I saw online today that there’s a chance that gay marriage may now be legal in Pennsylvania, depending on if the decision gets appealed to a higher court or not. This got me thinking about some earlier discussions I’ve had about the government’s role in marriage in general.
Is marriage a religious institution? Or a government institution?
This is why the issue of marriage is so important and so controversial to so many people.
One side views marriage as something designed specifically by an Almighty God and something holy and unique. Those that disagree or don’t believe, tend to view marriage as a government role, and not a religious one. I think that perhaps, marriage itself, should have remained a private, religious institution between mankind and God, as it was for millennia.
Perhaps it’s time that marriage divorces itself from government altogether.
Hear me out.
The issue however is that government decided to provide benefits to those who enter into marital contracts, because ‘promoting the general welfare’ is directly taken from our Constitution, and government found that traditional marriage itself did indeed promote the general welfare of the nation, because a nation that has strong families, has more stability, less crime, and a strong economy. This is statistically measurable.
Marriage is the social institution that provides society with the very foundation of civilization – the procreating family unit. There would be no community without marriage. In fact, marriage is the oldest and the most basic of the three foundational institutions of Western civilization. Government and the church are the other two. It’s considered the most basic because without children, there wouldn’t be a need for a government or church, as there would be no civilization in general.
The benefits of natural marriage are so great, that they cannot be overstated. It not only benefits the married couple, but also their children, our economy, and the nation as a whole. Natural marriage has always served as a nation’s natural immune system. As Frank Turek puts it, “When our marriages are strong, our nation is strong and our social problems are few. When our marriages are weak, so is our nation.”
a. Lengthens life spans of men and women.
b. Civilizes men and focuses them on productive pursuits. Unmarried men cause society much more trouble than married men. (How many married men do you know who rove neighborhoods in street gangs?)
c. Protects women, who often give up or postpone their careers to have children, from being abandoned and harmed economically by uncommitted men.
d. Protects mothers from violent crime. Mothers who have never been married are more than twice as likely to suffer from violent crime as mothers who have married.
e. Lowers welfare costs to society.
f. Encourages an adequate replacement birth rate, resulting in enough productive young people to contribute to society and provide social security to the elderly. The United States’ birth rate is about 2.1 per couple – any lower and the nation cannot sustain itself without immigration.
Children from natural marriage homes are:
-Seven times less likely to live in poverty
-Six times less likely to commit suicide
-Less than half as likely to commit crime
-Less than half as likely to become pregnant out of wedlock
-Develop better academically and socially
-Healthier physically and emotionally when they reach adulthood
These positive results of traditional marriage are not new to the 21st Century. Practically since the dawn of humanity, marriage has been the basis of human social structure. In fact, British anthropologist J.D. Unwin studied eighty-six civilized and uncivilized cultures spanning five thousand years and found that the most prosperous cultures were those that maintained a strong marriage ethic. Every civilization that ultimately abandoned this ethic, including the Roman, Babylonian, and Sumerian empires, soon experienced their civilization’s demise shortly after liberalizing their sexual practices.
Envision a society where more and more numbers of people have no stable family and must therefore fend for themselves. Without the natural family, which provides people with their most basic needs, chaos soon follows. In fact, just about every social problem we are currently experiencing here in America can be traced back to the breakdown of the traditional family. If you do not believe me, just take a look at the social and welfare costs on broken homes in America. By restating the above findings, we can better see the impact of fatherless homes on our society.
First, children from fatherless homes are:
-Seven times more likely to live in poverty
-Six times more likely to commit suicide
-More than twice as likely to commit crime
-More than twice as likely to become pregnant out of wedlock
-Worse off academically and socially
-Worse off physically and emotionally when they reach adulthood
Second, children from fatherless homes account for:
-60% of America’s rapists
-63% of America’s youth suicides
-70% of America’s long-term prison inmates
-70% of America’s reform school attendees
-71% of America’s teenage pregnancies
-71% of America’s high school dropouts
-72% of America’s adolescent murderers
-85% of America’s youth prisoners
-85% of America’s youth with behavioral disorders
-90% of America’s runaways
Some may argue, “But some marriages do not produce children.” That is true, but we are not talking about singular exceptions, but talking about marriage as an institution. While there are some marriages that do not produce children, the majority, those that do, provide the building blocks of civilization. If there is any institution that is designed for the good of our children and society, it is natural marriage. Marriage of a man and woman is fundamentally about the production of good children and the civilization of society. This holds true, even if there are some marriages that do not produce children. All books are designed for reading, even if some of them happen to never be read.
But is it possible for children to thrive in homes without their biological moms and dads? Of course it is. However, this is still the exception, and not the rule. Family structure has proven to be the most important factor in a child’s development. More than 10,000 studies show the significant advantages that children experience when committed and loving mothers and fathers raise them.
Essentially, the reason government got involved in marriage in the first place, is because marriages that maintain a stable family unit, do benefit society as a whole and ‘promote the general welfare.’ That’s why government began to try to incentivize marriage, because they wanted a strong society as a whole. Children who grow up in complete family by far, statistically, don’t commit crime, graduate, and grow up to becoming productive tax-paying citizens that help government by providing for it, versus the majority that takes from government (welfare, prison, etc) that result from broken family homes.
So again, the reason this became such a controversial issue is because advocates of gay marriage want the same legal and tax benefits the government bestowed up on natural marriages. The issue however is that the reason these benefits were bestowed in the first place was because of the ability to create children, and the majority of gay couples do not have children. It is physically impossible without surgical implantations, or adoption.
The issue is we now change marriage overall from an institution that is designed for the benefit of children and the future, to one that is all about ‘me.’ It’s about what you feel, and what you desire, rather than for the good of society and children. Again, I’m not saying everyone is like this, but statistically as a whole, it is. And divorce plays an even bigger part in this dilemma than gay marriage does. No fault divorce laws paved the way for the destruction of the family unit. Instead of sticking together and working things out, it became legal decades ago to just opt out and quit, and move on, without any regard for how it impacted children and society as a whole. You saw the statistics above, and virtually every problem we face as a nation as a whole, results from the breakdown of the family unit. High crime, high drop out, high prison, more people feeding off of the government than paying into it, and so on.
So to raise the question, is marriage a religious issue? Or a government one? If the issue is solely about getting equal tax and legal benefits, why not abolish government recognition of marriage altogether? What if the government were allowed to recognize any kind of ‘relational’ contract that they want, and provide whatever benefits they want to equally, but then leave marriage where it always was, which was in religious institutions. Would this not solve the problem? Those that view marriage as something holy by God still have marriage. And for those that just want ‘equal’ benefits, still attain them elsewhere? After all, no one is trying to stop someone from ‘loving’ someone. Two gay people, or 5 polygamists can live together and love one another. No one is stopping them or saying they shouldn’t. The whole issue surrounds government recognition, which is supposedly driven about wanting equal benefits, which were originally only granted because of the societal beneficial nature of natural marriage because of their ability to procreate.
And if this would not solve the issue, doesn’t that then mean that the issue isn’t about transforming marriage in order to accommodate, but instead is about destroying the original institution altogether? If it’s all about ‘equal rights,’ why aren’t gay rights supporters just campaigning for civil unions? Why change the definition of marriage, if all that is wanted are the same tax and legal benefits that a civil union would provide?
And if something similar to civil unions were not enough, and the definition of marriage still for some reason had to be changed to include two gay couples, where should the line be drawn? At three? Four? The reason I ask is because it is a question that needs to be answered. In Massachusetts, there is now technically a ‘married’ throuple; three lesbian women that are ‘legally married.’ Is there marriage still valid? What if it were four or five women? Or a 50 year old man and a 14 year old boy? Should they have the right to marry? After all, NAMBLA (The North American Man Boy Love Association) is still campaigning to abolish age of consent laws. And while that too seems something crazy and unlikely, even Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has advocated for lowering the age of consent to twelve years old, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has marched alongside NAMBLA at gay pride parades in San Francisco.
So what exactly quantifies marriage? Just two people of any gender? Or three? Polygamy and pedophilia? Believe it or not, there are people within all of these groups that are demanding the same legal ‘rights.’
This guy even claims he has the constitutional right to marry his porn-filled computer, insisting he is in love with it. His reason for saying he has this right? New gay marriage laws. He says if gays can marry anyone they say they truly love, why can’t he?
Absurdity aside, if anything can mean ‘marriage,’ doesn’t that then say that nothing means marriage?
Maybe it’s time government and marriage get a divorce.