What others have said on marriage laws-- INTERSTING!

This is from a married with five kids, son of ours -- in response to the article (included after his writing) from Meridian Magazine about marriage laws. VERY INTERESTING!!!

Family,

A year ago, I would have agreed with this completely. But no longer.
Before you condemn me as a heretic, let me explain.

In summary, don't strengthen the marriage laws, get rid of them altogether!

The role of government in people's lives is all about force. They are
the ultimate authority, everyone agrees that they have the gun and are
authorized to use it when necessary. Taxation is money taken by force
(if you don't believe that, try not paying taxes) to be spent in ways in
which you have very little influence, and therefore all government
programs rely on force to exist. This is another large topic, which I'd
be willing to continue on if desired, but for the sake of my argument,
I'll assume that we agree that government constitutes the mutually
recognized and authorized wielder of force.

Why does government even need to be involed in marriage at all? Why do
we need a legal definition? Why are there laws in the books about
marriage? What force is required here, that necessitates the involvement
of government?

One of the vital roles of government is to enforce contracts. Legally, a
marriage is nothing more than a contract. But the terms of the contract
are a giant mass of impossibly confusing laws. Why do you think that
divorce lawyers make so much money? The system is broken, people! It
doesn't need to be this much of a mess. Mixed into the mess are relgion,
legal definitions, tax laws, marital benefits, prejudice, sex laws, rape
laws, child protection laws... gadzooks, what a nightmare. I just
recently finished reading the Constitution, and there is nothing in
there about marriage (if I missed it, let me know).

Government should NEVER be used as a tool to enforce one person's
morality upon another, even when you are sure that your morality is
correct and beneficial. The federal government just needs to follow the
constitution, nothing more.

Here's how to fix it:

1. Throw out all marriage laws in the books. Government should not care
about it at all, especially at the federal level. We don't need a legal
definition if there are no laws about it.

2. A marriage is a contract. Treat it as such, for legal purposes! When
a couple wants to make a commitment to each other, they find a contract
that they both agree to, and have it witnessed and signed, with a copy
filed by the government. Now, if there is a breach of the contract, it's
the governmnet's job to exercise force if it is needed. This covers
child support, divorce, and so on. If the couple wants it to mean more,
having to do with relgion, that's their business.

3. Adjust the tax laws accordingly. A government adopting the principle
of liberty, and following the Constitution, will be minimal, and won't
have much in the way of taxation.

Government works best when it is pushed down to the lowest level
possible; if a community decides they want to recognize certain marriage
contracts for some reason, and that community votes accordingly, so be it.

"... Government power must be dispersed. If government is to exercise
power, better in the county than in the state, and better in the state
than in Washington. If I do not like what my local community does, be it
in sewage disposal, or zoning, or schools, I can move to another local
community, and though few may take this step, the mere possibility acts
as a check. If I do not like what my state does, I can move to another.
If I do not like what Washington imposes, I have few alternatives in
this world of jealous nations." --- Milton Friedman

Now, do you see how this solution completely resolves the whole problem
of gay marriage? There is no more problem! If someone wants to make a
legal contract with another person, for whatever reason, they can do so,
and call it whatever the heck they want to. It doesn't have any bearing
on anything else. If a local government wants to recognize it for some
purpose, sure! If I don't like the local laws, I have a chance as
getting heard. If it bugs me enough, I can always move elsewhere, near
people who believe the way I do.

Hopefully this clarifies my position on this issue. If anyone can find
any holes in any of this, let me know!

--- Eric

article from Meridian Magazine--


> Gay Marriage, Democracy, and the Courts
> The culture war will never end if judges invalidate the choices of voters.
>
> By ROBERT P. GEORGE
>
> We are in the midst of a showdown over the legal definition of marriage.
> Though some state courts have interfered, the battle is mainly being
> fought in referenda around the country, where “same-sex marriage” has
> uniformly been rejected, and in legislatures, where some states have
> adopted it. It’s a raucous battle, but democracy is working.
>
> Now the fight may head to the U.S. Supreme Court. Following California’s
> Proposition 8, which restored the historic definition of marriage in that
> state as the union of husband and wife, a federal lawsuit has been filed
> to invalidate traditional marriage laws.
>
> It would be disastrous for the justices to do so. They would repeat the
> error in Roe v. Wade: namely, trying to remove a morally charged policy
> issue from the forums of democratic deliberation and resolve it according
> to their personal lights.
>
> Even many supporters of legal abortion now consider Roe a mistake. Lacking
> any basis in the text, logic or original understanding of the
> Constitution, the decision became a symbol of the judicial usurpation of
> authority vested in the people and their representatives. It sent the
> message that judges need not be impartial umpires—as both John Roberts and
> Sonia Sotomayor say they should be—but that judges can impose their policy
> preferences under the pretext of enforcing constitutional guarantees.
>
> By short-circuiting the democratic process, Roe inflamed the culture war
> that has divided our nation and polarized our politics. Abortion, which
> the Court purported to settle in 1973, remains the most unsettled issue in
> American politics—and the most unsettling. Another Roe would deepen the
> culture war and prolong it indefinitely.
>
> View Full Image
> George
> David Klein
> George
> George
>
> Some insist that the Supreme Court must invalidate traditional marriage
> laws because “rights” are at stake. But as in Roe, they are forced to
> peddle a strained and contentious reading of the Constitution—one whose
> dubiousness would undermine any ruling’s legitimacy.
>
> Lawyers challenging traditional marriage laws liken their cause to Loving
> v. Virginia (which invalidated laws against interracial marriages),
> insinuating that conjugal-marriage supporters are bigots. This is
> ludicrous and offensive, and no one should hesitate to say so.
>
> The definition of marriage was not at stake in Loving. Everyone agreed
> that interracial marriages were marriages. Racists just wanted to ban them
> as part of the evil regime of white supremacy that the equal protection
> clause was designed to destroy.
>
> Opponents of racist laws in Loving did not question the idea, deeply
> embodied in our law and its shaping philosophical tradition, of marriage
> as a union that takes its distinctive character from being founded, unlike
> other friendships, on bodily unity of the kind that sometimes generates
> new life. This unity is why marriage, in our legal tradition, is
> consummated only by acts that are generative in kind. Such acts unite
> husband and wife at the most fundamental level and thus legally consummate
> marriage whether or not they are generative in effect, and even when
> conception is not sought.
>
> Of course, marital intercourse often does produce babies, and marriage is
> the form of relationship that is uniquely apt for childrearing (which is
> why, unlike baptisms and bar mitzvahs, it is a matter of vital public
> concern). But as a comprehensive sharing of life—an emotional and
> biological union—marriage has value in itself and not merely as a means to
> procreation. This explains why our law has historically permitted
> annulment of marriage for non-consummation, but not for infertility; and
> why acts of sodomy, even between legally wed spouses, have never been
> recognized as consummating marriages.
>
> Only this understanding makes sense of all the norms—annulability for
> non-consummation, the pledge of permanence, monogamy, sexual
> exclusivity—that shape marriage as we know it and that our law reflects.
> And only this view can explain why the state should regulate marriage (as
> opposed to ordinary friendships) at all—to make it more likely that,
> wherever possible, children are reared in the context of the bond between
> the parents whose sexual union gave them life.
>
> If marriage is redefined, its connection to organic bodily union—and thus
> to procreation—will be undermined. It will increasingly be understood as
> an emotional union for the sake of adult satisfaction that is served by
> mutually agreeable sexual play. But there is no reason that primarily
> emotional unions like friendships should be permanent, exclusive, limited
> to two, or legally regulated at all. Thus, there will remain no principled
> basis for upholding marital norms like monogamy.
>
> A veneer of sentiment may prevent these norms from collapsing—but only
> temporarily. The marriage culture, already wounded by widespread divorce,
> nonmarital cohabitation and out-of-wedlock childbearing will fare no
> better than it has in those European societies that were in the vanguard
> of sexual “enlightenment.” And the primary victims of a weakened marriage
> culture are always children and those in the poorest, most vulnerable
> sectors of society.
>
> Candid and clear-thinking advocates of redefining marriage recognize that
> doing so entails abandoning norms such as monogamy. In a 2006 statement
> entitled “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage,” over 300 lesbian, gay, and allied
> activists, educators, lawyers, and community organizers—including Gloria
> Steinem, Barbara Ehrenreich, and prominent Yale, Columbia and Georgetown
> professors—call for legally recognizing multiple sex partner
> (“polyamorous”) relationships. Their logic is unassailable once the
> historic definition of marriage is overthrown.
>
> Is this a red herring? This week’s Newsweek reports more than 500,000
> polyamorous households in the U.S.
>
> So, before judging whether traditional marriage laws should be junked, we
> must decide what marriage is. It is this crucial and logically prior
> question that some want to shuffle off stage.
>
> Because marriage has already been deeply wounded, some say that redefining
> it will do no additional harm. I disagree. We should strengthen, not
> redefine, marriage. But whatever one’s view, surely it is the people, not
> the courts, who should debate and decide. For reasons of both principle
> and prudence, the issue should be settled by democratic means, not by what
> Justice Byron White, in his dissent in Roe, called an “act of raw judicial
> power.”
>
> Mr. George is professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University and
> founder of the American Principles Project
> (www.americanprinciplesproject.org).
>