Privatizing marriage

Even WND is giving voice to the idea of getting government out of state decrees.

Jennifer Morse, president of the Ruth Institute, which supports traditional marriage, says privatizing marriage “doesn’t really resolve the gay marriage issue, it capitulates on the key point, which is what is the public purpose of marriage, and whether the state has any role in protecting the interests of children.”

Getting the government’s grubby, perverted tentacles out of marriages is not capitulation. For sure, it does cut the knees off the pretext of the enemies of traditional marriage (aka “activists”), jerks the rug out from under the only basis for argument they have, that of “discrimination”, which is a psych trick.

“This is a rhetorical tactic for trying to make it go away. I don’t think it works.”

Not for me and growing numbers of people.

Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council, said marriage deserves a privileged place in the law because it brings benefits “that are important to the well-being of society as a whole and not just a couple.”

Marriage does exactly that, which is why putting government of it has made so much damage to it and to society.

Chief among those benefits is the bearing of children “for the continuance of the human race.” Marriage is “the only type of relationship that results in the [natural generation of
children] and provides children with both a mother and father,” he said.

Yeah, duh. Make your case. It’s obvious. So don’t ask government for a “license”.

“Marriage can exist without the state and in fact the institution predates the state,” said Sprigg. Even so, “there is value in having the state recognize marriage, because without that recognition it would be much more difficult to protect the rights and obligations of spouses and to distribute the benefits that the state gives.”

There is no “value” in state-permits for marriage, it is a concession to Caesar. Forget it. Not gonna work.

“If it’s going to do that, it’s going to have to have some way of defining it [marriage],” he said.

The state brings guns and force into the equation. Paul wrote “We can do nothing against the truth but for the truth”.

“Society gives benefits to marriage because marriage gives benefits to society. Therefore the burden of proof is on the advocates of alternatives to marriage to prove that their relationships benefit society. I think that’s a burden of proof that same-sex marriage cannot meet.”

That’s right. But there is a push to abolish marriage altogether by diluting it. Protect it by letting families raise their children to respect it, before the government does it more damage.

Morse said the libertarian idea that two or more people can make up their own “marital” contract any way they wish collides with the needs of children.

But I am against using the biggest gang with guns (government) to enforce this. The best immunity is a new life in Jesus Christ. His love can win out..


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: