Danny Westneat posed that question today in the Seattle Times. State Supreme Court Justice Richard Sanders posed it obliquely as well in a post-DOMA decision interview last July:
Asked how he would vote on gay marriage if he himself were in the state legislature, Justice Sanders offered a libertarian response: "I'd probably be against it, but on the other hand... maybe the government shouldn't be in the marriage business."
I suspect based on Westneat's column and Sanders's quote they arrived at the idea for different reasons. Nonetheless, I find the notion compelling...though I'm not as sold as Westneat, and have seemingly different motivations. He indicates marriage is morphing into an anachronism, loosing its relevance in modern society. I think society needs greater respect for good marriages, and for strong monogamous relationships in general, bound by selfless love and religious faith.
Want to enjoy the sanctity of marriage? Go to a House of God where sanctification belongs. Want the legal benefits of marriage as understood in the secular, civic sense? Go to the courthouse for legal papers confirming your partnership.
An interesting idea, though not without controversy. As such, I leave it to readers to voice their thoughts in the comments.
Posted by Eric Earling at March 07, 2007 09:59 PM | Email Thishttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/03/AR2007030300841.html?referrer=emailarticle
Thurston County is looking to jack sales tax to fund programs for broken families- ie a whole bunch of money to fund this nonsense- mainly this money will go to folks like the YWCA who vehemently seem to HATE traditional families...and sent their lobby to oppose Shared Parenting legislation (ie letting kids have two parents).
I don't really care if government is in the marriage business- but they should stop funding the destruction of it or enabling bottom feeders from profiting from the destruction of it in the divorce industry. As the Thurston tax indicates- there's a lot of parasites in line to feed on that community property and all the grants in sucking on the "violence and abuse" industry.
Posted by: Andy on March 7, 2007 10:28 PMYou're right on the money, Eric: get married at church, but get "joined" at the courthouse as that is the place to enter into a binding legal agreement.
In fact, having just done my taxes, I was also annoyed at the different treatments given to married persons versus single persons. Make everyone file seperately, and treat 'em the same.
(And while you're at it, give 'em a flat tax and simplified postcard-sized tax return.)
Will any of this happen? Suuuure...and as my girlfriend's 9-year old daughter might say, monkeys might fly out of my butt too. :-)
Posted by: Randy Mueller on March 7, 2007 10:36 PMHowever, I also believe that it is the federal government's right, whether they hand it to the states or do it themselves, to determine of Marriage as an institute is vital to the general welfare of the country for it's people to persue happiness and security, etc. etc. If they deem it thus then they should be in the marraige business. If they move marraige beyond traditional definitions then I would support putting pressure on the governments.
Posted by: Doug on March 7, 2007 11:22 PMAnd they will be horrid divorces between gay men who have nothing in common but the stuff, ie. rocking chairs, porn collections, CD's, autos, house - they will fight bitterly about.
A permit to bear and raise children is another matter.
Their conclusion that the decline of traditional marriage is tied to the loss of post-WWII prosperity is incorrect. How could that be true when the economy has been steadily growing since 1945? I hear that mentioned all the time whenever people talk about the income gap, or the gap. The cause of all of those changes is the failing education system coupled with a transition of our economy from manufacturing to thinking work (e.g. management, engineering, computers).
Posted by: Dave on March 8, 2007 06:11 AMThe only things that the state has any interest in is taxes, custody of children, the possession of assets, and power of attorney. All of those things can already be assigned through regular contracts today. The state could just formulate a standard legal contract for the sharing of assets, children, liabilities and responsibilities between two people of legal, consenting age.
Then, if you want to get married before the eyes of God, there are churches everywhere who will gladly do that for you if you meet *their* requirements.
Making this transition away from regulating marriage does much more to protect the sanctity of marriage and religious freedom than it does to hurt it. It also gives the most liberty to the most people and making the most people happy.
Posted by: Dave on March 8, 2007 06:22 AMI think if you got right down to it with him, you would have to discuss all of government. I wouldn't be surprised if he thought marriage was one of the least offensive intrusions into our private lives.
Just conjecture on my part.
Posted by: swatter on March 8, 2007 06:59 AMThe state should simply provide a convenient way for people to acquire the benefits and liabilities associated with a close relationship. Things like hospital visitation, easy inheritance, etc. Hell there are people in a platonic relationship who often want these things. Call it a civil union or domestic partnership or whatever and make it available to whoever wants it. Churches and individuals will be free to define marriage as they see fit. Isn't that what conservative argue for all sorts of things, like the economy.
Posted by: Giffy on March 8, 2007 07:22 AMThe single mom crowd (now at 40% of all children born) is heading no where but the poverty level. This is the biggest economic threat facing our country today. It is also the cause of the big gap between the rich and those scraping by.
Fact: family wealth is destroyed and flattened in divorces. Fact: Children from 2 parent homes outperform single parent homes in every way.
This is one of the reasons I've been pounding on the shared parenting bandwagon- kids need 2 parents. This nontraditional BS turns fathers into support checks and leaves moms living at the poverty level and destitute in their golden years.
Posted by: Andy on March 8, 2007 08:52 AMAndy is spot on with his comments. When marriage is just a contract, we raise a generation of throwaway kids with single parents dependent on the welfare state.
Posted by: Palouse on March 8, 2007 09:05 AMWVH, it sure sounds simple to say "if you have children, they're your responsibility", doesn't it? But the purpose of programs for poor children is not to help the parents, it's to help the children. Of course it is impossible to entirely separate those goals. But if children grow up poorly housed, fed, educated, etc., it's unfair to the children (who can't be faulted for their irresponsible/unequipped parents) and damaging to society (which those children will grow up to be part of). Helping those children is both the right thing to do and cost-effective for society.
And you say "The state should be supporting families and encouraging people who want to be parents to be married." I agree. How exactly do you propose doing this? I maintain that prohibiting gay marriage is irrelevant if not counter to this goal; what would you actually do?
Another way to meet your parenting concerns would be to ensure that every child who is born is wanted. That means realistic sex education and available contraception and abortion. This is not the place for a debate over whether God likes those policies. But on a practical level, we should agree that those policies do decrease the number (and percentage) of poorly parented children.
Posted by: Bruce on March 8, 2007 09:56 AMYou don't do it by making marriage nothing more than a legal contract. That's what's happening now, and the results are speaking for themselves with 40% out of wedlock births. Government can and does things to encourage married people to have children, which is necessary for our society to survive. These include tax exemptions for having children, which is of course not possible with alternative marriage definitions. Marriage was set up centuries ago as one man and one woman for that very reason - children are how societies survive - and those children are by far the most successful when they have both parents raising them.
Posted by: Palouse on March 8, 2007 10:34 AMActually I believe marriage was set up to handle property ownership. But that's neither here nor there. I agree that loving parents are best, and two loving parents are better than one loving parent.
Posted by: Bruce on March 8, 2007 11:01 AMOh yeah, this is happening all over Canada and Europe as we speak. NOT!
Get a clue already; your incest/polygamy arguments have no basis in factual reality.
The biggest social experiment in the secular progressive bs, which you continually push, is the Black family. You and I will continue to disagree until the day one of us is planted. Moynihan, the late senator, studied Black families for close to 50 years. In the early 50s, most Black children lived in two parent families. What happened was aid to dependent children, that got men out of the household and led to an explosion of families headed by women. That has devasted the Black family and led to over 60% in births to unwed mothers which leads to poverty and greater incareceration for Black males. Now, on the international scene, read the Brit papers. Your bs secular progressive policies have failed the low income poor there as well. Of, course, being the good secular progressive that you are, keep them dumb and dependable so that their votes can be mined.
Don't try and use that tactic that people against your bs secular progressive policies don't want to feed children, we simply want people out of poverty. I suggest you read some Star Parker.
I note that legislation regarding sex education passed. Again, I suggest you go to the Brit papers and their experience about how effective that is in preventing pregnancy. Channel 4 in Britain is under fire for televising during prime time condom lessons. Even New Labour has to admit their underclass is growing and requiring more resources.
Secular progressive policies are aimed at creating and keeping people dependent on your system of elite entitlement. Secular progressives, like the old communists, need a permanent victim class and the howl like stuck pigs when one of the "victims" attempts to leave the plantation. After all, you need victim votes to maintain your privledges.
Posted by: WVH on March 8, 2007 11:45 AMI know that you don't accept the Bible as an authority, but wasn't marriage set up in Genesis with Adam and Eve? I know that the next comment is polygamy which is also discussed in the Bible. The earlier discussions in the Old Testament involved tribal cultures and marriage was indeed involved with property rights.
The primary issue today is what family structure provides the best model for raising children and that, in my opinion, is a heterosexual committed couple.
We will probably never agree as you are secular progressives and I am not. I expect to be fighting against you in the political realm as you seek to impose gay marriage on this society.
May the best side win.
I have no idea, go ask Lilith.
The primary issue today is what family structure provides the best model for raising children and that, in my opinion, is a heterosexual committed couple.
I dunno, ask my friend who came from a happy hetrosexual marriage where her father became a drug dealer, abused his kids, and pulled a gun on her mother before completley abadoning them and leaving them destitude. This sounds like a great model to raise your kids on.
Dan Savage seems to be doing pretty well for himself. He's been raising his adopted son with his monogomous gay partner. He seems to be a much better role model for marriage than my friends father.
The basic premise of the constitution is that all men are created equal and should be treated as such. Seems like an equal rights issue to me.
We are never going to agree, but what I said in
post one was:
1. "the optimum family structure for raising children is a heterosexual couple, not triplets, or human and horse. Children need both genders as role models. Yes, there are great single parents and great gay parents, I'm talking opitmum. Personally, I don't have an objection to civil unions"
2. I am Black and I know that Sims and other secular progressives have cast the gay marriage struggle in terms of the struggle for Black civil rights. I deeply resent that comparison, it demeans my history. I know that you and Bruce have argued that homosexuality is something that cannot be changed. I do not know. I know that color is something that cannot be changed. Sims, Sharpton/Jackson are ministers. I believe that Sims and Jackson are ordained. Sharpton is not. I prefer to put my reliance in the theology of Bishops TD Jakes and Eddie Long as well as Dr. Creflo Dollar all of whom are Black ministers. You wouldn't even begin to go there with their massive intellects attempting to compare the plight and history of Black people to the attempt to impose gay marriage.
We can agree that we will be cordial opponents.
Posted by: WVH on March 8, 2007 12:51 PMYou are, in my opinion, attempting sarcasism. It fails. Why would we change the definition of "marriage" from one man and one woman? Look if you are for gay domestic partnerships, I could support you. I believe that many of the inequities claimed are solved by the domestic partnership law. What seems to be the last inequity is to change the definition of marriage. I don't support that. I can't and won't support the definition of "marriage" from the traditional definition of one man and one woman.
Posted by: WVH on March 8, 2007 01:12 PMTrue, 3000 years of Slavery vs. 38 years of Gay Pride. I would agree that it's a real stretch to compare the two. But say you start from the early civil rights movement in the South some 60 years ago; gays are on track for gaining gay marriage as attitudes shift favorably in their direction. Who knows, in 20 years Gay Marriage will be relatively commonplace much like mixed racial marriages are today.
You are using that straw argument of interracial marriage. I repeat that it is not the same issue. Like with Bruce, I expect to be opposing you until we are both planted. I saw the debate between Sims and Hutcherson and Sims used that argument. I prefer the theology of Jakes, Long, and Dollar. You are still equating my race with a behavior which is homosexuality and I deeply resent your slur.
Posted by: WVH on March 8, 2007 01:34 PMSociety also considered marriage worthy of protection. Aside from the religious nature of a wedding ceremony, there were and are aspects of marriage that are legally binding upon husband and wife. The vow to live together and love each other "until death do us part" is a legally binding contract, if you will. How a couple arranges their lives around this contract makes each party largely dependent on the other to hold up their end of the contract.
If the couple goes on to having, for example, three children, and the wife gives up her career to stay home and raise these children, she relies on the husband to be the breadwinner. She gives many years to the task of raising children, preparing meals for the family, organizing and keeping a good home, and considers it a good thing even though she is missing years of experience at her career while technology changes and her field of career experience becomes more advance than what she knows. Then one day the husband decides to run off with another woman. He has broken his vows, his contract, if you will, abandoning his wife and children.
Before no-fault divorce policies became the norm, the government would penalize the party in the marriage who had broken the contract (making him liable for supporting the other and the children, the other spouse would be granted custody of the children, the rights to most of their assets (which were all considered shared then), etc. Now, though divorces can still be messy, everyone is considered equal, and there is really not much incentive in the law to hold the marriage together.
As a result, we see a huge increase in the divorce rate and this has more to do with the statistics being pointed out than "gay marriage" does. However, since marriage is less valued, due to its easy-in/easy-out approach in the law, what's to make Brittany Spears and her 55 hr. (what's his name) spouse think twice about jumping in and jumping out? It is easier to break a marriage contract than it is a lawn maintanance contract or any other business contract. Of course it's going to be devalued. Through liberal activism, marriage has lost its meaning in many circles.
One is considered "full of it" to say that it's about children. That's where we are today. And when the gay activists can point to Brittany and her first husband as a mock example of traditional marriage, and simultaneously point to a "committed gay man and his monogomous partner," we wonder why our argument doesn't hold up.
The truth is, we need a complete restoration of traditional marriage in this country on a personal level as well as within the culture, and government needs to get back to recognizing the fundamentals of what marriage exists for and do their job in protecting the marriage contract, making it clear to couples entereing marriage, what the responsibilities and liabilities are within that contract. Simultaneously, we can restore the meaning of marriage and "gay marriage" becomes a moot point.
Posted by: Michelle on March 8, 2007 01:49 PMFine, let's talk inter-faith religious marriages then. A lot of these were highly unpopular during the 1950's. Some still are among certain selected religions. Yet the Govt. of this country has no problem if a Jew marries a Catholic, or a Mormon marries an Muslim.
Religion is a choice, and by the sound of it you were likely raised in a monotheistic religion. We cast aside our religious differences for others to marry. Why can't you do the same for sexual preference?
No, I seek to impose gay marriage only upon gays who wish to be married.
You just don't seem to get it and that is why there is such a wide devide between secular progressives like you and Bruce and people of faith. Ok, Bruce, I know that Cato has faith in Lillith or the Goddess or Baal. My race is something I cannot change and I don't want to as I am happy being me. Faith is something people have and it may change. Interracial marriage and interfaith marriage still involve one man and one woman. That is the crux of marriage. Get it?
Posted by: WVH on March 8, 2007 02:08 PMWe respectfully disagree, you want to impose your views on society to society's detriment. Black people are the canaries in the mineshaft and secular progressive ideology has destroyed the Black family.
Posted by: WVH on March 8, 2007 02:13 PMSo my friends mother should have stayed with the drug dealing abuser who pulled a gun on her for the sake of keeping a traditional marriage? She divoced his sorry ass, got back on her feet (with assistance from the evil welfare state), and raised two kids all by herself. It wasn't her fault her husband was an abuser, was it?
I am by no means a theologian and there are different denominations of Christianity. I no little of the Jewish system. I do know that for the majority of Christian denominations continued and prolonged abuse is sufficient basis for a divorce. St. Paul, who wrote most of the New Testament says that a man is to love his wife as Christ loves the Church. When that Covenant is broken by prolonged and continued abuse, divorce is possible. Unfortunately, in this society some divorce because they can't take the way their spouse dresses or they don't like some other attribute that might be ameliorated with counseling. Divorce hurts children and if it is possible to avoid that outcome it is better. Continued and prolonged abuse is different from I don't like the way you chew your food.
Posted by: WVH on March 8, 2007 02:29 PMCato- Polygamy is alive and well in many countries- unlike gay marriage, polygamy is a widely accepted facet of Islam.
Is the factual reality of the middle east not part of your reality?
Posted by: Andy on March 8, 2007 02:39 PMAnd gay marriage is not. To get a divorce in Islam a man can say 'I divorce you' three times loudly and this will pass legal muster as divorce. Not really what we think of traditional marriage rights but different laws for different countries.
I was saying that people who say that Gay Marriage will open the door for those types of marriages have no fatcual basis to support it. The countries that do support polygamy (at least the ones I know of) don't have gay marriage.
Uh, no. Your friend is exactly the kind of woman, along with her children, the laws before no fault would have protected, without the help of the welfare system. The law would have demanded that the husband financially provide for his wife and children, but would have kept him from further abusing them.
Posted by: Michelle on March 8, 2007 02:54 PMWhat about couples who choose not to have children you ask? Marriage vows, if kept, exist so that he will not produce children outside of the wedlock of his marriage.
Of course, there are examples where marriage vows are broken and abusive relationships. That does not make marriage itself the problem, it's the individuals in that relationship that are not holding up their end of the bargain.
Marriage between a man and a woman is still by far the best means to raise children, and every child deserves a mother and a father. That is the ideal of "traditional marriage".
Posted by: Palouse on March 8, 2007 02:54 PMThat's never been the case, even going back to the founding days of this country. Children we're consitently born out of wedlock.
Marriage between a man and a woman is still by far the best means to raise children
Well considering gay adoptions have only legally occured in the last 10 years or so do you have any long term proof to support tha claim? Dan Savage's adopted child seems to be doing ok.
Are you really saying that a child without both a mother and a father is not the ideal way in which children should be raised? Nature created a way to procreate that is between a man and woman - if two mommies could procreate maybe I would have a different opinion.
Posted by: Palouse on March 8, 2007 03:15 PMIt sure looks like it's possible for two mommies to procreate. =)
if two mommies could procreate maybe I would have a different opinion.
It sure looks like it's possible for two mommies to procreate. =)
Gender identity is healthier if there is a two parent hetersexual family. Dan Savage may or may not have well adjusted children, I don't know and probably neither do you. In any event, one example does not support a rule. The best example of the misery caused by single parent households is the Black family. We are the canaries in the mineshaft. Both girls and boys need good male role models. Remember the nine year old kid from Tacoma who stole the car, he was trying to get to Houston to be with his grandfather. Secular progressive policies destroyed the Black family.
Posted by: WVH on March 8, 2007 04:08 PMHow can you be sure it wasn't the crack epedimic of the 80's or the rise of 'Bling Bling' role models in the 90's that have led the destroying of the black family? With both of those events the repurcussions would clearly have an effect on children of that genration.
Gender identity is healthier if there is a two parent hetersexual family.
Granted, I agree with you that two parent households are best. We don't really have enough data to make sweeping jugements about whether the parents sexuality really makes any difference at all.
I don't know if these two idiots are your idiols, secular progressives have certainly put them forth as Black leaders. Sharpton/Jackson routinely throw around the word "racist" as if it were confetti and they have devalued its meanings.
I expect to hear from Kettle, Doc-T and the rest of the hood and robe crowd when I make the following statement in response to this:
"How can you be sure it wasn't the crack epedimic of the 80's or the rise of 'Bling Bling' role models in the 90's that have led the destroying of the black family? With both of those events the repurcussions would clearly have an effect on children of that genration."
Like the true little secular progressive weasel that you are, you have just made a supremely racist comment.
Since you have shown evidence from your posts here that you can read, may I direct you to Drs.
Sowell, William, and Mc Whorter.
I expect that kettle will jump in now with its half cent worth of comment.
Posted by: WVH on March 8, 2007 04:35 PMThe crack epedimic ravaged many black communities in the 80's. The children who lived during that era may have lost a parent or two to drugs during this time period. Those children would likely be around marrying age about now. Could the events of that time possibly change thier additudes about marriage? Quite likley.
Re-thinking my 90's comment, I can't blame the MTV generation. I watched MTV as a kid. I went to school and got an education. I personally never thought of any the folks I saw on MTV as role models. Can't speak for the Tweens of today though.
As for Jackson, in my book he has lost all credibility he had during the civil rights era. He's become a camera whore, a cult of personality.
1. I stand by my comment that you like many secular progressives are racist. Many of you like Black people in theory and individual Black people as long as they are useful idiots in preserving your elite status.
2. If you read the academic studies and the late Senator Daniel Monyihan who was also Dr. Daniel Monyihan and studied the Black family for close to 50 years. He long with Dr. Thomas Sowell, Dr. Walter Williams, and Dr. John Mc Whorter conclude that many of the social policies lead to the demise of the Black family. Those policies were secular progressive.
3. Where did you get your doctorate and in what subject?
Posted by: WVH on March 8, 2007 05:34 PMAs for me, I would be in favor of the state issuing civil unions for legal reasons. And people can go to their respective churches for marriage under the eyes of their respective god(s).
Posted by: redkittyred on March 8, 2007 05:45 PMAgain, the deeper issue here is, what is marriage for? Not sideshow examples of two female parents who use artifical insemination or anecdotal examples of failed marriages.
Societies need babies, or else there is no society. And traditional marriage provides the optimal family structure for those babies, and this is why society has no stake in any other type of union.
Posted by: Palouse on March 9, 2007 08:15 AMIt's a life long commitment to another person (don't even start with that gay marrige = incest crap again). Marriages in the past have been used to stop wars, forging alliances, and aquiring property. There are many different types of marriage around the world that don't follow the western judeo-christian defintion which you are using.
Societies need babies, or else there is no society.
Yes they do, and people sometimes adopt children from other people who don't want them, can't afford them, or law prevents them from having more than one.
And traditional marriage provides the optimal family structure for those babies
Like I said gay adoptions have only taken place in the last 10 years or so. You don't have any proof to back that up.
Research into early childhood development is not my area, but there are numerous studies on the issue. Can you cite any authority for the positions you take other than your own secular progressive view of how you would like the world to be? Generally, studies indicate that the optimum is a two parent heterosexual family. Having completed a dissertation for my doctorate, I know that methodology is key. You are correct, children of gay parents will be studied. What will be most effective in the methodology of that study is a longitude study which looks at a cohort over time. Again, your doctorate is from where in what?
Posted by: WVH on March 9, 2007 10:43 AMForgot to ask. Are you and David, et al. related?
Posted by: WVH on March 9, 2007 10:46 AMNo, what is it for, not what it is. Societies don't exist if they don't create babies, not adopt babies. Obviously you believe that there is a connection between marriage and procreation, or else you would not oppose incestual relationships. The very reason that incestual and other types of unions are not marriage is because there is no public interest in that type of union.
Society has determined that the optimal family structure is a biological mother and father and that marriage is the best means to raise those children. Other types of unions that cannot create offspring do not serve a public interest, and if the issue is property or hospital visitation, they can be resolved by other means.
Posted by: Palouse on March 9, 2007 11:14 AMOr isn't it time we once again change the definition of marriage as we have through the ages?
Posted by: redkittyred on March 9, 2007 04:25 PM-loving some one does not convert that emotion/relation into a "marriage."
-"hard worker" does not convert an illegal alien into a citizen.
-calling everything a 'marriage' does not magically change its historical, religious and cultural nature and long-accepted definition. maybe for you, not for all people.
re-defining a giraffe does not make a butterfly a giraffe, no matter how hard the government/anyone (via pressure groups) forces one to do so via tolerance and diversity "training."
one can't force acceptance on another without some bitterness on the forced. this promotes a moving dictionary of terms. changing at whims. that's why most people do not like the forced acceptance and the re-definitions.
live as you will. plan your affairs accordingly. live the golden rule. but don't overturn my apple cart and re-define it (to you) as "spring cleaning" at your whim. what will you call it next time?
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on March 9, 2007 04:55 PMThough honestly, I've attended enough hetero weddings and wondered if it is sacriledge to have a church wedding when neither the bride nor the groom ever attended church, or prayed to the god they were now taking an oath to.
I was just watching how Newt had admitted that he cheated on his first and second wives. And of the top 3 Republican presidential candidates, they have had 8 former to current wives. Funny thing is that Mit Romney, the Mormon, is the only one hasn't divorced. And these are the people who are going to decide gets to be married?!? C'mon, let's leave those decisions to the religious leaders. Civil unions in they eyes of the state. Marriage between you and your god.
BTW, the definition of the giant panda was once a marsupial but has been recently re-classified with the bear (ursus) family now that genetic testing is available. So who knows what's in store for your giraffe as well.
Posted by: redkittyred on March 9, 2007 05:40 PMI have always wanted to ask any secular progresive or athetist, this question:
Are Christians or people espousing conservative values the only individuals that can ever be considered hypocrits. Are they the only ones that fall from grace?
I'm not going to defend or vote for newt, so that is not the issue. Was there ever an athetist or secular progressive that ever fell short of the mark? Was Clinton short of the mark? Was Barney Frank and other congresspersons caught in scandal short of the mark. How about Ted Kennedy?
The basic Christian theology is we are all sinners fallen from grace. That includes jerks like Newt. The other part of that thought is redemption which is available to Newt, Clinton, Frank, and Kennedy.
You, Cato, Bruce, and other secular progressives are going to disagree with the view that marriage is important for raising children and thus society
has an interest in it as an institution. The lines seem to be drawn on that.
Hypocrits belong to no particular race, class, religion or gender.
Posted by: WVH on March 9, 2007 09:57 PMWhat is your authority or cite for this statement:
"Or isn't it time we once again change the definition of marriage as we have through the ages?"
i havent noticed a wedding band on a panda's paw lately. and--a panda knows his station in life & in nature. he does not attempt to re-define himself a penguin merely by swimming in their water exhibit. nor are the zoo patrons fooled by his swimming with penguins.
fluid definitions may appear to liberals to be the sign of learning and progress. sometimes re-defining things like your example is reasonable. but--in many cases fluid definitions are the hiding place for excuse-makers.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on March 10, 2007 02:28 AMAnyway, you're the one who insisted on bringing the animal kingdom into it.
But really, is it so objectionable to leave the definition of marriage to the church(es)? And let the state just handle the paperwork of recording said unions for the corporeal matters such as property disputes and power of attorney?
And redefining is precisely what has happened before. Back when the church controlled the sanctioning of marriages, births and burials. Those things had existed in the churches hands for many more centuries than having the state's involvement.
Posted by: redkittyred on March 10, 2007 08:34 AM"The basic Christian theology is we are all sinners fallen from grace. That includes jerks like Newt. The other part of that thought is redemption which is available to Newt, Clinton, Frank, and Kennedy."
Newt, Clinton etc. only confirm my belief that marriage should not be defined by the fallible politicians or judges but rather by the one who is connected with the keymaster himself, Peter. I don't care to redefine marriage. That is up to your church to do. What I want to redefine is to remove from the power of the government to dictate what a marriage is.
Posted by: redkittyred on March 10, 2007 08:48 AM1. Please answer this question which was posed earlier:
What is your authority or cite for this statement:
"Or isn't it time we once again change the definition of marriage as we have through the ages?"
2. "Newt, Clinton etc. only confirm my belief that marriage should not be defined by the fallible politicians or judges but rather by the one who is connected with the keymaster himself, Peter. I don't care to redefine marriage. That is up to your church to do. What I want to redefine is to remove from the power of the government to dictate what a marriage is."
You state that this is your opinion, am I correct?
3. Every one is entitled to their opinion, the question is what weight or credibility should be attached to that opinion.
What is your opinion based upon?
a. research in areas like sociology, psychology, social sciences, education, or law?
b. Extensive readings in the subject?
c. The opinion of scholars, researchers, studies, and articles?
d. Your own personal research on the subject?
e. There are just as many educated fools as naught, just asking though. Any grad degrees in your background?
What weight and credibility should be given your opinion other than you have one. Paris Hilton and Jessica Simpson also have opinions.
Posted by: WVH on March 10, 2007 12:45 PMIf this is the Christian definition of marriage, then the fact that divorce is so prevalent already changes how marriage is viewed.
1b. "marriage
1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.
10. Obsolete. the formal declaration or contract by which act a man and a woman join in wedlock. "-dictionary.com
These are just excerpts with the whole definition can be looked up on dictinary.com. But the interesting note is that terms can become obsolete and therefore change.
1c. Marriage has not been static and it's definition comes from the meaning we give it. And through the years and cultures, marriage has come to mean different things to different peoples. Even in this day and age, you probably view marriage different from Newt. I view marriage as an oath of lifetime commitment and therefore choose not to marry. Had I existed in 500BC marriage for me would have been being married off to a 30 year old man when I hit puberty. If I were a man messing with a woman in the 1700's, she would have ended up wearing a smock that looked like "Alvin" of the "Chipmunks" but today it's just another episode of "Cheaters". And cohabitation of the 1800's may have involved a good ol'fashion shunning but today would be considered Common Law married.
2. yes
3. I am entitled to my opinion as a member of this society. That's all I need to have an opinion. And for better or worse, that's why we have a democracy. As long as the state has the power to define marriage, I am obligated to insert my secular opinions.
And since I have taken my morning to answer your question, please answer for me "why is it that you would oppose dividing marriage as a church jurisdiction and civil unions (for the purpose of property distribution and power of attorney) by the state?" as I have proposed a couple of times and you have not yet addressed.
Posted by: redkittyred on March 11, 2007 10:25 AM1. I certainly hope you didn't take a morning. You answered nothing. All you have said is that you have a right to an opinion. I agree with that.
Is your opinion based upon anything other than what you feel. Do you have any studies to back up your opinion? Have you given any thought to the impact of your opinion? Please answer my questions. Until you are able to back up your opinion with something other than your belief, it is worthless.
2. Do you disagree that one of the primary functions of marriage is to provide a stable insitution for the raising of children? If so, why or why not and please cite studies, authors, or your own research? If it is correct that the insitution of marriage provides a stable foundation for the raising of children, then does society have an interest in that insitution? Do you have studies, opinion, cites to back up your opinion? I know that you will throw out instances of maritial failure and divorce stats. Since we are speaking of theoretical concepts, lets analyze the institution as a concept.
3. I have a doctorate in education, law degree, and MBA in economics. Your background is....?
I have studied education issues, wrote papers, and completed a dissertation. You may not agree with my opinion, but I have some basis for it.
Generally, when studying populations and particular traits, social scientists like to study a population over time - a longitude study.
Although, it was not planned as one of the biggest longitude studies over time,the effect of secular progressive policies on the Black family has turned out to be a longitude study. Monyihan reports that in the earlier 50s most Black children lived in two parent families. Now about 60% of Black children are born to households headed by single females. The effects on the Black community have been devasting:
a. Black male incareceration
b. poverty
c. lack of education achievement
d. stigmitization in the greater culture
e. health issues
Now, Redkittyred and others if you want to promote your secular progressive bullsh*t for your communities, please be my guest and best wishes to you. I plan to work to strengthen my
community.
OK. recap. It started with my question.
"Or isn't it time we once again change the definition of marriage as we have through the ages?"
You asked me
"What is your authority or cite for this statement:"
I replied with facts that demonstrate the way marriage is viewed has changed through centuries. I believe I have answered your question, albeit not to your satisfaction. And yet, you have not only, not answered mine but have also posed new questions toward a discussion on child rearing in society.
Quid Pro Quo.
Posted by: redkittyred on March 11, 2007 12:43 PMThere are anthropologists and social scientists that study marriage. There is a social scientist from Evergreen that supports your position. I have not read her work. That is an example of a classification of a cite. The dictionary definition of marriage does change over time, you are correct in that. What I am looking for is a cite from you in terms of studies, authors, and opinions from people supporting your position. No quid pro quo. I will cite the works of Monyihan, Sowell, Williams, and Mc Whorter. If you want a wonderful popular writer Star Parker.
"3. I have a doctorate in education, law degree, and MBA in economics
Ummm, congratulations?"
You don't have to patronize me as most secular progressives love to patronize Blacks. What is your opinion based upon? Your study of the subjects for which you venure an opinion is what?
BA?
MA?
Doctorate?
MBA?
Other degree?
Have you done any research on the topic?
Yes or no to the above questions?
Isn't interesting that I always address you as a person and you despite your protestations of wanting your opinions valued can't bring yourself to use my moniker, probably just a secular progressive trait. One of the reasons that the discussion of the use of the dictionary as a source is that popular culture evolves. The preferred classification of support for a position in scholarly circles is scholarly research and studies. Opinion then is based upon that research and studies. Dictionaries reflect useage in popular culture. Take the term "chav" which has recently come into vogue and entered the language. Just because the term has entered the language doesn't mean society wants to adopt hooligan behavior the term describes as the norm.
The reason we are even having this discussion is:
"The reverse is also true. By manipulating cultural content, one can change the politics.
A socialist theorist Antonio Gramsci, in the realization of the importance of culture in politics, laid down the philosophical basis for cultural engineering in order to pave the way for socialist government to succeed in an hostile environment. With this principle in mind, revolutionary forces, after WWII have always sought to manipulate cultural factors in order to overthrow the existing political order. This paradigm produces cultural wars which are an expression of political wars."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WHEELER/Culture_defines_politics
I will be honest, I am arguing my position in the cultural war. Your citations please.
Again, cites and research/degree info?
By your reasoning (studies etc.) a family is better brought up through a one man one woman marriage. Which is all well and fine except that marriage does not automatically equal a creation of a family. And there are people who marry without intention (whether by choice or circumstance) of having or raising children.
Thus, wouldn't you do better to go to the source and create laws which dictate that pregnant women should be married and the mother and father are obligated to stay married until the child reaches adulthood? Sure it's great to have 2 parents, a mother figure and a father figure. It's even better if one could be a stay at home parent. Even better if they made 100K or more per year. And if the parents could start saving for the child's college before the age of two. Wouldn't it be great if parents had to take a test before having a child like we need to learn the rules of the road before driving a car? These are all the things I would like every child to have. Would you so kindly make sure that this happens as part and parcel with your marriage?
My question last time, "Would giving the power of marriage to a church deteriorate the meaning of marriage more than has happened by giving the power to the state?"
Because I am for civil unions does not mean I am against the idea of marriage. I would like the meaning of marriage to be one that is held in higher regard, also with the hopes that divorce would be more difficult to obtain, if it was a matter decided on by the church not the state.
As far as my credentials, I am a voting member of the public to whom these laws apply. And you're stuck with those like me as I am with you. You're welcome to the last word if you'd like for so long as you refuse to answer my one question, this is the end.
Let's see, a member of the public. Did you graduate from at least high school? The following resources may answer your question, if you care to read them The cites are not APA or MLA. You are the typical snotty little secular progressive twerp. What materials have you researched to formulate your opinion, other than like Paris Hilton you have one?
I have no objection to civil unions, I object to the redefinition of marriage to include other than heterosexual marriage.
I don't take anything you say personally, citizen member of the public. I am posting this so that others can access the resources. I don't know your age - you may be young and inexperienced or an old fool, you won't divluge your education. What I deduce is you don't like visiting libraries and have little interest in knowledge or life long learning. You are right, this conversation isn't worth my time.
Some things you might want to consider:
Your question, "Would giving the power of marriage to a church deteriorate the meaning of marriage more than has happened by giving the power to the state?"
What do you mean by giving the power of marriage to a church?
a. Does this mean that you want the system in most European countries where there is a state sanctioned civil ceremony which registers the marriage and gives government sanction? Generally a church ceremony follows the civil ceremony. The civil ceremony confers state benefits.
b. The key is what unions can be registered by the state. What is the definition?
So, what do you mean?
Articles List
1. "Families and Citizens: Why the Stakes of Democracy Are So High," speech given by Jean Bethke Elshtain, February 16, 1995, in Minneapolis. Available at www.amexp.org/publications/culture/culture18.htm.
2. The Age of Unwed Mothers: Is Teen Pregnancy the Problem? by Maggie Gallagher (New York: Institute for American Values, 1999). Copyright © 1999 by the Institute for American Values.
3. "How Broken Families Rob Children of Their Chances for Future Prosperity," by Patrick F. Fagan, Heritage Foundation Backgrounder, June 11, 1999. Copyright © 1999 by The Heritage Foundation.
4. David Blankenhorn, "The Marriage Problem," American Experiment Quarterly, Spring 2003. Copyright © 2003 by the Center of the American Experiment
5. The Abolition of Marriage by Maggie Gallagher. Copyright © 1996 by Maggie Gallagher. All rights reserved. Reprinted by special permission of Regnery Publishing, Inc., Washington, D.C.
6. "Marriage: The Safest Place for Women and Children," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder, April 10, 2002. Copyright © 2002 by The Heritage Foundation
7. "Q: Should Congress Steer Some Welfare Funds Toward Pro-Marriage Programs? Yes: Healthy Marriages Provide Numerous Benefits to Adults, Children, and Society," Insight on the News, vol. 18, March 18, 2002, pp. 40-43.
8. "The Moral of the Story," The American Spectator, October 1996
9. "Why Marriage Should Be Privileged in Public Policy," Insight, April 23, 2003.
10. Isabel V. Sawhill, "The Behavioral Aspects of Poverty," Public Interest, Fall 2003, pp. 79-95
11. "The 28th Amendment: It Is Time to Protect Marriage, and Democracy, in America," National Review, vol. 53, July 23, 2001.
12. Reprinted from "Sacred Marriage Contract Only Has Room for Two," by Robert H. Knight, Insight, June 8, 1998
13. From "Marriage Isn't a Basic Human Right," Conservative Chronicle, July 17, 1996. Reprinted by permission of Mona Charen and Creators Syndicate.
14. "The Child Abuse Crisis: The Disintegration of Marriage, Family, and the American Community," Backgrounder, June 3, 1997, by permission of The Heritage Foundation.