Home / Family /
Dear Democrats: What is Marriage?

By Jennifer Thieme / 9 April 2013 / 41 Comments
If I could ask the Democratic Party one question it would be this: what is marriage? This is the most important question surrounding the marriage debate, and it’s the one that rarely gets asked.
We have two, competing views of marriage in our society today. Unfortunately, these views are almost totally incompatible. This is why the debate rages so fiercely.
Generally, those who lean left on the issue believe that marriage is:

– romantic feelings that the government incentivises with federal benefits and tax breaks.
– a private agreement between two people, without any public ramifications involving the natural rights of children and their parents, or the natural rights of the spouses to one another.
– Not objective, but subjective and open to change by society.
– temporary; dissolvable at any time by either person, which means that the divorce can be enforced by the government against the will of one party and the will of their children.
– not a way to attach children to their mothers and fathers, and their parents to one another.

Generally, those who lean right on the issue believe that marriage is:
– a pre-political institution that arose because of the needs of children and serves as the foundation for a free society.
– a public institution, since it has an impact on those who were not privy to the marital vows (namely, the children who are born into the marriage, which must include the children’s relatives and descendants as well).
– objective, not open to change by society. Marriage policy must draw lines excluding certain types of relationships. The lines should be based in fact, based in reason, and be objective.
– presumptively procreative. This is why we have the legal doctrine called the “marital presumption of paternity.” This acknowledges that children born during a marriage are the husband’s children.
– presumptively permanent; potentially annullable and dissolvable only for cause. (Aside: This side of the debate has lost credibility by not fighting the “no-fault divorce” changes that swept the country in the 1970s and 80s, nor working to reform such laws currently.)
– the only “limited government” way to ensure the well-being of children.
– based on the fact that sex between a man and a woman creates children. Marriage is society’s way to encourage men and women to commit to each other and to take responsibility for their children.


Given these differences, it seems pretty clear who has the better understanding of marriage.
I’d like to talk about a recent “redefinition” we all accepted: no-fault divorce. It’s important because we can draw clear parallels between it and the new “redefinition” of gay marriage.

Continued from page 1 ... )
We used to define marriage as something permanent, and marriage policy respected people’s vows. No-fault divorce rolled through the nation, pretty much unopposed, during the 1970s and 80s. Previously, divorce was only granted “for cause,” which meant that somebody had to do something very bad, like have an affair.
Now, marriage policy no longer respects people’s vows. Marriage can be ended by one spouse for no reason at all. States are divorce-enforcers. The state now takes sides with one spouse to enforce the divorce, against the wishes of the other spouse and the children. This granted the government unheard of powers over the family, powers that all freedom loving citizens of the United States should be very concerned about, such as:

– dictating child visitation schedules, sometimes down to the hour.
– enforcing wage garnishments for child support, even when the non-custodial parent has excellent credit.
– scrutiny of family finances in minute detail.
– many other examples of micromanaging the family in humiliating and unjust ways.
– a record is kept of all this, and it’s available for public inspection.

The new “redefinition,” gay marriage, removes gender from the definition of marriage. In so doing, it also does these:

– it allows marriage to become whatever emotional bond the government says it is.
– it delinks childbearing from marriage, which will create confusion for children that the state (aka taxpayers) will be responsible for. Did you notice the list of state powers granted by “no-fault divorce” above? Delinking childbearing from marriage will undoubtedly grow this list in unknowable ways.
– changes the “presumption of paternity” to the “presumption of parentage,” which strikes fathers from the legal code. If marriage is not procreative, this legal doctrine makes no sense, and can even be used against natural parents as outlined here and here. Both cases show how this legal doctrine allowed judges to give children to people who were not related to the child by blood, and who had never adopted the child. Either marriage is procreative, or it’s not. If it is, then we cannot accept gay marriage. If it is not, then we need to eliminate the “marital presumption of paternity,” which will unhinge fathers from their children.
– it codifies the idea that children are not entitled to a mother and a father. It removes children from the central focus of marriage.
– it creates a very serious threat to the first freedom in the Bill of Rights.
– it creates a few disturbing parallels with slavery.


I hope you can see that when we redefine marriage, bureaucratic government agencies must then step into the mess, to perform tasks and duties that were previously performed by the intact family. This eats up taxpayer resources and creates chaos and stress for children and families.

Regardless of victories by gay marriage supporters, I am proud to be on the record for defending children as part of marriage policy. In 30 years they will judge the outcome of redefining marriage to exclude them. We’ll wait for their verdict. I predict they will eventually realize that removing the gender requirement from marriage set aside their interests for the benefit of adults.

Dear Democrats: what is marriage? I believe that one man, one woman for life, will prove to be the right side of history. Many of you used to believe this too.



Read more: http://clashdaily.com/2013/04/dear-d...#ixzz2Q4tumgVm