Civil unions and the state.

Okay, this is my thing here. Every time the government ratifies a civil union (the only recognized marriages), they’re making what is basically a moral judgement, because the only civil unions that the state will currently ratify are unions between one man and one woman. Now, obviously the government has no philosophical basis for this particular value judgement, considering that they claim to be an amoral state. So what will eventually end up happening — as it is — is that various groups with “alternative” lifestyles will be haranguing the state for legal status as perfectly sanctioned civil unions.

I propose to circumvent this problem, along with several others. Take control of marriage out of the hands of the government. With the way common-law marriages are happening nowadays, what’s the different? We certainly can’t force everyone to accept a Judeo-Christian mindset. So we have to either convert the entire culture, or work with what we’ve got.

So let the various religions marry people the way they want. Within limits of course. You shouldn’t be able to marry a child, because the state still has a legitimate interest in protecting children against predators. But that would solve the problem of a supposedly amoral state making value judgements about something they really can’t control. And it would also remove even more of the hands of the government from meddling in church business. Marriage is still a religious affair. The state has co-opted the process. And it needs to go back where it came from.

No tag for this post.
Posted July 19th, 2004 in main.

One comment:

  1. Anonymous:

    “I propose to circumvent this problem, along with several others. Take control of marriage out of the hands of the government. With the way common-law marriages are happening nowadays, what’s the different?”

    whoa, that is definitely an unconventional idea. i’m with you part way. marriage should be a Church responsibility. but it also has to be a State responsibility. you yourself said the State needs to take charge to keep people from marrying children to protect them. pedophilia is not the only sexual situation that poses a problem to members of society.

    bestiality: animals deserve protection.

    incest: society needs protection from this. no matter how much love two people have for one another, this is dangerous - just ask the romans (or rather, their victims).

    and then the obvious one - homosexuality: there are more people affected by gay union than the two major parties. there are also the children in our society.

    first of all, you wouldn’t want your kids walking innocently in the park and seeing something immoral taking place (i.e., drugging, drug-dealing, boozing, violence, bestiality, vandalism, foul language, etc.). obviously we can’t shelter them, but we work to keep our societies free of such actions taking place without consequences. your child suffers much less harm from witnessing any of the above if a cop screams into the scene and shows discipline, than if they are done and not challenged, if they are considered normal. if we allow homosexuality to be okay, same-sex couples cuddling and kissing on a park bench will not be challenged authoritatively. it will be seen as normal. THAT is harmful to your child.

    secondly, don’t forget the children these same-sex couples will be adopting. how will they grow up?

    we need to keep in mind the practical outcomes of such allowances.

    thoughts?

    July 19th, 2004 at 5:17 am

Leave a response: