In an interview on the science in science fiction, novelist William Gibson noted, “[T]he future is already here. It’s just not evenly distributed yet.” What Gibson meant was that the innovations in science fiction could already be found””at least in embryonic form””in our current ideas or technology. Much the same could be said about future social and legal norms concerning the institution of marriage””they are already here, they’re just not evenly distributed yet.
A prime example is the social and legal acceptance of polygamous marriage. The legal bulwark against polygamy was the first to go, dismantled by the Supreme Court ruling Lawrence v. Texas. “Liberty presumes an autonomy of self,” claimed Justice Anthony Kennedy in the majority opinion, “that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct.”
As Justice Antonin Scalia recognized in the minority opinion, the decision could be used to legalize bigamy and would be a “massive disruption of the current social order.” Last week the New York Times featured a story about a polygamist who is suing the state of Utah to overturn its anti-polygamy law that proves Scalia a prophet….
1. Br. Michael wrote:
The comment by Mr. Swenson is quite good. He concludes:
The fact that this is the natural consequence of the “personal autonomy†theories the court has been adopting since Roe v. Wade, to destroy Federal and State legislation, demonstrates that there is no force now recognized by the Court, such as traditional Christian morality, that can counterbalance the gravity of natural human depravity and rebellion that seeks to exceed every boundary of behavior imposed by society. The fact that the Court has repeatedly endorsed one of the most anarchic aspects of human behavior as preempting the exercise of the democratic process of lawmaking, and the explicit right of self-government by voting majorities, makes it easy to see this leading to precisely the kind of society foreseen by Aldous Huxley in Brave New World, one of sexual anarchy combined with despotism in every other aspect of life.
Indeed the protestations that the flood unleashed by same sex marriage magically stops with their special situation and that having dispensed with marriage as between male and female the number two is sacrosanct is nothing more than special pleading without an ounce of principled reason behind it.
If the state is required to recognize and allow benefits for any “marital†arrangement that anyone can think of, I can well see the day that the state will not recognize marriage at all and treat all as single people at law who can have any private arrangement they want, but without any impact on public finances.
[i]I can well see the day that the state will not recognize marriage at all and treat all as single people at law who can have any private arrangement they want, but without any impact on public finances. [/i]
Well, yes, that’s exactly what SHOULD happen! Personal relationships between consenting adults are none of the state’s business. Those who wish to marry should simply enter into a religious or personal covenant. And if it doesn’t work out, then they should deal with it themselves and not use the courts to leverage and punish.
Our government is charged with preserving individual liberty, not creating preferential households.
Teatime 2 – your argument fits exactly what the courts have decided – it is the logical and reasonable consequence. The case to be made for marriage to be special – and to be a man and a woman – rests with the State’s interest in its own preservation. The State has an interest in the generation of children and in assuring their nurture. If the State wants to assure future generations – and, by those generations, its survival – this may only occur when a man and a woman join. Historically, women and children are found to have the best assurance of an economic status other than poverty when monogamy is practiced. Therefore, the State’s interest is in providing incentive for monogamous heterosexual unions – through tax-law, inheritance law, etc. If the State decides it may not consider its interest in assuring its own future when considering this issue, then your statement makes perfect sense: The State should not be at all in the business of recognizing or discouraging relationships of any kind.
Incidentally, I disagree hugely with your last sentence: “Our govenment is charged with preserving individual liberty….” From the Constitution:[blockquote][i]We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.[/i][/blockquote]You’ll note that document describes both individual and societal goals. Our current societal climate is so very heavily skewed toward individual rights and liberties – but that is not where the Constitution put us. That document described both goals – in a delicate and difficult balance. (IMHO.)
Montanan, the state can have no interest in marriage if it is sacramental. If it is civil, the state has an interest, but then, the civil aspects are contained in civil unions, not marriage. Of course the definition of marriage has changed, but not the way the homophiles have said, but in a much better clearer way: All marriage is sacramental; this is why one takes vows, All civil benefits can be bestowed through civil partnerships. Why is this so difficult for American to grasp. Marriage has at last got a clearer, jmore tightly defined character at long last.
Still the left is winning all the battles, and polyamory is NOT the end nor is ssm. Se Cal’s new legislation making it mandatory that public school texts books speak about famous homosexuals and lesbians. A legislator complained that the legislation made it clear that homosexuals were nhot to be discussed in anything except a positive light. So the stranglehold now reaches into public education.
the homophile agenda expands and expands; thought control is now a reasonable goal. Larry
montanan,
So men and women can’t “nurture” their children without a state license? How on earth did our species survive all of this time, before a state was created and decided to license relationships?
I know couples who happily and successfully remained together, raised children, and didn’t feel the need to wed UNTIL they reached retirement age and discovered that if they didn’t have that piece of paper in place before beginning the retirement process, their partner wouldn’t receive any benefits upon their death. The license did and changed nothing but they were financially impelled to procure it — and to spring for a nice dinner party afterward.
A piece of paper and government registry should have no impact whatsoever on whether a relationship is successful. If it does, then there must be some immaturity or financial goals involved. A couple who is committed to each other and a life together should not need or look to the government for a rubber stamp of approval.
This is all about taking responsibility for one’s own personal life and choices, not looking to the government to sanction them (or referee them when things go sour). Yes, the government should treat citizens as individuals and not confer benefit based on their personal life choices.
I think you’re allowing your religious sensitivities about marriage to color any objectivity about the state’s involvement. Religious marriage is an entirely different matter and that’s not in play here — yet. But with the state expanding to whom it will give licenses — and religious representatives performing ceremonies on behalf of their respective faiths AND the state — the time will come when faith communities will be impelled to follow the state’s directives and definitions or face steep penalties.
Those who wax poetic about how glorious it is that the state license relationships for the good of society seem to forget about the flipside. For most of our country’s history in some states, interracial marriage was prohibited under the guise of maintaining “racial integrity.” That didn’t end officially until the Loving case in the 1960s. And while I don’t believe there was a law that prohibited African-Americans from marrying prior to emancipation, the plantation owners were permitted to break up marriages/families and sell off children whenever they wanted. Where was this “family values” benefit of legal marriage for them? The marriage laws of this country have rested primarily with the states and, thus, have been all over the place in terms of who can marry, at what age, etc. And now we’re adding sexual orientation into the mix.
So, I’m sorry, but there is nothing “stable” about what the state is doing or has done in this regard unless you’re white and middle-class or above. It has always followed the political and social whims, as it is doing now. Time to get off the merry-go-round.
But see your second paragraph.
the piece of paper is for civil benefit, not sacramental benefits. It is a piece of cake, so to speak, to get a civil partnership to take care of civil benefits. The rest is what-you will. Larry