Elizabeth Schreiner of Lakeville, MN writes to the editor of the Sun This Week:
Your Sun This week of July 6 had some letters to the editor that spiked comment in me. The “other side of the coin” so to speak.
I don’t know how anyone can get so mixed up in their thinking over the proposed marriage amendment. I keep reading Veda Kanitz’s letter and think she should do more research on the real issue.
Her letter states that Sherry and Barb are two beautiful “children of the universe” in a beautifully committed relationship, but I say that is what it is. It’s a relationship, but not a marriage.
The proposed amendment doesn’t try to change their personal life or their personal choices or desires, so what’s the big fuss? The amendment shouldn’t and doesn’t bother their routine at all. They had and have the freedom to choose their way of life and good luck to them.
16 Comments
By that logic, a man and a woman don't ever need to get married because that title doesn't change their personal life or their personal choices or desires, so what's the big fuss? Removing marriage doesn't bother their routine at all.
Ms. Schreiner goes on to say "Our society has a whole gamut of unions, contracts, legal papers for property ownership, financial, etc., and that’s a choice to pick a partner but that doesn’t constitute a marriage."
She's right. Marriage means one thing, the union of one man and one woman. Folks can live however they choose, but nobody has a right to redefine what marriage means.
It's unfortunate how the liberal movements of the sixties, especially feminism and the sexual revolution (all initiated, btw, by homosexual activists), have derailed our society and marriage.
Prior to the 60s, sex between men and women was perceived to be appropriate only within marriage; children born outside of marriage were deemed to be illegitimate and the couple who conceived the child were shamed by society.
Oh, sure, many people broke the marriage "rules," as it were, but society as whole attempted to conform with the established norm.
Nowadays, we don't dare suggest that sex remain confined to marriage, lest we give up our so-called sexual freedom.
But this, really, is the problem with marriage, and we have a 40% illegitimacy rate in the country, including a 70% illegitimacy rate in the AA community. Millions of children raised without at least one of their parents, all because people insist on their freedom to be able to do that to their children.
But they want society to legitmize their relationships
@Kieran -Actually, marriage obligates a man and woman to each other, and very definitely influences any personal choices and desires they make or have.
David
I believe you are agreeing with Kieran. She is pointing out the flawed reasoning of Schreiner.
@David,
"Actually, marriage obligates a man and woman to each other"
With all due respect; marriage acknowledges the shared obligation; it does not create the obligation - the laws of nature do. Changing the meaning of the word marriage so as to lend an appearance of acceptability to sexual depravity obscures the link between marriage and the laws of nature.
Kiernan asks: "By that logic, a man and a woman don't ever need to get married because that title doesn't change their personal life or their personal choices or desires, so what's the big fuss?"
The big fuss is that when a man and woman get married there is the possibility of children being conceived, and the marriage unites the man and the woman with their offspring. Since same-sex couples can never conceive a child, the marital purpose of uniting parents with offspring is not served. The marriage is irrelevant to society.
Indeed, the public purpose of marriage is to unite children with their parents in a stable family environment. The man-woman union is the only potentially procreative coupling. Some will be unable to procreate, of course, but children and their parents are still the primary government interest in marriage.
One problem that NOMer's have is the grounds by which common law marriage is defined. No where does it maintain that by having a child you are defacto married. Therefore, if having a child together does not make you married, why all the fuss over children in this debate?
I know I am going to get flack for this stance, but it stands to reason that if the primary intent of marriage is to unite child and parents, then the law would require the biological parents to form a marriage to protect the child (except in cases where such marrigages would be illegal or detrimental. ie incest, rape)
The gov provides incentives for men and women to get and stay married so that children and parents alike can form a stable environment. The gov does this b/c marriage is recognized as an important building block of society. The gov can only encourage this. It can't force people to marry.
But conservatives are for individual liberty and less government intrusion. So, why does the government have to encourage people to do things in their personal life?
Asutin said: """...if the primary intent of marriage is to unite child and parents, then the law would require the biological parents to form a marriage to protect the child """
Society is best served, generally, when government gets out of their lives. Government benefits to married couples were not instituted as a means to encourage marriage inasmuch as they were created to accommodate the vast numbers of married couples. At that time, people were getting married as a means for establishing stable families as economic units, a proven recipe for success for parents and their offspring; they weren't getting married because of benefits.
The problem with the government and marriage arose with the institution of welfare laws which essentially allowed the government to step-in as fathers and husbands, allowing women, ostensibly, to raise children without the need for a husband. One only need to look at what's become of the children of welfare moms in Black urban communities as a result of this government intrusion into the family to see what a bad effect government has when it tries to help by providing limitless handouts.
She should have read Minnesota Law. Marriage is nothing more than a Civil Contract according to the State Statues. According to the Law only the Civil Contract aspect will be recognized by the State.
But conservatives are for individual liberty and less government intrusion.
This is why we are supporting the marriage amendment. So that the rest of us have our individual liberty. Recognizing marriage corruption has proven that it increases government intrusion. The government is now intruding on the private affairs of businesses and churches. See the next blog.
So, why does the government have to encourage people to do things in their personal life?
The marriage license as well as the benefits are priviledges and incentives from the state. The state is encouraging resposible procreation. The offspring of these marriages pays the future entitlement taxes that funds medicare and SSN. Society needs a healthy replacement rate to sustain itself if it wants to keep its standard of living.
"So, why does the government have to encourage people to do things in their personal life?"
I'll add to the replies above.
The law serves to clarify who is and who is not married. The special status of marriage is due to the type of relationship -- one which unites the sexes and provides for responsible procreation -- into which the participants have entered. The rest of society needs an easy way to flag those who have formed such a relationship. Hence the formalization of marital status.
However, in societies where there is diminished integration of the sexes (such as where no-fault divorce has greatly increased sex segregative trends) this clarification by government becomes far more difficult as a functional purpose of law. Likewise where there is diminished adherence to the principles and practices of responsible procreation.
So, people who would form a public sexual relationship of man and woman and who would engage in procreation together, they are encouraged to formalize that relationship via the norms of the marriage idea; and this is the purpose of marriage as a social institution. The role of the governing authorities is to formalize via the law and social policy both the entry into the social institution and the elevation of the core meaning of marriage.
The governmental role of gatekeeping is not purely one of incentivizing this or that individual to form a comprehensive union -- i.e. the union of husband and wife -- but it is a supportive role for assisting the social institution (or at minimum not encumbering it with undue interference) in doing what that social institution exists to do. See the core meaning of marriage. It is a meaning that is very difficult for the individual to sustain; it requires societal supports -- not just governmental supports by the way.
Turning government against that core meaning, as per the rejection of it entailed by the SSM idea's entrenchment, would be anti-marriage on a societal scale.
What a fuss! At one point there is still one open avenue: get the government out of the marriage 'business'. Doing so would cost the government big bucks, but the experiment with the lives of the affected children need not be made. The experiment has been done before. Civil marriage is as is BECAUSE society has learned from experience to REGULATE (not permit) marriage. It is perfectly valid to vote for marriage solely for a man and a woman, for same-sex marriage is never declared a fundamental civil right by the Supreme Court (it is not about sex - both have to be adult, and it has to be consentual). Therefore even the term 'same-sex marriage' is a misnomer, and involves a lot more types of partnerships aside from the 'glads' - therefore, it cannot possibly be simply anti-gay... i mean, anti-glads. Yeah, down with anyone with a smile on their face!