STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
A Simple Solution to the Same-Sex Marriage War
By Philippe Gastonne - April 09, 2015

The biggest affront to gay equality in America today is the fact that same-sex couples in 13 states are still prevented from marrying. The laws of Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, Ohio, and Tennessee are discriminatory, callous in their effects, and may violate the Constitution.

Overturning those laws is the most urgent gay-rights cause. Once they fall, whether through a Supreme Court decision or legislation, the benefits that marriage confers on couples and society will increase. And they will fall. More just marriage laws lay ahead! But they haven't fallen yet. So it is strange to see Indiana, where same-sex couples can and do wed, emerge as the focus of national controversy on gay rights. – Conor Friedersdorf, The Atlantic, April 1, 2015

The argument over same-sex marriage overlooks a key question: Why does the State define who can and can't marry?

Marriage was originally a religious concept in Western culture, during a time when the modern concept of Church and State as separate spheres was fuzzy at best. The Catholic Church would declare a man and woman joined, and it was so. They stayed joined until the Church decreed otherwise (which it would not do for Henry VIII, so he gave us the Church of England).

For centuries, civil authorities had no need to approve or disapprove anyone's marriage. Divorce was rare and women could not own property anyway. In due course, this began to change and governments intervened.

Ministers found themselves acting as agents of both Church and State. By joining two spouses in matrimony, the ministers also bestowed non-religious civil rights on them.

The fact that churches have this privilege, and that the State imposes conditions on who they can legally marry, created the present battle. It doesn't have to be this way.

A simple solution would be for 1) the states to stop recognizing church marriages, and 2) churches to stop bestowing civil rights. Neither should have been doing it in the first place.

People who want a religious marriage could have one within their church, under whatever conditions the church sets. They would NOT thereby be civilly married as well.

To have the contractual rights of marriage, the spouses would need to go to local authorities and register for this status. Non-religious people could skip the church step and go straight to the courthouse. Both kinds of marriages would have the same legal rights and responsibilities.

A third category would be possible, too. People could be married in their church but remain single in the eyes of the State. This would give a new option to those who like to avoid State entanglement in their personal lives.

Religious people would also have to stop resisting the popular demand for same-sex civil marriage. In return, they could set their own standards for marriages within their denomination. Some would allow same-sex marriage and others would not. Everyone would be eligible for the civil benefits marriage provides.

Would this bifurcated system be a fair balance between gay rights and religious freedom?

No one knows because we haven't tried it. We're not even talking about it. We should.

Posted in STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
  • ‘The state’ is nonsense and so are religious organisations. Made-up twaddle, belief cults of which we are in the grip of, from all sides, so much so that people discuss how we can mend one load of nonsense with the invention of even more. Give me a break – please!

    • Including the cult that tells you the universe is made up of 98 percent fantasy “dark” stuff?

      • Is there a cult that tells us that the universe is made up of 98% ‘dark’ stuff AND that tells us how to live our lives, tries to influence, mould and pervert the structure and order of human society with the objective of preserving and subsidising an elite oligarchy at the expense of the human tax cattle?

        • Yes there is. It is the one that the Academic Establishment Thought Police tells you to believe and that tries to whip up a lot of God-hate. It’s the religion taught in the schools as “not religion”.

          • I think the cult of the state is as jealous of the cult of the church as the cult of the church is as jealous of the state. The forces that are integral to the universe, energy, matter and life have nothing to do with either though they may like to give the impression they do. The further from religion and the state you travel the closer to it you will actually be.

          • You’re not considering the concept von Mises called “human action”. All states and new religious movements and small religious groups, have members called “human beings”.

            ALL organizations are “cults” in the sense we’re talking about. ALL of them.

            And all institutions are built, congealed, formed, around some organizing principle or another, by definition. And in conversation, lambasting say “religion”, when did you ever believe anything that you thought was wrong? I’ve noticed that leftists and anti-God ranters generally no longer use that “Be open-minded” slogan. No doubt it’s because it’s become so obvious how closed-minded they themselves are.

            The cult of the state IS the same thing as a cult of a “church”. The ONLY difference is that the “cult of the state” wants to be the ONLY “cult”, under which all other “cults” as you call them are subject. “Cult” is just a four letter word that says more about your thinking than it does about the object of your disdain.

            Obedient Conformist-minded thinking is the enemy of truth.

            It requires that ALL other institutions, groups, clubs, or “cults” become subservient to them over their geopolitical turf. The tendency is to take over and dictate accepted norms of thought, the first of which is to obey the powers that be, meaning, the institution that controls its geography by force.

            There are only two kinds of political thought, really, and neither has to do with religious belief except as they fall into one or the other of these two categories. One believes in the libertarian non-aggression principle, the other believes in violating it to one degree or another.

            That divides both atheists and believers in any religion. Those who practice the non-aggression principle are no threat to you. Therefore, claiming that “religion” is evil is to show that you do not understand the non-aggression principle, and in matters of your treatment of the “religious” your thinking is susceptible to accepting violations of the non-aggression principle against the religious, even thinking in a twisted way that it is not coercion on your part. Kind of like Bush’s “preventive war”. Beware of such temptation.

            I thank God for agnostics like Murray Rothbard, and atheists like Walter Block, who are intellectually honest with themselves and not only see the distinction but are able to see that some of the greatest thinkers of history, especially in matters of individual freedom, have been Christians. Most “Christians” don’t realize it either, but the reason is that Jesus Christ made more obviously explicit the individual as the center of God’s attention. And made helping others (as in the Good Samaritan) a part of evangelism.

            Faith in God, the God of the Bible, in its essence, practices the first to the extent it is allowed. All hypocrites who do not hold to that principle do not count as believers in the God of the Bible. Believers walk the talk, practice what they preach, and “By their fruits ye shall know them”.

            Then there are atheists who are hypocrites that hate religion and claim it is because of all the bad things that some religious people have done in its name. But this logic has a giant backfire, because the biggest and most massive and brutal atrocities of force have been committed in the name of atheist regimes.

            In my blog and elsewhere find copious examples, on the other hand, of how the incremental growth in the ideas of liberty and knowledge were advanced by Christians. St. Patrick’s campaign against slavery, and later on, with William Wilberforce in England and the abolitionists in the United States. The Magna Carta’s invocation of God, the Declaration of Independence claiming divine authority to defy the secular authority of the king (who by the way was also the “religious” authority). Martin Luther against the tyranny of penance payments, and Martin Luther King against the oppressive laws and practices of the states and State.

            And now, the rapidly growing ranks of libertarian and freedom-minded Christians beginning to see that there is no chance of getting “The State” to respect them, with the exception of the Established Christian Media, compromised with “the state” as most media is, including most atheist-minded and secular voices are.

  • Bruce C

    I don’t think the people who care about same-sex marriage are looking for solutions. When S-S advocates rejected the civil terminology distinction between “marriage” (considered the union of a man and a woman) and a “civil union” it was clear to me that “equal rights” wasn’t what they really wanted. If it was then they would have taken that and the terminologies would have adjusted over time. To me the issue has always been that traditional marriage and family values are being attacked. It’s not good enough for “LGBTs” to gain the legal benefits of “marriage”, they – or their “advocates”- want to breakdown traditional Western values.

    • RED

      You are quite correct. There is a larger Political agenda afoot among the vocal militant elements. It is quite clear and obvious.

      • Karl Marx wrote in the Communist Manifesto that marriage was a
        capitalist institution, and he wanted a breakdown in families in favor
        of the state dictatorship. It has been said that Hillary Clinton’s
        college thesis said marriage was a form of slavery and included
        references to Gramschi’s proposition that Communism would get no
        traction in the West unless it first destroyed the moral culture.

        • RED

          Excellent summary and well stated.
          This is the real motiviation behind the decades of incremental cultural corruption of the U.S. and other “western” values.

    • davidnrobyn

      Totally agree–EXCEPT that they’re not just Western values. Check out the definitions of marriage in non-Western societies. What they really want to do is destroy the universe (figuratively) to accommodate their own definition of reality.

  • Gina

    Because the STATE must be a party to all “marriages” so that it can obtain the children, and any property of the “estates”. By forcing people to obtain a license to “marry”, the license is permission to do something otherwise illegal, it brings the STATE into the legal marriage of the “persons” the STATE considers their property. If this “legal” property dilemma was not ever present, then the STATE would not care.

    People do not need a license to marry! If two same sex people wish to deny God and make a bilateral contract, then do it they way it used to be done. Publish an engagement announcement in the local paper. Arrange the “marriage”, and make a public announcement of the wedding date, and all parties in the local paper. Hold the wedding, and have witnesses sign the wedding affidavit, with an attending notary public. Then take the witnessed and notarized affidavit to the county clerk’s office, and record it. Voila! Done deal.

    For that matter, this is the way a marriage between a man and a woman should be done. Do not marry the STATE. That is why this question / problem is under discussion.

    • Bruce C

      I’m not sure I completely agree with that. The State already lays claim to individuals’ assets that are not protected or undeclared, but when two individuals marry then their assets are combined but also protected until both individuals die. In other words, their union becomes a single entity, but the State will make its claims no matter your marital status. Frankly, looked at from that point alone, the State would prefer everyone to stay single because income tax revenue would be higher and there would be fewer ways to protect assets from inheritance taxes, etc.

  • Bolt Upright

    “Marriage was originally a religious concept in Western culture”… wrong. It was started over ownership of females. Once males sorted out the females, combat among themselves over females was reduced….. Apparently? There are men fighting one another for another man? Females are doing the same for that special woman? Using the word “Marriage” is the only way to stop the fighting?

    • Bruce C

      Nonsense.

    • What baloney. In this fantasy world, you could make the case that the females started it as a way to make sure the Daddy would help take care of the little ones.

      But here’s where it started:

      Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.–Genesis 2:2

  • TG Molitor

    In the news it’s heard that this is a “gay rights” issue and courts must enact “same-sex marriage” laws.

    Well, it’s in the courts because collectivist philosophers have bastardized the concept of rights by instilling into the 20th century intelligentsia that just as individuals have rights, so also do groups. Thus we now talk in terms of the rights of “poor people,” the rights of “black people,” the rights of “old people,” the rights of “gays,” the rights of “women,” etc. But as Ayn Rand so dramatically pointed out back in the 1960s, only individuals have rights. Groups do not. She went on to say, that the poison killing freedom was the “inflation of rights” by the collectivists in a brilliant essay, “Man’s Rights,” in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, pp. 286-294.

    • synthetic_society

      We don’t hear about a solution around eliminating the state marriage license because because it doesn’t promote the groupthink/group rights that are the bread and butter of our political parties. Defending the individual simply doesn’t pay well enough!

      Until it becomes riskier to ignore the individual, this will not change. I’m not holding my breath.

      • TG Molitor

        You’re absolutely correct! To get elected, marketing dollars are better spent reaching a “group of voters” rather than an individual.

  • Brabantian

    An assumption unquestioned above is why there need to be any ‘civil benefits’ of marriage at all. This is intrinsically a statist notion, quite dubious in libertarian terms. Why not have gov totally exit the marriage business & all its tax etc consequences? As NY candidate Jimmy McMillan of the ‘Rent is Too Damn High’ party says, go ahead & marry your own shoe if you want, it’s not gov business.

    In ancient pagan Rome, marriage was purely by the parties involved, a private-religious and not ‘legal’ action. You & your spouse ‘created’ the marriage, not the state. However, offences against marriage became a matter for the ‘censor’ or morality policeman, spouse-betrayal viewed rather as ‘disturbing the peace and public order’. By the time of the emperors, divorce was as rampant as in the West today. Then the Christians came…

  • Earn nest

    The problem isn’t gay rights it’s more the general rights of people to their private property which the government steals but with their own thieves code of honor which is what some want them to change.

  • Gil G

    Really? Even the Bible says the earliest known marriages were with one man and many women.

    • Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.–Genesis 2:2

      The earliest known marriage (singular) was Adam and Eve.

      • Gil G

        Gee who else was he going to take for his second wife even if you do take that as literal history? Besides the Old Testament patriarchs had multiple wives without batting an eyelid.

        • Sure they did. They also murdered people, stole and committed many other immoral acts but that doesn’t mean God sanctioned them. The “patriarchs” weren’t chosen because they were more righteous than others to be sure but they did have one thing. They believed God and it was counted to them as righteousness.

          • Gil G

            So you’re re-writing the parts of the Bible you don’t like?

          • What? You just say things to hear yourself talking I’m sure because actually that’s what you are doing. I was simply pointing out that just because something is IN the Bible doesn’t mean that God sanctions it. That should be really obvious to anyone with more than a couple of brain cells to rub together.

          • Gil G

            Bible folks believe the Bible is divinely-inspired and as such there are no false verses. In other words, God sanctions the entirety of the Bible.

          • ??? done with you dude… you are really thick.

          • He is a troll

        • Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.–Genesis 2:2

          • Gil G

            And? Where in the Bible is a man restricting to one wife?

      • Sub Kabuto

        Where does the bible say Adam and Eve were ever “married”? The concept of a marriage (religious or a civil) did not even exist at that point in time. Besides, Eve was supposed to be created out of Adam’s rib making their relationship seem a little bit incestuous. Imagine the responses after we reach a point in the future when a person can use biotechnology to clone themselves as a being that expresses a different sex and then wants to marry their clone.

  • Guy Christopher

    The US Constitution puts religious freedom at the top of the list of freedoms. It doesn’t mention anywhere the rantings and ravings of offended homosexuals or offended people of any stripe. Solution: move to a country where there is no US Constitution. Throw a dart at a map of the Middle East, find your destination and book a flight.

    I have the right to the pursuit of happiness and right now I’m not happy. I’m damned sick and tired of a tiny minority, aided by a commie in the WH and a compliant, weaponized lapdog media, rewriting God’s laws. In past years this nation had come to terms with the rights of homosexuals, and frankly, no one really cared one way or another, but they’ve pushed it too far. I predict not push-back but shove-back.

    • We also have the right of freedom of association. In reality marriage laws are totally unconstitutional.

    • Gil G

      Since when did freedom of religion mean religious laws trumps laws of the land? Since when did God become the lawmaker of the U.S.A.? Strange how Conservatives get angry when Muslims want to live by Sharia law wherever they settle in the West yet get angry when they can’t live by the Mosaic law.

      • Go put a sock in it. There is no Mosaic law in the constitution, and God’s laws trump every one.

        And if you think there’s no difference between Mother Theresa’s Sisters of Charity from cannibal ISIS warriors, you’re suffering from the dementia that afflicts most God-haters.

        • Gil G

          “There is no Mosaic law in the constitution and God’s laws trump every one.”

          Was that one huge contradiction or what?

          • Yes you are….

          • Gil G

            God’s law isn’t the Law of Moses or what?

          • For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself – Galatians 5:14

            Matthew 22: 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
            38 This is the first and great commandment. MATTHEW 693
            39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
            40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

            In efforts to discredit the Bible, you cannot use one part –a one-time only set of commands- and discard the other. The laws that mis-theonomists hate were always subject to the LAW OF LOVE, because GOD IS LOVE and he that hateth his brother liveth NOT God.

            But those who hate God’s law, they only use it for a whipping post because of a truth, they hate the first and greatest commandment to love God above all things and have no other god before him.

            They hate that first and greatest commandment that trumps all of the other laws of Moses and the laws of men, the greatest commandment to love God, because they don’t want to live by the Second Commandment that is like unto it, to LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF.

            Jesus gave the formula to apply it in the famous Golden Rule, as paraphrased: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

            In this is ALL the law and the prophets.

          • Gil G

            The issue is whether you see Biblical law as the law of land and not the U.S. Constitution? By the same token do Muslim get live by Sharia law when it contradicts the Constitution?

          • The only law that is justly required of any unbeliever is the non-aggression principle. It’s equivalent to a ban on aggression.

            In Biblical language (aka “standard English”) it might be:
            “Thou shalt not do harm to your neighbor nor steal from him, except to defend thy person or thy property”. “Thy neighbor” means anyone who crosses your path or you come across in your path, as in the story of the Good Samaritan.

            In colloquial English, also: “Never initiate force against anyone, never steal from anyone.” There is an entire body of literature easily findable on web sites that expand this in more detail and for every situation anybody has asked about. If you’re not familiar with it, start with mises.org and go from there. Rothbard’s “Man, Economy and the State” is really good too.

          • Gil G

            So now you’re neither a believer in the Constitution or a particular religion rather you believe in the N.A.P.?

          • You’re a troll. Done with you.

          • Gil G

            Nah, you have to be the troll as you keep shifting the goalposts.

            Do you want the U.S. under Christian rule or not? Do you care for the U.S. Constitution or not?

            You seem to want freedom of religion when it’s for your religion and nothing else.

    • RED

      VERY REFRESHING !!

    • Col. Edward H. R. Green

      People push too far when they claim rights on the basis of sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, or group membership, religious or secular.

      Legitimate individual rights have their source in the exclusively human faculties of reason and volition, both of which are, in essence, the result of human evolution–religious beliefs to the contrary notwithstanding–and are attributes of individual human beings, regardless of one’s sexual orientation, physical condition, economic circumstances, race, age, or ethnicity. Groups qua groups do not and cannot have ANY legitimate rights because they do not exist independently of the individuals who comprise them. The individual human being is the metaphysically primary unit of ANY society. Claims of rights based upon physical attributes, religious beliefs or lack thereof, sexual orientation, or group membership promote false rights, which demonstrate their false nature by their conflicting with legitimate individual rights.

      Many people are willfully evasive of any attempt to defend legitimate individual rights (i.e. personal liberty, which subsumes intellectual freedom, which includes religious freedom; peacefully-acquired private property regardless of the amount; freedom of association and freedom of contract, which includes the freedom to discriminate against and exclude others, for whatever reason, rational or not; and pursuit of one’s happiness) because anyone’s doing so conflicts with their statist/collectivistic agenda, which they promote due to their sociopathic desire to rule, bully, and enslave other people.

      Such are the kinds of people, whatever be their orientation or beliefs or philosophy, who merit from me, and others who take their legitimate individual rights seriously, not only shove-back–but shoot-back !

  • If government (federal, state, and local) would stop bestowing benefits upon folks because, they are “married” in the eyes of the state, it wouldn’t matter. Folks could simply declare themselves to be married and establish a contract between the two parties to government their community property. The government should simply keep their noses out of our personal lives, period. But, then they would lose a very convenient way in which to control our lives.

  • windsor1

    Issues like this make me feel old fashioned. As I grew up, I learned that marriage was a sacred institution reserved exclusively for a relationship between a man and a woman. It was sanctified by both the Church and State. As I grew older my horizons broadened but nevertheless I still believe the institution of marriage is still reserved exclusively for a man and a woman. I have no problem with gays or their relationships, but I disagree with flaunting it in front of society and trying to impose their perverted and decadent value system on the rest of us. In today’s world if you are heterosexual there is something wrong with you. Gay relationships are being promoted as the new norm on television and Hollywood productions. Today, gay rights takes on a higher political profile than “end the fed”, stop the wars, fix the economy, get Americans back to work, or put some bankers in jail.
    Gay marriage is a manifestation of all that is wrong with society today. We have a sick political system that is in an advanced stage of decay and ultimately collapse. Politicians once were respected to a greater or lesser degree, but today’s politician is a narcissistic self serving cesspool of morality, with an allegiance only to those with money and power. Our society is at never ending war to bring democracy to a host of countries whose populations do not want military intervention. No longer is America respected as a beacon of democracy. It is increasingly despised. What an appropriate time in our devolution as a civilized society to lower the bar and champion gay relationships. It symbolizes our deep slide into decadence and perversity. There is no better time as we sabotage the underlying religious values that made our nation great. We attack the word of God; and the bible has now become the poster boy for hate speech.
    Hallelujah, lets advance the program and place gay marriage on the back burner and embrace pedophilia, and make sex preditor watch lists illegal. We can then advance to trans-humanism. is it any wonder why America is under divine judgement? Sit down in front of the TV with a bowl of GMO chips, take an anti-depressant and watch the show. The moral compass is broken and can’t be fixed.

  • Pilgrim

    The issue isn’t really marriage, the real issue is who can adopt children. Nobody gives a gnat’s ass who gets the SSA or pension when a spouse dies or whether med/dental benefits confer to the spouse, but everybody should be concerned about two seriously maladjusted gender confused people wanting to adopt babies.

    “Marriage” is indeed a function of religion, not state. State, therefore, should be relegated to acknowledging marriage already joined via non-state arrangements. If same-sexers want to play pretend marriage, I couldn’t care less, but don’t let these people destroy the lives of others by putting children under their care, custody or control.

    • Dimitri Ledkovsky

      That’s it in a nutshell. The article can’t dismiss the idea that some authoritarian (church or state or the mixed-up “option three”) blessing is necessary for marriage to work. Before mankind’s descent into power worship men and women formed unions, alliances if you will, in order to reproduce and subsequently guarantee their and their offspring’s survival. Gays, lesbians, trannies and the rest of this motley crew has unhinged itself from this most basic and perennial of human activities. They wish to rewrite nature’s laws. This endeavor is part of their disorder. ‘Laws’ should be written to help them promote their perversions? Come on!

    • Gil G

      Translation: when children get abused they better get abused by straights.

      • As a translator, you’re fired.

        • Gil G

          That reminds me of an old joke about men talking about an eccentric fellow who’s married to a gorilla. One of the men asks if the gorilla is male or female to which another replies “Female of course! There’s nothing queer about that eccentric fellow.”

        • Guy Christopher

          Trutherator, I’m pretty sure Gil G is a bot. Not a real person. A computer program which does word searches and enters ridiculous responses.
          http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-23/propagandists-use-automated-software-spread-disinformation

    • 45clive

      While I respect tradition, which is what you are talking about, Pilgrim, I trust my own eyes and critical thinking ability where tradition is challenged. Over the years I have known many homosexual marriages that have outlasted heterosexual marriages both in terms of years, love and being monogamous. I have a daughter who has a daughter from a straight marriage. She is now married to another lesbian who has a son from her previous heterosexual marriage. The four visit us often for holidays and my heterosexual wife and I visit them frequently, sometimes for a week or more at a time. I would be hard pressed to find a more loving, well adjusted family including those of my straight friends. The girls work hard running their own business all for the benefit of maintaining their family. The children are not “being brought up gay” if there even is such a thing, but are lovingly supported in discovering who they are as individuals. One thing is certain – they will never be afraid of homosexuality for its own sake. They show every indication of growing up to be heterosexual, as the majority of people do. They do have the advantage that most heterosexuals do not have, however, in knowing that love and partnership is not only about the sex habits and attractions of those involved in the relationship.

    • Donxon

      This is silly. The choice the child faces isn’t between your dreaded gay parents and some hypothetical ideal straight parents. The choice is between gay parents and no parents. It’s obvious which is the better option.

  • Rachel Lynn Woodruff

    This is a good option and one that should be discussed further. I would only add that we need to stop the lawsuits. If someone doesn’t want to render services for a gay wedding they shouldn’t have to, from the cater to the florist, photographer even the churches have to be concerned about being forced into performing services that go against their beliefs.

  • bootknife

    The gay community makes the mistake of believing a marriage isn’t legitimate until it is validated by the state. The state has done an effective job maintaining the distinction of legitimizing marriage by offering rewards and favors. But it’s the citizens that are being manipulated, particularly during election season when these unecessary social issue’s are dragged out and lobbed back and forth between parties like a volleyball and the public draws sides…looking to the benevolent state to solve their cultural woes. pathetic.

    • Gil G

      Straights have made the same mistake.

      • This is true. Get the state out of marriage so we can talk cogently about this!

        But that’s not want the de-population activists want. They’re pushed and financed by International ruling cliques.

  • Dave R

    I read that the gov’t got involved in the US to prevent mixed black-white marriages. SInce then the Gay-lesb issue has come, and the tax benefits of a gov’t-approved marriage. As you say, it is none of the gov’t’s business, so all tax and license issues should be abolished. Couples would be wise to have a marriage contract as to rights upon divorce, etc. I’m sure the forms would soon be available at office supply stores!!

  • Praetor

    Marriage why bother, its a legal issue, and the state should have no say, nor should the church. Go to the state and give them money for a License to marry, go to the church and give them money to get sanctified to marry, common denominator “Money”. State/Church separation, yeah, right. What a scam! If you must spend money to get married, go see a “Lawyer”, and make a legal binding contract, and if you need to use that contract, you were never in love in the first place. I, surmise more than 60% of marriages that are, supposedly, sanctified by god, are not, because most end in divorce. Same sex marriage is just another political tool, in the arsenal of divide and conquer. This is just, another one of those issues to be ignored. Stop giving money to the state church, or is it, church state, either way its all about money. And we all be fools for playing this game.

  • A breath of fresh air. Thanks. I felt prompted to mention civil partnership and some observations about ‘marriage’.

    In Uk a ‘civil partnership’ is denied opposite sex couples. (Some obligations and rights accrue from “Living Together as Husband and Wife” even though not married).
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_partnership_in_the_United_Kingdom

    However, neither the state – nor any other institution in our case – has anything to do with the consecration of our relationship in Life. Nor has mere material mechanism any sight of it excepting to note or quantify behaviours from which to ‘reverse engineer’ in theories that simply embody their starting point. If we should ritually witness and declare our willingness for love within a group or community it would be the extension of such a gift within a larger willingness and capacity to share in its blessing. For that which touches the many as one without coercion is reflected in our relationship together but not defined by it or any part of it alone. Ritual sanctification cannot make the untrue, true, but witnessing strengthens by sharing.

    A civil partnership operates a legal framework of agreement that provides for the civil rights, duties and protections of a relational entity and leaves the nature of that relationship open. It is not pretending to deal with spirituality nor presuming to sanctify. That aspect retains the freedom of the relationship – within its larger relational context. It doesn’t presume to exercise ‘moral’ power. Nor have power to disqualify or invalidate moral integrity.

    Definitions are our primary currency. The ‘gold standard’ of definitions is tangible and demonstrable – shareable – meaning and value. You know who you are in the act of extending and sharing it in act of thought word and deed. Adulteration of currency with the mere forms derived from presumed, believed or expected meanings, leads to trading in debt – where something is gotten without extension of shared worth. What is gotten without an extending of appreciation can hardly be recognized or shared as value, and so a ‘materialism’ of transactional getting substitutes for a living communication, and if this is accepted currency then the form of relationship serves to actively substitute for intimacy of being – and becomes a defence against it!

    The wealth of meaning and value that shared life (lived relationship) opens is beyond measure – but can be covered over by a sense of unworthiness and fear of loss, which immediately project onto the other and thus triggers attempts to coerce and control which necessarily deceives by hiding the act of self-hatred or fear in strategic presentations that deny or try overcome what is made fearful by hiding it.

    Marriage can mean many things to many people. But what makes a marriage alive is what that relationship is consecrated to or founded upon, and thus brought to the relationship in free willingness. The forms of marriage by themselves do not constitute a living commitment of sharing life, but they may reflect evolving patterns of personal and social need.

    Truth is not a matter of fixing down definitions so as to mutually agree, but of accepting and living what is true for oneself without imposing upon others. The idea of determining truth has been subordinated to the ‘divide and rule’ that limits to form based set of meanings, which can then be manipulated. But discerning truth is a matter of listening and speaking in truly shared willingness. That is, it is itself a real relationship to which what is untrue is brought to light and resolved at the level of current willingness. The act of withholding or withdrawing from willingness for communication is of an wilful but often unconscious identification within a fear or unworthiness that effectively operates in lieu of choice. There is a timing for the free willingness to accept that cannot be forced. At times the most loving act is to effect a form of separation, but not in denial of the others innate capacity to seek and find the awareness of love in a way they can accept and understand.

    In attempting to articulate, I offer a framework of reflection. It is not asserting ‘truth’ upon anyone but extending willingness to whoever it should resonate and be relevant.

    What anything is, may be acknowledged or denied by how we define it in usage – regardless of lip-service.

  • Psychology Physiology.

  • DB: “A simple solution would be for 1) the states to stop recognizing church marriages, and 2) churches to stop bestowing civil rights. Neither should have been doing it in the first place.”

    BISCHOFF: The whole discussion about “gay” marriage is bizarre, if the subject is properly analyzed. The analysis by the DB doesn’t do it.

    What purpose does the “church”, meaning “religion” play in “uniting” a “Man” and a “Woman”. To understand this, one must first understand human nature.

    The human circumstance is terrestrial. The human origin is arboreal. Humans exist in the terrestrial environment with instincts endowed by nature which were suitable for being living in a tree-top environment. Our arboreal ancestors did not know “marriage”. Their “society” consisted of the females nurturing the young, while the males existed at the periphery of the “pack” to warn of competitors or predators. Procreation was marked by promiscuity. The nurturing of the young was left entirely to the females exclusively without participation or interference by the males at all.

    When the ancestors of Man were displaced from the arboreal environment, nature failed to genetically adept them to the new terrestrial environment in which they had to survive. Nature instead, caused Man to became “consciously” aware of his circumstance, and to survive by “learning” from experience. In the process, Man had to transfer to the “young” the “knowledge to survive” by habituating them to act against natural, arboreal instinct. This starts with potty training of the youngsters by the parents.

    In the development of the human race, survival depended on hunting and on gathering. The males taught the male offspring “how to hunt” wild life, while the females taught the female offspring how to gather fruit and nuts, and how to tend the “home fire”. Experience taught humans that passing on this “knowledge to survive” to offspring was best done by the “two parent family” institution.

    The existence of humans in the terrestrial environment with genetic instincts meant for life in the trees creates an enormous amount of stress within Man. The purpose of “religion” is to mitigate this stress. It does so by providing guidelines to learning behavior which will allow one to live peacefully and harmoniously with others in the terrestrial environment.

    Advocates for a particular religion try to attract believers to practice their “guidelines” for survival. The Western civilization, made up of an overwhelming majority of individuals who follow Judeo-Christian teachings, follows the practice of having a “man” and a “woman” join in a special pact to raise offspring, and to habituate the resultant offspring within the precepts set forth in the “Bible”. Hence the concept of a “religious marriage”.

    What role does the state have in promoting a “union” between “man” and “woman”…???

    The “State” exists to guarantee the survival of a collection of humans gathered and living within a certain geographic area. The state’s function is to organize a defense for its population against a threats or invasion by competitors and enemies. Furthermore, for good order and general hygiene, and to provide society with a “living” environment, the state depends on the two parent family institution to habituate their young to further the function of the state. If parents fail to perform that role, the state (“government”) must step in to force habituation for the good and the survival of “society”. Therefore, the more habituation for terrestrial life which is performed within the two parent family, the less need for “government” exists. It is in the interest of the “state” to encourage procreation to maintain the population, and to subject the “young” to proper habituation first and foremost by the “two parent family institution”. Hence the concept of a “civil marriage”.

    A “homosexual” union fails to produce offspring. Therefore, the state’s interest in such union does not exist. As to religious teaching against “homosexual” union, the reason lies with experience gathered as civilizations evolved. The experience proved that “homosexual” unions, producing no offspring, failed to bring the spiritual uplift had by a “man” and a “woman” joined for life to procreate, and to raise (habituate) the resultant offspring. The purpose of religion is to teach behavior to relieve stress brought on by the arboreal-terrestrial conflict. Homosexual practices are rejected as proper behavior to meet the purpose by most religions.

    When one analyzes “Same-Sex” marriage in this vain, the subject of “homosexual marriage” comes down to forcing society to recant the efficacy of the “two parent family”, or at least it comes down to an attempt to appropriate the legal term “marriage” for homosexual union in order to collect the “goodies” and “protection” which the state offers the “two parent family” contract in the furtherance of the best interest of the state and society.

  • Haywood Jablome

    People also don’t research why the Government is involved in the first place…it was to prevent whites and blacks from marrying. This article is spot on…keep the Gov out of marriage completely!!

  • Heather James

    Too complicated. Just get gov’t out of marriage altogether. Marriage is not a gov’t function, and all the various ways in which whether or not a person is married matter to gov’t are social engineering that gov’t shouldn’t be engaging in, anyhow. People can get married religiously or not, as they please, and gov’t would simply have to take their word for it (same for hospitals and such–which they do now, anyway)

  • just end the marriage license, and all state licensing of perfectly legal activities.

loading