Reply With Quote
I never said I don't believe in it.
The temperature in just dropped 4 degrees.I AGREE WITH YONIVORE
I never said I don't believe in it.
It's because of ramifications to other facets of life that the government even meddles with the issue. Whether you like it or not, the government has to patrol the welfare of society... and families are the smallest self-supporting sub-units of the population - not individuals. The marriage contract therefore serves to protect the welfare of those not able to protect themselves (i.e. children).
This 'new covenant standard' just stresses that importance... Whether or not liberals believe it, the breakup of families is what is driving this country to 'crap'; lack of parental guidance has been leading generation after generation into a deeper and deeper hole.... Children taking care of children??? That is not helping anyone...
Without sufficient guidance, acceptance and proper nurture children will rebel - shoot, they will sometimes rebel even when those benefits and a caring environment are provided. Anyway, rebelious generations have driven the productivity of society down while increasing the burden placed on the welfare-state.
Drugs, alcohol, unwanted babies, violence, gangs... half of society's problems could be curbed if we strengthened the bonds that glue this society together. I don't know how trying to make that bond even more binding would be detrimental. Especially 1) because as already pointed out it is voluntary and 2) because it is not claiming to be or meant to be a stop-gap measure. Reversing national divorce rates will take time. Making responsible adults out of the population will take even longer.
This has nothing to do with religion... and everthing to do with the efficient functionality of society (at least from the government's perspective).
Last edited by Phenomanul; 12-14-2006 at 05:27 PM.
let me rephrase that. Why are you legally married if you don't believe in state sanctioned marriages?
Because that's the way it works right now. I don't think I'm receiving any unfair benefits, and I'm certainly not going to deny them as some sort of protest, I just think others should be en led to those benefits as well. And I don't feel the government has to dictate arbitrary rules for me and my spouse/partner/whoever to get those benefits.
But the way the system is now, that's how it works. I don't like the current Electoral system either, but I still vote.
There are better ways to curb society's problems than inventing new levels of marriage. Most of the problems you cite are rooted in parts of society where there was never a marriage in the first place.
Over time, I think this could lead to fewer marriages. Would that be positive for society? Why does it have to be difficult or threatening?
Many of you have said the State shouldn't regulate marriage - but they already do. You can't get married without a license issued by the State and you have to go through the State courts in order to get divorced. All this law would do is make it harder to get a divorce for basically "no reason." If it were harder to get a divorce, maybe some couples would try harder to make the marriage work instead of bailing out at the first sign of trouble.
And anyway, many evangelicals already treat their marriage as a covenant relationship. I know the divorce rate among christians is just as high, but I believe they wait longer to pull the plug.
Covenant marriage at best only would be entered into by people who take their marriages seriously in the first place, and would do nothing to reverse the breakup of families.
Think about it. If someone thinks they would need the added barriers to divorce of a covenant marriage, they would do better to call off the engagement in the first place.
Government is a weak agent to change culture. Our culture of marriage is the problem. The root causes of that are myriad and complex, but I can assure you that the problem is not that we lack covenant marriage as defined by the state for us.
What benefits are you talking about? The marriage penalty?
The government isn't dictating anything, they are just facilitating one version of a contract we/society calls "marriage".
This proposal is in favor of the government facilitating a second version not much different from the first. However, you advocate the abolition of any government sponsored recognition of marriage.
On the other hand I'm assuming you support gay marriage and your own legal state sponsored marriage.
Maybe you're against any state sponsored marriage law except the ones you support?
that's a stretch. Again, using your logic why get married at all?Think about it. If someone thinks they would need the added barriers to divorce of a covenant marriage, they would do better to call off the engagement in the first place.
The state regulates things like property rights, inheritance rights, taxes, and custody of dependents with marriage and divorce laws. The laws say little about the relationship between husband and wife. Even if they did say more, they would be unenforceable and empty.
As the prospective law in Texas is written, in order to get a divorce from a covenant marriage, a couple could simply opt back into a regular marriage and proceed from there. Adding a couple of administrative hoops is hardly a barrier for people who want to be apart from one another.
So covenant marriage is merely symbolic. In my view, God's law in marriage trumps man's law, so a gussied-up human arrangement adds zero value.
Things like this do not address root causes of social problems.
Bringing up divorce among evangelicals is a good place to start pondering. What friends do you have in the church that have gotten divorced? What were the reasons?
this is a community property state so it's not totally symbolic.
It's about to get a lot colder...I agree with Yoni too.
The reason marriage is "officially recognized" by the state to begin with is that marriage is, at it's core, a business contract in which resources (money, property) are pooled to form a partnership. The religious ceremony involved is irrelevant to the legal standing implicit in obtaining a marriage license. If you think marriage should be strictly the domain of religion, then have the wedding ceremony, shack up together and don't get a marriage license.
What are you talking about? I get married in the legal sense because I want to establish a legal household with my spouse, collectivize our assets, gain executory rights, etc., i.e., all the privileges accompanying marriage that make it easier to run a household.
What does a covenant marriage add to that? Do I need the nanny-state to make sure I don't lose all my morals and divorce my wife? No. Am I concerned that it will be too easy for my prospective wife to divorce me unless I get the state involved? Then the relationship lacks trust in the first place.
It is the job of family, friends, social network, and religious fellowship where applicable to be on the front lines of helping families struggling to stay together. If they can't or won't do it, then the culture is irretrievably degraded and I'm sorry, but government can't help us.
all of that can be accomplish without the state's involvement.What are you talking about? I get married in the legal sense because I want to establish a legal household with my spouse, collectivize our assets, gain executory rights, etc., i.e., all the privileges accompanying marriage that make it easier to run a household.
tthe covenant marriage doesn't subtract from what you want to do either. The out clauses are symbolic because you're not obligated to submit yourself to the convenant clauses. I probably would as pure symbolism, but that's between me and my wife and I'm grateful that state is considering making it less expensive for me and my wife to enter into such an agreement.What does a covenant marriage add to that? Do I need the nanny-state to make sure I don't lose all my morals and divorce my wife? No. Am I concerned that it will be too easy for my prospective wife to divorce me unless I get the state involved? Then the relationship lacks trust in the first place.
I agree but why should you decide what symbolic arrangement I have with my wife?It is the job of family, friends, social network, and religious fellowship where applicable to be on the front lines of helping families struggling to stay together. If they can't or won't do it, then the culture is irretrievably degraded and I'm sorry, but government can't help us.
This thread is fuunnnnnnnnnnny.
But it is much, much more difficult and bersome.
If you are part of a sufficiently large group which values the symbolism that covenant marriage would dispense, then fine.
But be under no illusion that it would solve any social problems. It is very much preaching to the choir, so to speak.
You have created a false assumption that because I am party to something, I believe it is ideal. I don't have to forego the en lements the government assigns to "marriage" just because I believe the government's religiously-influenced definition of "marriage" is outside the scope of its responsibility.This proposal is in favor of the government facilitating a second version not much different from the first. However, you advocate the abolition of any government sponsored recognition of marriage.
On the other hand I'm assuming you support gay marriage and your own legal state sponsored marriage.
Maybe you're against any state sponsored marriage law except the ones you support?
All I was addressing was the question of why government even 'feels' the need to address the marriage issue....
But I agree, the goverment itself can't do much at this point. Those that want marriage to work will invest their life into it. Unfortunately though, the more and more marriages continue to fail, the higher the burden that will have to be shouldered by society and the more likely that divorce will be propagated to the next generation. I'm not sure any government can stop the monster that has been created now.
no en lements assigned to marriage. I can't help your anti-religous stance.
bingo! to your argument, not that I neccessarily agree with you.
Concur.
This type of legislation is just more political sleight-of-hand bull .
Is it considered cheating when a politician s you?
Say a couple enters a covenant marriage, and 5 years later they realize they didn't know each other that well before, and perhaps they are not meant for each other (it happens). Again, what good could come from making it difficult for those people to end their dysfunctional relationship? You think because the law tells you, you can't divorce, that the love is magically rekindled?
Yes, you could say "well, if people want to be able to divorce each other with ease then they can chose the normal marriage". However, lets face it when people decide to get married, they're not thinking about divorce! Its not like couples rationalise the possibility of divorce before professing their love to each other.
Forcing people to stay together simply to maintain the "family unit" is not going to solve a thing IMO.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
