It makes you wonder what else the gays have in mind. I think every pro-family citizen should stand up for what we know is right and make our voices heard loud and clear. I for one, and not going to sit idly by and watch the institution of marriage go down the toilet! We all need to show our opposition to the idea of abolishing marriage.

  3. March 9, 2009 at 11:55 pm

    There seems to be no limit that some fringe activists within the gay movement will not push for their own personal interests. Yes, we are a free and equal society, but we are also a civilized and decent society. If the gay rights movement can’t get the second premise through their head they will have a hard time convincing others to get the first premise through theirs.

  4. Chairm said,

    March 10, 2009 at 7:41 am

    Justice Chan asked the question:

    CHAN:

    The professors suggest that marriage has a religious origin. And they suggest that solution to the problem (civil rights claims clashing with religious liberty) is that we direct the state to employ non-marriage language to all couples and that it be called a civil union. That, essentially, the state get out of the marriage business.

    1. Does that solve the problem?

    2. Is that the province of this court?

    * * *

    MICHAEL MAROKO:

    As far as we’re concerned, if you are in the marriage business, do it equally. The state obviously stuck its finger in the marriage business; it should stick it there equally. If they are not going to be equal, then get out of the marriage business. That’s our position on that. If you are going allow one group, heterosexuals, to get married, and homosexuals have to be registered domestic partners, that doesn’t fly with Article 1, Section 1.

    And it does comply with the Court’s decision that nomenclature matters. The way I read Justice George’s majority opinion, nomenclature matters. And what Article 1, Section 1 now says, after Proposition 8, what our Bill of Rights now says, is all people, except heterosexuals, have the fundamental right to liberty. That’s what it says.

    JUSTICE CHAN:

    Well, I haven’t heard an answer to the first part, yet.

    MICHAEL MAROKO:

    Our position is that if it is applied equally and the nomenclature is applied equally, no one gets married, then I think that applies with Article 1, Section 1, Equal Protection.

    JUSTICE CHAN:

    Is it the province of the Court to do that or do we leave it to the Legislature and the Governor?

    MICHAEL MAROKO:

    I think the moment this Court, there cannot be one second where this Court allows fundamental rights set forth in Article 1, Section 1 of liberty and privacy, which is marriage, to stay out there in our society and within our state where one group has greater rights than the other.

    The Court has the power and, I think, the obligation to protect the minority groups, in this case gays and lesbians, and if they don’t have the right to marry, then, straight couples should not have the right to marry as well.

    The Court does have the power, that’s the answer to the question, as far as I see it.

  5. Chairm said,

    March 10, 2009 at 7:47 am

    When asked the same questions, Kenneth Starr was a little more circumspect.

    KENNETH STARR:

    Yes and no.

    It does solve the problem. May I elaborate?

    Yes, it does solve the problem because the issue, the complaint, here is the inequality. Individuals are committed to one another but they are not able to enjoy the same status. The Marriage Cases spoke to that. And the Court articulated that in a very, very detailed opinion.

    But, at bottom, this Court, in Marriage Cases, was talking about the California constitution and equality. The California constitution now includes Article 1, Section 7.5, which has been called Prop 8, but it is in the constitution. So that has been answered.

    The definition of marriage […] Proposition 8 is indeed very limited. It doesn’t override the analysis of this Court. It says, here is a traditional term that societies across time and space [have retained]. This Court disagreed. And that’s fine. But the point is, it disagreed not in the framing of social policy but because of the equality principle. As long as the equality principle is honored, then, the answer is yes.

    If I may elaborate on the second part, emphatically no. It is the province of the judicial department to say what the Law is. This Court quotes, rightly so, from Chief Justice Marshall, and that is your province and that is what you were doing in Marriage Cases.

    But to actually make a recommendation to the Legislature, to say, here are alternatives to solve this particular issue, because of the anguish and the angst and the goodwill on the part of individuals who want this value of equality in this particular [instance], here is an alternative?

    Obviously, it would exceed, emphatically, the judicial function to say, this is our remedy.

    JUSTICE CORRIGAN:

    CORRIGAN:

    But you would not disagree that tomorrow, if it chose, the majority of the Legislature could pass a law that says, nobody gets to to be married in California anymore, but everybody who can meet the qualifications gets to be a domestic partner, or a part of a civil union, or some other word.

    KENNETH STARR:

    I agree and may I elaborate?

    The reason I agree is that marriage, while a very foundational right, it is so profoundly important, it is also, and it has been described by this Court as a three-way project.

    There’s someone else in the room and its called the state. The state has chosen to go in the room.

    And so this Court in the Marriage Cases […] said very emphatically, that marriage is a closely regulated relationship by the state.

    […]

    The Legislature controls marriage.

  6. Chairm said,

    March 10, 2009 at 8:02 am

    For years, I have noted that SSM argumentation proposes to replace marriage recognition with recognition of something else.

    That something else would be limited by whatever gay union is and is not. It would not be more than marriage, but rather less than marriage. For nothing of marriage that cannot fit gay union would remain.

    Civil union is a wholly government created thing. So we would lose societal recognition, through governing authorities, of the foundational social institution of civil society. Marriage and its core would no longer enjoy a preferential status in the law, social policy, and, if the SSMers have their way, in our culture, as well.

    Thus neutered, the sustainability of marital status would be profoundly undermined by the heavy hand of the Government.

    Lacking a core meaning, civil union would instead become the vehicle for pressing identity politics into all corners of the law and social policy — and, yes the culture.

    It would make the pro-marriage idea suspect, and it would throw overboard the philosophical and the religious ballast that rights the ship of state.

    The replacement of marriage, whatever it would be called — civil union, domestic partnership, “civil marriage”, registered partnership — would be like a cork floating on the waves of the ocean. An ocean of relativism and entitlement mongering and identity politics.

    The marriage culture would become counter-cultural, against the overt policy and power of the Government, and it would be left to civil society to defend marriage against encroachments.

    Marriage stands between the vulnerable individual and the big hairy hand of the State. Marraige, like civil society’s other foundational institutions such as property and freedom of conscience and free association and so forth, provide the buffer between the lone individual and the vagries of the factions of power.

    Essentially, the goal of the SSM campaign, and of its argumentation, is to strip marriage of its special status and elevate identity politics above all other countervailing forces in our pluralistic and very tolerant society.

    The greater harm done to marriage in California in the last 10 years was the rapid expansion of domestic partnership from a list of enumerated benefits to a full localized merger with marital status. This has been used to smother marriage with emotivism and the mean rhetoric of identity politics.

    It is like going to the bank machine for some cash. You get accosted by a group of muggers. They take your wallet and keep you there while one of them goes to the late night monster store to buy a baseball bat with which to you beat you for not having gone and bought the bat for them.

  7. beetlebabee said,

    March 10, 2009 at 7:40 pm

    Chairm, you’ve got quite an excellent transcript here! Thanks for the hard work. Seeing Maroko’s words in context is all the more alarming. Get rid of marriage altogether! That’s a pretty drastic move.

    So what are they really proposing some neutered state version of marriage right? Chairm said:
    “That something else would be limited by whatever gay union is and is not. It would not be more than marriage, but rather less than marriage. For nothing of marriage that cannot fit gay union would remain.”

    I agree with that completely. A gay relationship cannot be all the things that marriage is, so to force equality, the state could chop out all the things that marriage is and civil unions never could be. But the question remains, why should we do that?

    How can that possibly be in our best interests as a society? Take two unequal things, lop one off at the knees and then call them equal….that just makes things a bloody mess if you ask me.

  8. Chairm said,

    March 10, 2009 at 9:04 pm

    It also raises the question: why treat the all-male arrangement as if it was an all-female arrangement?

    Especially when it comes to (nonresponsible) procreation?

    Here is a discussion of differences that would get lopped off

    http://gruntledcenter.blogspot.com/2007/01/marriage-is-complementary-union-of-man.html?showComment=1169003580000#c5157474039804776380

    Here is a snippet about the main differences between the all-male, the all-female, and the both-sexed conjugal relationship:

    QUOTE

    Surrogacy agreements are prohibited, and heavily penalized, in Michigan. “Donor” insemination shields the anonymous male “donor” and the female user (and the surrogate inseminator, i.e. the intervening technican or clinic). Thus one form of third party procreation is banned while the other is enabled.

    Maybe another false equivalency claim would overturn the compelling state interests already established in Michigan courts: a) preventing children from becoming commodities, b) serving the best interests of children and c) preventing the exploitation of women (read “men and women”).

    Perhaps the homocentric example from the Ontario judiciary would be embraced by courts in Michigan. Parental status for mom, dad, and mom’s partner. If dad has a partner, just be equitable and add him as well.

    That society has not gone that far for scenarios that entail children in common to both-sexed couples and third or more persons — was no obstacle to the Ontario court. The key was that the couple was lesbian and the third person was the natural dad of the child. They agreed so that made it okay.

    If that form of second parent adoption is okay, why not third parent adoption, or fourth?

    There is no shortage of children living in scenarios that would lend themselves to further extension of adoption provisions. Afterall, joint custody and remarriage have been around, like, for ages. Social step-parents gain some aspects of parental status even though they haven’t officially adopted. Why stop there?

    And if three or more parents, then, why not extend the protections of marital status to threesomes and moresomes? It is such a new idea that it is an old idea already.

    /end QUOTE

    * * *

    Also he following discussion — No Sex In Gay Union:
    http://gruntledcenter.blogspot.com/2007/06/no-sex-in-gay-marriage.html

  9. Jonathan B. said,

    June 15, 2009 at 10:20 am

    I personally am a believer that we should get government out of marriage……………What I see implied by some of my fellow Christians is that “We” are a majority and must be heard………..This is all predicated on the notion that the American form of government is a democracy, that the rights of 51 percent trump that of the remaining 49 percent….We are in fact a Republic. .And if anyone knows how the Founding Fathers felt about it, the firmly believed, and where we to delve into history we could find ample proof of this, that Democracy was the antithesis of freedom…….While I am in no way in favor of gay marriage, the issue of having the courts, legislators (state and federal) or Constitutional Amendments solve this issue is open season for the government to legislate on all other moral issues………It is my firm belief that you cannot legislate morality……..The basis of individual rights is the idea that you and I are free to do as we please as long as we do not violate the rights of others……..I feel that marriage is in fact an institution that has historically been between a man and a woman. I would also defend the right of churches to marry whoever they please, and I would defend the right of other churches to disagree theologically, spiritually, morally…If gay couples can’t marry in the church of their choice, then their is civil union/marriage………..That is the great thing about freedom and our Constitutional Republic, we have the right to freely associate with who we want to. To believe what ever we want, and to make it known. The government naturally cannot recognize marriage in a religious capacity as this violates Separation-of-Church-and-State…………..It staggers me that people with the purest of intentions fall back on government to solve moral and religious issues, not realizing that this may indeed wind up biting them in the butt……………….GET THE GOVERNMENT OUT!

  10. Jonathon H said,

    February 14, 2013 at 12:41 pm

    @Jonathan B. There is nowhere in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence that states ” separation of church and state” that does not exist anywhere except in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to someone, he was talking about (to put it in my terms) a one way mirror. The church was suppose to be involved in the government but the government was not to be involved in the church. It clearly states that in the First amendment “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.

  11. Jonathon H said,

    February 14, 2013 at 12:59 pm

    Which also brings me to my next rant. Churches should not ever become 501c3 because you give up your right to be known as a church to the government. When you become 501c3 you are claiming you are a charitable organization not a church, becoming legally bound to laws which the State and the Federal government creates. If you read the publication on the 501c3 it clearly says Churches are not required to become 501c3 and they are still eligible for tax write-offs or tax deductible. Don’t believe me? Read it for yourself on the actual publication.

  12. Jonathon H said,

    February 14, 2013 at 1:18 pm

    ” Although a church, its integrated auxiliaries, or a convention or association of churches is not required to file Form 1023 to be exempt from federal income tax or to receive tax deductible contributions” and don’t buy into that there are benefits to file form 1023. The only benefit is being free from the government control. Look up publication 557 page 25. If its not black and white its most likely not a publication.

  13. Jonathon H said,

    February 14, 2013 at 1:20 pm

    http://www.irs.gov/publications/p557/ch03.html#en_US_2011_publink1000200094

    This is where the quote came from.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: