....and how not to. As far as I can tell, the way NOT to defend traditional marriage--one man and one woman since Adam and Eve--is to point to the tradition. The other side of the debate is right to point out that numerous exceptions to the Adam/Eve model exist, from various forms of polygamy, the harem, and who knows what else.
Rather, the proper way to defend the legal interpretation of marriage is to recognize that family law does not exist, per se, because government is terribly interested in authenticating relationships and conferring benefits (and penalties) based on fact of the relationship existing. If that were true, we would have Congress issuing certificates to little Billy for his stellar care of the family dog Barfy.
Why, then, do we have family law? It is because the process of growing a family involves the wonderful, messy, and often dangerous process of motherhood, and the law recognizes that the normal processes of heterosexual love tend to produce the two vulnerable classes of mothers and children.
Note here that this explanation of the government's role in family law covers the range of definitions the world has given to marriage. For those using the Adam and Eve model, it ensures that both spouses have the right to communal property--and a host of other provisions. For those desiring to use the Adam and Eve and Eve and Eve model, it tells them that as polygamy is inherently destabilizing to a country and risks the vulnerable parties being abandoned by their father--and therefore bans the practice.
For those practicing the "Adam not making it legal with Eve" model, the law notes that absent a legal commitment from Adam to Eve, Adam will be required to make child support payments to Eve (or vice versa), among other arrangements. Another host of regulations covers those who adopt, or who use "scientific measures" to bear children.
And for those advocating the legal recognition of same-sex relationships as marriage? Well, do such relationships tend to create these vulnerable classes in a way the law does not already address?
There is much to be improved with family and marriage law in general, but as far as I can tell, redefining marriage itself is not a good start.
The Babylon Bee Has Apparently Taken Over Democrat Messaging
-
They can’t overturn Roe again, but the Democrats don’t think their audience
knows any better: I’m surprised the trooper wasn’t wearing a Darth Vader
helmet...
8 hours ago
12 comments:
i have a friend who has three sons, the result of a gay partnership of 23years (adoption does that).
legally, they are as much his sons as yours are your own.
And for those advocating the legal recognition of same-sex relationships as marriage? Well, do such relationships tend to create these vulnerable classes in a way the law does not already address?
apparently, yes.
redefining marriage itself is not a good start.
marriage was already redefined in the practical sense within the judeo-christian tradition when Luther did what he did, and the Reformation followed suit.
those churches (episcopal, et al, including govt) who want to redefine things are just following the glorious reformation to its logical conclusion.
Gino; understood that homosexuals adopt, but that's already covered in family law.
Regarding the Reformation, I think that misses the point--unless we assume that Papal law would have remained throughout Christendom sans Luther--and that sans Luther, a very similar Reformation would not have happened anyways.
absolutely, a reformation of some form would have taken place.
societies and cultures tend to do things like reform and evolve.
and things get redefined and/or differently applied...
just like marriage did centuries before the gays came along.
By your reasoning Bubba, there is no reason that my "traditional" Tab A/Slot B marriage should be civilly recognized either, because it was never going to produce a member of the "vulnerable class" (still a grating turn of phrase, but a substantial improvement over "weaker vessel" I must say.)
Why do you think family law can only serve one purpose at a time? Why do you think that formalizing adult relationships via family law for purposes that have nothing to do with children (inheritance, hospital visitation, survivor benefits) is detrimental to the other "purposes" of family law (the good of which no one is disputing?) This isn't zero-sum.
I harp on these points not because I'm interested in scoring points against conservatives, but because I think that broadening the scope of marriage law to reflect social reality is entirely consistent with professed conservative values of promoting stable families.
Brian; family law is applied to intentionally or unintentionally sterile heterosexual relationships because it's an obvious definition. I can tell you Bob and Mary are married, or living together, far more easily than I can tell you if they're fertile.
And sure, we could have some kind of provision--say "civil unions"-- for the kind of relationships you cite. It simply isn't marriage, though, and calling it "marriage" obscures the reason that government gets into family law in the first place; the protection of the vulnerable.
And if you'd like to argue that a pregnant woman, or the mother of a baby, isn't "vulnerable," have at it, but as the dad of six kids, I know better. It's a biological reality, and the law rightly recognizes this.
i think "Tab A/ Slot B" is a redundancy.
can we just call it a "Tab/Slot" marriage?
Bubba, you haven't answered my question.
Brian; I actually responded to your post before you wrote it. Formalizing inherently sterile relationships into family law as "marriage" obscures the fact that the central purpose of family law is to protect the weaker vessels.
As such, it endangers the protections that society has wisely given to the vulnerable because we will simply forget what this marriage thing is all about.
There may be a case for domestic partnerships, or an even broader case of law where one can designate any person as "equivalent to next of kin" for the purposes of emergency notifications and such. I simply don't see a case for redefining (or mis-defining) marriage for this purpose.
that is why i support no govt recognition of marriage, and just have civil unions for any two adults who think they need to surrender everything to another.
take the sexual componant out too, so two siblings could unite as one under the law.
let the faiths determine marriages, and uphold them to their choosing.
Gino, I think that misses the central point; family law exists primarily (if not exclusively) because of the societal impacts of broken relationships, specifically the impact on mothers and children. Getting government out of marriage entirely would cause havoc in this very Biblical function of government.
Modify the current morass in family law? You bet. Junk it? No way.
it would not get govt out of marriage in the family law, protective aspects.
your pastor could make 'legal recognition' part of the requirement for performing marriage rites, like the One True Church already does.
the beauty of it is that your faith determines what marriage really is, and can hold its partakers to account, regardless of what 'the world' thinks.
ya know, NOTW and all that....
ok, think about this:
family law exists primarily (if not exclusively) because of the societal impacts of broken relationships,
broken relationships are not in the plan, are they?
they are outside of the marriage plan.
ya know, tab/slot is as well.
laws are created, even family law, to deal with situations that happen outside of the plan.
or there would be no need for family law at all....
Post a Comment