Plural Marriage

A commenter at American Thinker had this to say.

But I must also note, as a Christian, that marriage is a sacred vow taken within a church, synagogue, or mosque, as a Sacrament. There should be no democratic government that tries to dictate such a holy action.
So the government now hands out sacraments? Or decides which ones are valid? No wonder conservatives are in political trouble. Especially if government starts handing out sacraments for killing infidels. Or suppose they do like the shia do and hand out temporary marriages (if the fees are paid) to those who want to have legal sex? No sex without a license. An excellent con. And a wonderful sacrament. Has Sacramento been informed? How about Washington?

A marriage is between one man, one woman, and one government. And don't you ever forget it.

Cross Posted at Power and Control

posted by Simon on 04.24.09 at 10:53 AM










Comments

I agree that government has no business controlling who marries whom or even how many individuals participate in the marriage (yes, polygamy is next), but every marriage is also a financial contract involving incomes, outlays and property. And government does have an interest in regulating contracts and in adjudicating reparations when contracts are violated.

Bob Sykes   ·  April 25, 2009 7:42 AM

Have you ever heard of the natural law of things....egg-sperm/yin-yang/night-day?

There is no sperm-sperm or egg-egg and no matter many laws and speech codes you create in order to make sperm-sperm or egg-egg you will never be able to make it work.

By the way, homosexuals are not banned from marriage...for example, see former Gov McGreevy who married twice, divorced twice and even had children.

Expand your mind, because right now you're rather short-sighted; it's silly crap like imposing 'same-sex union between a sperm and an egg' on the natural law which ultimately creates Statist tyranny.

Another thing which bugs me about Libertarians...they've somehow convinced themselves that doing dirty dealing with dictators is 'free-market' economics.

syn   ·  April 25, 2009 7:47 AM

By the way, I don't go to church so you don't have to resort to religious bigotry when addressing my question.

syn   ·  April 25, 2009 7:54 AM

syn,

Thank the maker I'm no longer a Libertarian. All that consorting with dictators got old. Especially once I found out that I couldn't marry one.

Now I'm a free market small government make war on the jihadis Republican. And I now spend a significant part of my time chasing women. Three or four at a time. And when I catch them? Wooooo Hoooooo!!!!!!!!!!! It is fun of Biblical proportions. The experience is sacramental. In my church. Unfortunately our government does not favor the sacraments of my church. Yet. So we keep the practice clandestine.

I always wanted a government that could decide which sacraments were valid. It is the proper role of government in the American Republic. For those that worship government.

BTW rumor has it that the original Christian had somewhat of a Libertarian streak. "Render unto Caesar...." and encouraging people to violate the government enforced sex code without punishment. Do you know where that leads? You stop punishing immorality and you get more of it. Evidently the guy was not much of an economist.

M. Simon   ·  April 25, 2009 9:55 AM

" And government does have an interest in regulating contracts and in adjudicating reparations when contracts are violated. "...which has exactly nothing to do with whom marries whom, or whoms. If that is truely why the government is involved in marrige at all, then the government involvement should be expressly restricted to those concerns and those concerns only. But, the government isn't involved for those reasons only, of course, the government uses their involvement to extort money from those whom choose to get married and those whom are married. The government attempts to impose the governments mores and values, although that is an oxymoron, on those whom choose to get married. This overwrought and frequently overbearing intrusion into personal and private choice may well be responsible for the choice of so many people to live together without the benefit of matrimony.

Edward Lunny   ·  April 25, 2009 10:39 AM

There is one and only one reason the government involved itself in marriage.

Money.

By providing various legal goodies to people who make more people, they ensure a continually increasing tax base.

Follow the money.

Until two people of the same sex can make a third person with no outside intervention, they can't call themselves "married". And yes, I'd extend that to people of opposing genders who find themselves in the same barrel. If you can't make new taxpayers, no legal breaks for you. You get to do everything the hard way - one contract at a time.

brian   ·  April 25, 2009 11:47 PM

Post a comment


April 2011
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail



Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives



Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits