Poll on Marriage and the Secularization of it

[Phatscotty]

You know where I stand. Education, Healthcare, Tuition, Real Estate, the value of our money, interest rates, the auto market with Fuel Standards, ethanol subsidies, Social Security, etc etc etc etc

Government ultimately destroys everything it intervenes in.

- Phatscotty

[Upgrayedd]

No-fault divorce destroyed the Afro-American family unit in the 60's. Now the majority of black kids grow up in broken homes. If you think marriage is all fine and dandy, chances are you're a disgusting racist.

[yang guize]

you live in USA right?

in the 1960s it was legal for a US husband to rape his wife (because their marriage implied her sexual consent). not very long ago the man automatically got all of his wife's possessions when they married - so if a woman who owned a house married then the house became her husband's property. in the 1940s or 50s divorce in the USA was so hard to achieve that many people were forced to stay in unhappy marriages.

that is what 'traditional' marriage looks like. you wish your government had left it this way?

[Phatscotty]

The secularization of marriage is DIRECTLY responsible for the breakdown in African American families overall.

Since the 60's, supposedly held as the birth of the civil rights movement and championed by the Democrats, African Americans born out of wedlock have risen from 20% pre-secularization to over 70% today, post-secularization. And this is just one area where the failure is obvious.

Despite all their demands to redistribute the wealth, and all their guilt trips based on compassion for a philosophy that obviously made things much worse, and after tens of trillions of dollars have been redistributed, the poverty rate has NEVER fell, and actually increased at times.




Can we finally demand Democrats are held accountable for their track record? And that track record is a complete failure.

[Phatscotty]

you live in USA right?

in the 1960s it was legal for a US husband to rape his wife (because their marriage implied her sexual consent). not very long ago the man automatically got all of his wife's possessions when they married - so if a woman who owned a house married then the house became her husband's property. in the 1940s or 50s divorce in the USA was so hard to achieve that many people were forced to stay in unhappy marriages.

that is what 'traditional' marriage looks like. you wish your government had left it this way?

traditional marriage means 1 man and 1 woman. traditional marriage does not mean the spouse gets raped and robbed. You must be thinking about Iran and Saudi Arabia

Again, the Nazi tactics reach a new low

[Phatscotty]

Food for thought

A Necessary Question

At some point in your life you asked the government's permission for something you should never need approval for in the first place. Though you have a God given right protected by the Constitution, you swallowed your pride, took your marching orders and got in lock step with the government. Don't be embarrassed, you're not alone.

Today the government has its hand in every taxpayer's pocket. From starting a business to building a house, to going fishing with a family member, people obtain licenses for almost everything. The idea of government "licensing" us has become so commonplace most fail to give it a second thought. It is not pertaining to fishing or starting a business that the most curious aspect of licensing arises however. Instead it is the practice which the vast majority of Americans take part in at some point in their lives, the institution of marriage.

The idea of submitting yourself to your spouse, pledging your faithfulness and planning for a future together is about as old a custom as exists today. And yet curiously so many individuals have never considered the implications behind granting the state jurisdiction over their marriage. Without a hunting license you are not permitted to legally hunt. Without a fishing license you may not go fishing. And without a driver's license you cannot legally drive a car. Should it then seem that foreign the same logic applies to a license declaring marriage? What if you applied for a marriage license, and the government said, "No"?

According to the Ohio State Bar Association, you do not have the right to get married on your own terms and instead your marriage is a legal contract with three equal parties. A marriage in Ohio is a creation of the state with the government taking the reigns of that union. They claim, "Marriage is a legal as well as a spiritual and personal relationship. When you state your marriage vows, you enter into a legal contract. There are three parties to that legal contract: 1) you; 2) your spouse; and 3) the state of Ohio. The state is a party to the contract because under its laws, you have certain obligations and responsibilities to each other, to any children you may have, and to Ohio."

Some believe marriage is a God given right, some a natural born right, and others a personal liberty that exists outside of religion and morality. Yet many submit to an entity that should have no authority to determine the details of their family. When urged to forgo a marriage license, the response received is often one of half-hearted protest. Many cite tax benefits; others do not want to deal with the hassle, and some still believe the worst-case scenario is grossly exaggerated. When asked what they would do if they sought the government's approval to get married and were denied, the response is often a variation of, "that could never happen."

Within the past month however an intriguing story splashed across the news wire. A small town in Louisiana gained a great deal of media coverage due to a man and woman who had asked the government for permission to get married and were told, "No." The man and woman, of different racial backgrounds were refused a marriage license by their local justice of the peace. The justice stated he had no feelings of discrimination or resentment, rather personal aversion to granting a marriage license to a couple whose children he felt would face difficulties down the road.

While a fair amount of disdain came against the justice and he has since resigned, his logic and motives for denying the marriage are not important or especially relevant to the story. What is relevant is that government has gotten into the business of deciding who should be allowed to marry and who should not. As the state has ordained itself with this power, the people have meekly submitted themselves in hopes of attaining its seal of approval.

The Idea of a "License."

The definition of a license as per Black's law dictionary is, "The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal." The idea of a license does not often get people riled up despite the obedience to the state it implies. A license confers a right to do something that would otherwise be illegal. We do not need the government's approval to get married and we should certainly never grovel before state bureaucrats in order to obtain it. Yet we give the government power to decide if we can hunt for our dinner or own a pet. The state of Alabama even requires individuals to submit their social security number to obtain a fishing license. When we acknowledge the state has the authority to license, we likewise acknowledge the state has the authority to prohibit. The Pandora's box this opens pertaining to marriage is frightening.

In the American colonies and the subsequent Republic, the idea of the government holding preeminence over a marriage is a relatively new concept. Historically the
"requirement"to get married had more to do with obtaining parents' approval, making a public announcement, and finding a willing church official to perform the ceremony. State supreme courts often ruled public cohabitation was sufficient evidence the marriage was valid and referred to the couple as having been married under "Common Law." A couple whom had the approval of their parents, held a ceremony, and pledged their faithfulness to one another had made it as clear as possible they were getting married.

How then did we arrive at the point we now find ourselves? As time progressed, many states began passing laws outlawing the marriage of racially mixed couples. In the mid-1800's, certain states began allowing interracial marriages as long as those marrying received a the state's approval. In the 1920's more than 30 states prohibited whites from marrying individuals of another racial background. 18 states had restrictions on remarrying after a divorce, and a dozen states would refuse a license if one partner were a drunk, addict or "mental defect." Soon states began requiring all people to obtain a marriage license. By 1929, every state in the nation had adopted marriage license laws.

The government had now entered into the business of determining who was fit to marry, how drunk was "too drunk," or if some had an addiction or just a vice. By granting government the license to marry, we are granting it the license to further infringe on our individual liberties. How does the state decide who is a "mental defect?" Could a situation arise today in which the state could claim one partner was not mentally competent enough to get married? Unfortunately, it already has. Last month in Scotland social workers halted a wedding because they deemed the woman, "Not bright enough to marry." Kerry Robertson, who admits to having mild learning difficulties is able to read, write, and speak clearly. However social services informed her she would not be allowed a formal license because in their view she "did not understand the implications of getting married." The government officials were kind enough to inform Ms. Robertson of their decision just 48 hours before her wedding.

Unfortunately this story takes an even more morbid tone. Last week Kerry met with social services to determine the fate of her baby. Kerry who is currently pregnant with the couple's first child, was told she was not intelligent enough to be a mother. She was informed she would be allowed only a few hours with her baby before government officials took custody and placed the child in foster care. Social services assert Kerry's fiancée has no standing as the child's father because the two are not married and do not have the state's permission to do so. This story belongs on the cover of a supermarket tabloid and yet it took place in an industrialized western nation in the 21st century. If the government claimed you had no right to get married, how would you react? If the government informed you it would be stealing your child just hours after his birth, what would you do?

Faith

For those who hold faith as their moral compass, the power to get married does not come from the government. That power comes from a creator who gave that gift to be enjoyed for His glory and our betterment. In the Bible the blessing of marriage is first found in Genesis 2:18 and outlines God's desire for man and wife to be joined together in both a physical and spiritual union. Yet the idea of a license removes both God and parental responsibility from the marriage. Traditionally a woman was given in marriage by her father as the ceremonial passing of care to the new, most important man in that woman's life, her husband. Even today the tradition exists and can still be heard in almost all wedding ceremonies. The marrying official states, "Who gives this woman to be married to this man?" At which point the father states his approval. Deuteronomy 22:16, Exodus 22:17 and I Corinthians 7:38 are just a few of the many Scriptural references glorifying God's blessing in our lives and supporting God's sovereignty in marriage over the state's.

Christian principles teach us the institution of marriage is something that should indeed be protected. However it is the government's intervention in marriage that has created the crumbling moral foundation inherent in so many of our well intentioned laws. While states such as Texas and Utah may have different marriage laws than Massachusetts and Vermont, is a religious individual who adheres to a traditional view of marriage supposed to support government intervention when it suits his interests? Certainly not. Rather the believer who wants to defend marriage should do just that by removing the government's role instead of supporting big government policies only when convenient. The necessity of opposing a marriage license solely on Christian principles could be an article unto itself.

However it is vital to question why those adhering to a socially conservative, religious, and perhaps also Christian worldview are often the largest proponents for the government's involvement in marriage. The same government that creates unjust statutes, institutes immoral policies, and has grown consistently more tyrannical, is the same government we want to promote morals and defend the institution of marriage? No thank you.

Freedom

For some the issue of faith and religion has no place in the marriage discussion. A moral code comes not necessarily from a deity but a natural right bestowed upon one from birth. You have an unimpeded right to life, liberty and property just so long as you do not infringe upon the life, liberty and property of another individual. No government entity, no matter how pure they claim their motives to be, has any right to steal your liberty or tell you how you can live your life and whom you can spend your time with. A couple who claims to be in love, chooses to have a ceremony announcing their union, and begins living together as a married couple has rights both under natural law and the Constitution.

Yet despite the enormous media coverage ballot propositions and marriage laws have gained, the genders of the individuals are actually irrelevant to the rights they share. These individuals have the right to live their lives as they wish as well as the right to be left alone. What they do not have however, is the right to force those who disagree with their lifestyle to pay for their coupling through tax breaks, partner benefits or economic subsidies. Just as some on the right pine for government intervention in marriage in order to defend traditional values, some on the left clamor for that same intervention in order to secure financial gains and increase the size of government. Their fight is not for the freedom and equality they claim to desire, but rather the statist policies that would create more bureaucracy and more government debt.

If both the left and the right came at marriage from a liberty perspective they would realize there can be a joint agreement on the necessity for the individual to have pre-eminence over the state. While they may have different sets of values, they could easily reach the same conclusion. The idea of a marriage license infringes on both the God given right to get married and the natural right to live how you wish.

A Necessary Conclusion

In almost every wedding you've been to, you've probably heard the final words uttered by the marrying official. Whether from a judge, a pastor, or another religious representative, he states, "By the power vested in me by the state of __________, I now pronounced you man and wife." Advocates of individual freedom should cringe every-time we hear those words. The idea of, "Power" being granted by a government agency is like a dagger into the heart of liberty. Opposing government involvement in marriage holds no bias for those professing faith, those adhering to law, or those preferring individual freedom.

A religious individual should want to defend the idea of traditional marriage as an institution created and blessed by God. It is because of this belief they must push for government to be removed completely. The believer examines a state that has consistently assaulted his faith and the values he holds dear, and somehow he wants that same government to be involved in promoting his moral values? A liberty minded individual should want to defend each person's right to live as they deem proper. It is not important we agree with one lifestyle or another. It is instead important we agree an individual has certain freedoms that their religion or lack of religion should have no impact on, just as long as others are not forced to administer it, pay for it, or approve of it.

The advocate of liberty must be ready to pledge their allegiance not to the state, but to the values they hold as high. For some this may be a spiritual worldview, for some a view based on the life of Christ and a Biblical foundation, and for others an emphasis on the natural rights and liberties each person is born with. Though they may take different paths to get there, it is vitally important they end up at the same conclusion. In our battle to protect personal ethics and individual freedoms we must understand our enemy is not our fellow brother in the cause. Our enemy is a state that uses tyranny to bully us into asking permission to engage in an activity for which no permission is needed. Though we may disagree on a moral code and how that code should be defined, we can come together to promote individual autonomy, protect inherent rights, and turn away from marriage licenses once and for all. We may find we have more in common than we thought.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=333
Copyright © 2009 Campaign for Liberty

[yang guize]

i am afraid you are incorrect. historically, marriages and marriage law all over the world have given very little or no rights to the woman. if you do some research you will find that what i said about marital rape is entirely correct.

although you obviously do not like to think this, even western societies treated women very badly up until the early 20th century. you can see that most western democracies did not allow women to vote until the early/mid 20th century even though men had been able to vote for hundreds of years.

i am not criticising the usa alone so you do not need to be defensive. it has been the same all over the world. what you call 'traditional' marriage is in fact very harsh and unfair to the woman.

[Phatscotty]

i am afraid you are incorrect. historically, marriages and marriage law all over the world have given very little or no rights to the woman. if you do some research you will find that what i said about marital rape is entirely correct.

although you obviously do not like to think this, even western societies treated women very badly up until the early 20th century. you can see that most western democracies did not allow women to vote until the early/mid 20th century even though men had been able to vote for hundreds of years.

i am not criticising the usa alone so you do not need to be defensive. it has been the same all over the world. what you call 'traditional' marriage is in fact very harsh and unfair to the woman.

So what is your point? That if marriage is not redefined, women will be beaten or lose their rights?

[Phatscotty]

btw, whoever votes "no change" please feel free to talk about why the divorce rate is up over 200% over the last 50 years.

[Mageplunka69]

government screwed up all the marriages except the same sex ones, wait they screwed then too ♥
And they screwed the economy as well , causing hardships to all except the politicians who vote themselves raises while the middle class diminishes

[Woodruff]

The secularization of marriage? You mean how non-religious people can be married?

[Woodruff]

i am afraid you are incorrect. historically, marriages and marriage law all over the world have given very little or no rights to the woman. if you do some research you will find that what i said about marital rape is entirely correct.

although you obviously do not like to think this, even western societies treated women very badly up until the early 20th century. you can see that most western democracies did not allow women to vote until the early/mid 20th century even though men had been able to vote for hundreds of years.

i am not criticising the usa alone so you do not need to be defensive. it has been the same all over the world. what you call 'traditional' marriage is in fact very harsh and unfair to the woman.

So what is your point? That if marriage is not redefined, women will be beaten or lose their rights?

He's pointing out that your propaganda, as usual, is mired in inaccuracy.

[Woodruff]

In my serious view, the increased divorce rate (which I presume is what you're getting at) is caused 100% by an increased number of people who don't take the vows of marriage seriously. It has nothing at all to do with government intervention, rather it has to do with people wanting the easy way out and not taking the time to work at something as hard as they need to in order to be successful.

So my view is "no change".

[yang guize]

So what is your point? That if marriage is not redefined, women will be beaten or lose their rights?

my point is that it is only thanks to recent government redefinitions of marriage that marriage has become at all fair to your women in your country. before the government passed new laws marriage was pretty cruel.

much as it still is in a lot of the world, where governments have not moved to make traditional marriages evolve.

[natty dread]

not very long ago the man automatically got all of his wife's possessions when they married - so if a woman who owned a house married then the house became her husband's property.

Isn't this still the law in China?

[PLAYER57832]

Usually phattscotty distortions....

Marriage was in no way created by government, it just so happens that the US government found it a convenient institution to recognize for practical reasons, ranging from simplifying inheritances to medical authorizations, etc. Here, it was very heavily influenced/changed already by the Judeo Christian church, excluding (for example) multiple marriages and other types of marriages long recognized in other cultures ( sometimes with little to do with procreation... in some African tribes, for example, a man could marry the leg of a chief)

To the extent it has changed, it has been changed by society, wiht heavy influence from churches, and the government has followed. People began marrying interracially long before the government recognized those unions. Women's status changed in practical ways before the government began enforcing women's rights (for property ownership, retirement funds, etc), though that is really just tangential to marriage. (at one point, only married women who's spouses had died could own property, for example.)

Now, you like to claim that homosexuals wanting the same priviliages that all heterosexual couples enjoy is somehow going to take away rights from heterosexuals.

Just stop with the idiocy. You ought to be smarter than to make such a stupid claim.

[daddy1gringo]

I can't actually vote in the poll, because I believe that the skyrocketing divorce rate is a result of "secularization", that is, society turning away from God, but government doesn't have a lot to do with it.

Edit: inb4 -- and yes, the divorce rate among "Christians" is little or no better because "Christians" in general have also turned away from God and become "me" centered.

[GreecePwns]

America lives in a culutre where marriage is of decreased importance, leading to higher divorce rates.

You have young people who wish to be single forever so they can live in their dream land of clubbing and being promiscuous forever and ever and ever. Getting married is constantly viewed as a mistake to them.
You have celebrities who get married and divorced and fight over millions of dollars day after day.
You have the increased glamorization of cheating through major media.
You have the acceptance of alternate lifestyles that didn't exist 50 years ago.
You have decreased "religiosity" (hopefully that is a word).

The list goes on and on. Marriage simply isn't as important as it used to be in American culture. The dream of a suburban home, wife/husband, two kids and a white picket fence just isn't the dream of the majority anymore.

[Haggis_McMutton]

America lives in a culutre where marriage is of decreased importance, leading to higher divorce rates.

You have young people who wish to be single forever so they can live in their dream land of clubbing and being promiscuous forever and ever and ever. Getting married is constantly viewed as a mistake to them.
You have celebrities who get married and divorced and fight over millions of dollars day after day.
You have the increased glamorization of cheating through major media.
You have the acceptance of alternate lifestyles that didn't exist 50 years ago.
You have decreased "religiosity" (hopefully that is a word).

The list goes on and on. Marriage simply isn't as important as it used to be in American culture. The dream of a suburban home, wife/husband, two kids and a white picket fence just isn't the dream of the majority anymore.

+1.
And this isn't a bad thing.

Values change, cultures evolve.

[Upgrayedd]

It is a bad thing to any rational person. Our current lifestyle is not sustainable without immigration, and we can't always count on being rich enough for immigrants to want to come and keep us afloat. SO basically our culture is a suicidal one, where present day people live hedonistic lives of luxury while dooming their descendants to dystopic future.

[Haggis_McMutton]

It is a bad thing to any rational person. Our current lifestyle is not sustainable without immigration, and we can't always count on being rich enough for immigrants to want to come and keep us afloat. SO basically our culture is a suicidal one, where present day people live hedonistic lives of luxury while dooming their descendants to dystopic future.

What does this have to do with divorce rates?
Are you referring to lower birth rates or what?

[Baron Von PWN]

So government ruined marriage by giving people the freedom to leave a marriage if they wanted?

Government greatly improved peoples freedom in this matter, by increasing the individuals ability to leave a relationship that isn't working.

Wether a marriage succeeds or fails is up to the individuals in the marriage I don't see how government could possibly affect that.

[AndyDufresne]

America lives in a culutre where marriage is of decreased importance, leading to higher divorce rates.

You have young people who wish to be single forever so they can live in their dream land of clubbing and being promiscuous forever and ever and ever. Getting married is constantly viewed as a mistake to them.
You have celebrities who get married and divorced and fight over millions of dollars day after day.
You have the increased glamorization of cheating through major media.
You have the acceptance of alternate lifestyles that didn't exist 50 years ago.
You have decreased "religiosity" (hopefully that is a word).

The list goes on and on. Marriage simply isn't as important as it used to be in American culture. The dream of a suburban home, wife/husband, two kids and a white picket fence just isn't the dream of the majority anymore.

+1.
And this isn't a bad thing.

Values change, cultures evolve.

This covered some of my initial thoughts.


--Andy

[yang guize]

not very long ago the man automatically got all of his wife's possessions when they married - so if a woman who owned a house married then the house became her husband's property.

Isn't this still the law in China?

no. if a woman owns a house and then gets married, and then gets divorced, then during divorce the court will say that the house she owned before marriage is hers to keep. there was a law made on this last year, saying that any asset owned by an individual before marriage will stay the property of that individual in a divorce.

[Upgrayedd]

It is a bad thing to any rational person. Our current lifestyle is not sustainable without immigration, and we can't always count on being rich enough for immigrants to want to come and keep us afloat. SO basically our culture is a suicidal one, where present day people live hedonistic lives of luxury while dooming their descendants to dystopic future.

What does this have to do with divorce rates?
Are you referring to lower birth rates or what?

I'm referring to your claim that today's culture and lifestyle "isn't a bad thing".