Ending the Same Sex Marriage Debate
Marriage is Illegal for All, not just Gay People
Prior to the Civil War there were no State licensing requirements for a man and a woman to get married. Neither George Washington nor Abraham Lincoln received a license to marry their wives. It had traditionally been a civil covenant between a man and a woman often, but not always, sealed in the eyes of God according to the couples specific and personal faith. It did not require the religious connection, but that was the case in most instances. Why then do I make the claim that "Marriage is Illegal for ALL"? Quite simply put...because the State, through laws passed within those States, say it is so. Since 1929, all states have had some sort of licensing requirement that must be obtain from the State in order to be legally married. According to Merriam-Webster's definition of license we'll see that marriage is indeed illegal.
The definition is ~ a permission granted by a competent authority to engage in a business or occupation or in an activity otherwise unlawful.
So, you may be asking yourself, "How does that make marriage illegal?"
The Racist Component to State Licensed Marriage
After the Civil War and into the early years of the 20th century, States began to require marriage licenses to get married. The question is, Why? The most common reason attributed to these requirements was to stop interracial marriages. 38 States had restrictions for Whites marrying Blacks, Mulattoes, Indians, Japanese, Chinese etc. It was, therefor, turned into a licensing issue. Marriage became illegal without a State marriage license, which gave the government the right to deny a license and, in doing so, deny a marriage. The mindset was one of government sanctioned racial bigotry and for some even eugenics. The practice of requiring a marriage license has become second nature to most people in today's world and is rarely given a second thought. We don't even question the concept, let alone the reasoning behind it. We accept it, as so many things, as "just the way we do things". This is yet another trespass of the government into the private lives of it's citizens. So, what do we do?
Solving the Issue of Marriage for All
The answer is actually quite simple...not easy, but simple. Ending the government's control of marriage would eliminate the issue regardless of the gender of those people seeking to marry. If we were to allow it to, once again, be a civil bond without the governmental shadow, then there would be no need to redefine marriage on a governmental level. Allowing religious organizations to marry whomever they, as individual denominations, saw fit would open up each person to choose the denomination or religion that fits their beliefs. Allowing marriage to fall from the State's power and become a matter of faith and/or a simple civil bond for those without faith would open up freedoms and liberties to all citizens that are now merely a point of contention. This will allow each couple, regardless of race, gender or religion, to enter into a marriage covenant that fits with their belief system. This should not be confused with allowing the government to mandate that any religious organizations should be forced to marry any two people if it goes against their convictions. It will, however, take one more overreaching power away from the government. That leaves us with only one more issue...what about property, wills, insurance etc?
But, What About the Perks?
Once we have removed the hand of government from the marriage picture, we will have to allow the free-market to do it's thing. Any two adults, regardless of gender, religion, race or creed can enter into any legal contract of their desire. They can purchase a house, name each other in a will, start a business together etc...whether they are married or not. So, this is not even an issue under the current status of marriage. Where we will see opportunity for change is in the realm of insurance. But, this too will be the product of the free market and NOT the government. An insurance company can choose to allow as many people on an insurance policy as they chose under a free-market system. If a man wants to allow another man on his policy, then that is his right as long as the insurance company will allow it. The insurance company needs the freedom to decide who they cover, what they cover and at what costs. Now insurance companies, freed from at least one layer of government bureaucracy, could compete for more premiums, from more people.
People 1 ~ Government 0...
Most problems are not actually fixed by the government, but rather are exasperated by it. The free-market is the truest form of freedom for expanding liberty and opportunity for We the People. The longer we look to the government to "fix" our problems and make things "fair", the longer we will slip out of sync with the Constitution and our Liberty.
Who gets cake?
Who gets to decide who gets married?
Related
Comments
AUTHORI was merely station that the United States was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. I was stating historical facts and not making a judgment call on other belief. I will, at this point, comment on Sharia. I would not want its influence to be felt in our country.Christianity as a blueprint is a good basis for correcting many of the ills we face. I do not believe in a manmade theocracy I but in a country that impales the 1st Amendment to preserve the individual rights of the citizen. This doesn't preclude the influence of faith in government.
With great respect, yes, such choices/decisions are the prerogative of your people, through the democratic government..... not for me to interfere with.
However, I see the concentration upon the presumption that the christianity common in the United States is THE solution to everyone's problems, as an arrogant and misplaced presumption.
You spoke in your post about Islamic Sharia Law and Buddhist principles, as though they are so inferior to christianity that they can be dismissed as irrelevant. Am I correct in this understanding?
Without wishing to promote or denigrate any of those alternative philosophical views, I feel that if people who have a christian perspective were to open their minds to other possibilities, that would lead to much more social cohesion.
- AUTHOR
Jonnycomelately, our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principals, it was not founded on Islamic Sharia law or Buddist principals...what is your point on that matter? And, regardless of that point, we still should not allow that government to be in the marriage business one way or the other.
Brenda said: "The truth is that America has always had a very conservative, limited belief system! Limited to the belief in one God, the Creator. We're not an atheist Country. Nor are we an Islamic Country. Nor are we a Bhuddist one. And we will NEVER be any of those until and unless we keep cowing down to the lies of the liberal agenda. "
You don't want America to be any of those things, but you want it to be totally christian, right?
A "conservative, limited belief system!" Brenda, you are narrow-minded. You are blinkered to the point of only allowing your own views to be valid argument.
As long as the United States of America continues in the majority to think and act like you do, then the potential of your country will be limited too.
One thing you do not seem to have gained from your christian faith is a thing called humility. You rant and rave against minority groups that you have no real understanding of. You seem not to apply any sort of love and tolerance and fairness, because your narrow christian-type point of view is all you can be bothered with.
- AUTHOR
In a sense, yes...but, are they looking for the right to get married as a cultural/religious endeavor or are they looking for a legal document for other purposes? That is the question I have...but, yes let's get government out of it either way.
The end result would be the same. In effect, lifting ALL government restrictions on marriage would mean lifting the ban on same-sex marriages and therefore same-sex couples would have rights that they don't have today.
- AUTHOR
Mindy...But, remember, I'm not talking about giving rights to anyone. I'm saying get the government out all together and have marriage be what it was meant to be...a cultural/religious institution. There should be NO legal ramifications to marriage at all. If a person's own denomination wants to marry ANY two people, that is their choice.
It is refreshing to see an open-minded, true Christian that realizes giving rights to others does not take away from their own. Many people ask me why I am so vocal about the same-sex marriage issue since I am a heterosexual and does not effect me. My husband and I are of different races and as you reminded everyone years ago our marriage would not have been legal. I have my marriage and therefore my children today because someone fought for me to have that right. I feel that it is my responsibility to now do the same for others. What America should have learned by now, but somehow has not, is that if any of our civil rights are violated, all of our civil rights are violated. Great hub! Keep up the good work.
- AUTHOR
Never grant power to a government to do one thing if you are not also ok with it doing the opposite. One the authority is given, it is nearly impossible to reverse.
Brenda, what you don't realize is that the government can not only force your beliefs on to other people, but it can also force other people's beliefs on to you. What if there was suddenly a homosexual majority in the United States? Because we've given the government so much power and allowed it to intervene to such a great extent (even in private matters like marriage,) the government could all of a sudden dictate that only gay people can marry.
Of course, this is an unlikely situation, but hopefully you see my point. Limited government means no one will be forced to abide by anyone's beliefs.
Kathleen, I agree that if we could only place into positions of power those with common sense, we'd be on our way to fixing the problems. That could very well happen this upcoming November if we get that fool out of Office.
And by the way, I'm pretty sure I WAS grammatically correct in my statement above. And if I wasn't, I don't care. I'm in NO way worried about offending the (supposed) sensibilities of a man who called unborn children a "punishment", nor insulting him whether he's President or not, or any President past or future who insults humanity in the myriad ways that he has done so (and publicly at that). Indeed I would be pleased to tell him so to his face. SOMEBODY needs to.
If only. There are common sense solutions to many of our problems. If only we could place into positions of power those with common sense.
You make a good pointabout multiple wives. God did only make Eve for Adam. Before you get out of Genesis there is mention of multiple wives for others in Adam's descendants so the practice came along pretty quickly. They had a world to populate, so there may have been a purpose. Guess we'll never know for sure.
- AUTHOR
Kathleen, Thanks for reading.
The Bible discussing the fact that some had multiple wives is no more a condoning of it then it's commenting on the historical aspects of the golden calf is a condoning of idol worship.
We shouldn't need to worry about "equality under the law", because there should be no governmental issues with marriage. What reason and right does the government have to be involved? If we were to impliment my ideas then we wouldn't have any arguments about the issue.
Mitch: I did not know the history of licensing for marriage, but it sounds like a reasonable explanation of how it came about. Much of our law has a basis is prejudice and bigotry, typical of the day the laws were passed. I hope in America the days of prejudice and bigotry are behind us.
I believe as many who have written here about our shared religion. Although there are many references in the Bible to marriage between a man and more that one woman. Religion is not the issue. Equality under the law is the issue and it shouldn't matter what a person's religion is to get fair treatment under our laws in this country.
Brenda:
"Starting with the racist fool that sits in the Oval Office" Should be "who sits in the Oval Office". Please at least get your grammar correct when insulting the office of the President of the United States, whomever he (or someday she) might be.
- AUTHOR
Steg, Thanks for the kind words...keep Hubbin'
This is a great Hub, Mitch. I was actually hoping to post a similar Hub after I published mine about Chick-Fil-A, but you beat me to the punch and probably put it better than I would have. Voted up.
- AUTHOR
There could still be legal restrictions that would fall under the "child protection laws" etc...there would be discussion on that, but we did just fine prior to the 1920's. And, if a man "married" his horse, what would be the point as there would be no legal advantage concerning property ownership etc?
Just as there are laws against drinking underage, but no law against drinking, we could regulate age.
Okay. If we go with that scenario, where there are no legalities, (and considering that people don't just get married in churches already; they get married at County Clerk's Offices, etc.), then tell me-----what's to prevent kids from getting married, first cousins from marrying, a father and daughter marrying, and a man from marrying his cow or goat or whatever, etc.?
- AUTHOR
No, I'm saying we need to get governent out of the marriage business all together. If we go back to the way it was prior to the 1920's, then we wouldn't need to worry about a state mandated definition of marriage. Each denomination would be free to marry or NOT marry who they, according to their beliefs, believed could marry. Return it to being a religious/social matter and not a governmental law issue. Then the government could not dictate the definition of marriage. I believe that marriage is one man, one woman...but not all do and it SHOULD NOT be the government that decides.
Mitch.....you've confused me----you said IF we mandate that marriage must be performed in a Bible-believing Church..........I don't think that's the issue here, is it? I don't know of any push to force that on anyone. People have been able to get married at the Town Clerk's Office, or in a ceremony at their house, or whatever, for as long as I can remember. Nothing wrong with that.
So how is that even an issue?
Do you want me to spell out the problem? The problem is that you and others seem to be trying to change traditional marriage instead of simply standing against "gay marriage". Is this what American politics have driven us to?? Indeed, it seems so. The Left has manipulated everyone into a tizzy! They have us running around like chickens with our heads cut off, trying to defend traditional marriage even if we have to consider changing it, while they're on the OFFENSE and forcing us to come up with some solution to a problem that should never be a problem in the first place. And we let 'em get by with it! Unconscienable!
- AUTHOR
WD, glad to have sparked the desire to write another Hub. Perhaps we can link them ...
This is a tough one Mitch. I am a Christian as well and I accept the Biblical definition of marriage unequivocally. Here, in the USA, we have freedom of religion, and some people disregard God completely. Are we to force them to accept "The Way"? It just doesn't work.
With this approach, we might be better off, than if we just up and make a contradictory form of marriage legal. I guess it would be a license to sin. Meanwhile, we ought to set the best example we can and pray for those who we believe have gone astray.
I have to thank you, because I am inspired to write a hub on this aspect of the quandary.
- AUTHOR
Brenda, I'm a Christian and believe the Biblical definition of marriage is one man, one woman. But, other religions practice marriage, as do agnostics and athiest. I was an agnostic when I got married the first time. If we mandate that a marriage MUST be performed in a Bible believing church ONLY, then we are going against the 1st Amendment and giving the Federal government powers they should not have. If we get the government OUT of the marriage business, as it WAS prior to the 1920's, we will RESTORE the proper place of marriage. Without the government involvement the government will have no jusidiction to tell ANY denomination that they MUST marry anyone who wants to marry. Each person is FREE to choose how they worship and each church decides what they teach. Otherwise we have State run churches.
Mitch, the comparisons aren't equal. Mandating baptism would indeed be tyrannical. In the same way, the Government does not mandate that people get married! Nor should they ever! Our laws weren't intended to tell us what TO do; they're intended to tell us what NOT to do, and to provide a system of punishment when we break those Laws. That is the only freedom that works correctly, a combination of freedom and justice. Just like that so-called separation of church and state---------the concept wasn't intended to force anyone to worship God; it was intended to give them the liberty to worship or to choose to NOT worship. But no way was it intended to condone the unGodly religions and other crap that's trying to ride the coattails of true Law.
If you don't understand that, let me put provide another point----------the definition of a "church" should never include a place that practices deliberate blasphemy. So, any church that would condone gay marriage shouldn't be allowed to call themselves a church anyway. Nor should any atheist gathering be allowed to be called a "church" and be under Government protection.
Time needs to come when things are called what they are, instead of covering every evil under the umbrella of "tolerance" and "lawfulness". Think about it. What good is a Law if it isn't right?
- AUTHOR
Brenda, the historical reasons behind the introduction of the marriage license that I stated is accurate. You are citing the "traditional" marriage point of view, but are neglecting the FACT that the licensing is the "new" issue. Prior to the dates cited, there was no licensing for marriage. I believe that individual churches and denominations should not be forced to allow same sex marriage by the government, but I also do not believe the government should restrict an individual church or denomination from doing so. That IS the principal of "freedom of religion".
Would you have the government mandate baptism? if so, would it be adult only as the Bible teaches or would you allow people to perform infant baptisms as well? See the slippery slope?
Government should not be in the marriage business...PERIOD...Our founders didn't think it should be.
Mitch,
I can understand your desire to resolve this situation. But it won't work. Lawlessness is never the answer. In America, at least, there have always been valid reasons for putting a particular law into effect. Until recently.
The only way to fix this issue is to stand upon the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, including the stipulations of age, mental capacity, etc.
Your way is simply giving up, giving in to the current political pressure. And while it would be nice if it were so simple, I'm dern sure it isn't that simple. Chaos will ensue. It should've been nipped in the bud a few years back. The only chance now is for us to boot out the liberal leaders who are twisting morals and laws and causing all this controversy. Starting with the racist fool that sits in the Oval Office. Then we might have a chance of actually reining in the aggression that's been allowed to liberal activists. Seriously, they don't care one whit about law at all. They want lawlessness, period. It's gonna be worst than the Old West before they're done messing with our Constitution and other tried-and-true laws that America was based on.
By blaming it on racism like you did (when you said the government didn't want blacks and whites to intermarry), thereby comparing that issue to the gay agenda, you've fallen prey to their mindsets.
I'm sorry, but I'm no fool. I hope you won't be either.
One more point-----you said "that fits with their belief system".........
The truth is that America has always had a very conservative, limited belief system! Limited to the belief in one God, the Creator. We're not an atheist Country. Nor are we an Islamic Country. Nor are we a Bhuddist one. And we will NEVER be any of those until and unless we keep cowing down to the lies of the liberal agenda. To dismiss and/or allow our true solidly-conservative heritage of religious beliefs and moral status like lawfully regulating the institutions of religion and marriage to be changed now would be tantamount to changing America at its foundation. Sound familiar?
If people don't fight for what's right now, they'll eventually lose their rights to fight anything at all.
It isn't "the Government" that's wrong. It's two things-----aggressively liberal people who insert themselves into our Government, and those Americans who are foolish enough to allow them to remain there.
Logical and sensible, brother. That might be the problem with getting it implemented.
- AUTHOR
WD Curry, Thank you...I'm always pleased when my logical thoughts (at least as they seem in my head) win the support of a fellow Hubber and Citizen.
Frog Prince, As always it is nice to see you...it's good to know I have some "nobility" in my corner.
Your last paragraph is a key one. Good job Mitch.
The Frog
I must admit that I came into this with a cynical attitude. Good job, you won a supporter for your proposal.
- AUTHOR
Glenn, the government made it illegal in the first place. That's the point. The Government should have no say in the matter between to consenting adults. My personal view is that marriage is one man and one woman, but I believe that it is not a governmental issue.
I like your solution, but I wouldn't take quite a heavy libertarian view of the situation. After all, it was the "overreaching government" that helped enforce the idea that two people of different race could and should be able to get married.
32