(The following piece by Alan Keyes was posted on RenewAmerica.)
Recent judicial rulings in Utah and Oklahoma setting aside overwhelming voter rejection of homosexual marriage have spawned a new libertarian proposal for “taking government out of the business of marriage.” To some, this novel proposal may seem plausible on the surface, but in reality it amounts only to a cloaked assault on our liberty, and would further diminish our unalienable rights.
The controversy surrounding this proposal highlights how little some Americans understand the ideas that are the basis for our liberty. Government exists to secure God-endowed unalienable rights. It must therefore respect the individual activities and institutions that derive their existence from the exercise of those rights. The natural family is one of those institutions. It arises as, and when, individuals consent to implement the Creator’s primordial command “Be fruitful and multiply!”
In order to secure something, government has to declare by law what defines it for purposes of government. Otherwise, it would be impossible for civil officers to make sure their acts and actions give due regard to its security. You can’t respect a right when you don’t recognize it as such. Hence legislation that formally declares what constitutes the institutional definition of the right when it comes to the use and abuse of government power.
As opposed to human beings (even in God’s name), yes.
“Let men say among the nations, ‘the Lord reigneth.'” 1 Corinthians 16:31
http://www.anti-state.com/redford/redford4.html
Marriage is the legal concept most relevant laws reference.
God bless you Steven, but Jesus called for a kingdom in heaven. The rule of God comes above all. It is not anarchy; Jesus proved that in the temple.
I take it as a language game.
If the word marriage = ceremony, piece of paper, filing status, and party; then civil union would work to meet the social contract. The act of the ceremony and party afterwards would cover the social aspects of it.
“We just got married.” vs. “We just got civil unioned.” It doesn’t roll off the tongue. It is a language game that is played in politics.
What is the utility of categorizing a status of relationship?
I think the political argument is lame. It is just a piece of paper. For me, someone like Keyes or anyone who is in the CP or theocrat doesn’t seem to know the bible. Jesus was an anarchist.
The New Testament doesn’t argue for a state above his father’s throne.
Te legal contract part I don’t see being done by religious means; especially with an increasingly religiously diverse/secular society today.
Marriage, much like Easter, Christmas, etc., has evolved into more of a social tradition than a religious one. So yes, we do care, and it is also a legal contract.
It’s a hybrid – part of it is religious/social tradition and part legal contract and rights in numerous aspects from jail and hospital visitation to inheritance, immigration and many other legal aspects.
I have never understood why government at any level would venture into personal relationships. I have heard the marriage is a contract argument, but it never made itself clear regardless of which person was making the argument.
If marriage is religious, then the church and its patrons should define marriage. If a person doesn’t believe in a higher power, then marriage shouldn’t matter to them.
I could never stomach those who prefer a political religion like government as if the voting of a congress is any better than a decree from a dictator.
I’m with langa on this.
When you strip away the pseudo-sophisticated rhetoric, Keyes is really just an authoritarian theocrat, whose definition of “liberty” amounts to giving people the right to do what he thinks they should do, and nothing more. I don’t see how so many people can be fooled by this guy.
This one is at https://upworthy-production.s3.amazonaws.com/nugget/4fad667a42542a00030018ba/attachments/biblemarriage.jpg and you can find some other good ones there.
Also anytime you want to know the URL of any image right click on it and choose “copy image location.”
Google image search for “traditional marriage”
Hey Paulie, I love the graphic of the “history of marriage” you put up!! How can I find it independently so I can forward it to various people?
Sounds Orwellian. Government exist to secure liberty. But government defines liberty in order to protect it. Pretty much freedom is slavery if you think about it.
I wouldn’t say everywhere.
So, small government everywhere but this issue? Gotcha, Alan.
I’m not aware of Keyes ever being elected to anything. He has had some appointed offices such as ambassador and college president and has run for various offices unsuccessfully many times.
No wonder he wasn’t re-elected.
Mr. Keyes is showing some muddled thinking. He is using the idea of “God endowed unalienable rights” to justify what he calls a “natural family.” For centuries, if not millenia, marriage was a matter of the people getting married, their families, and their faith. When government intervenes it is for purposes other than the desires of the people getting married. It is for purposes of preventing miscegenation, census, taxation, health, polygamy, or social engineering. Mr. Keyes unalienable rights are not harmed if someone else gets married and it is not in accordance with his particular view of the world or the desire of government, they are reinforced. The role of government is to adjudicate when marriage is used for fraud, or one of the partners causes harm, or contractually breeches financial agreements made in marriage. Your right to get married is not under the rubric of government, and never was. If things changed as I propose, Mr. Keyes would see no difference in the way he lives except for maybe not getting special favors from government, and not having the soapbox to stand on where he can inject his particular religious views on others. The role of a church, or synagog, or mosque, or temple, or idol in a person’s life would be reinvigorated instead of the controlling arm of government. It begs the question, if someone violated his marriage rules would he use the power of the state to place that person in prison or take away their property? That is the ultimate state sanction. His apparent lack of understanding of the nature of liberty is what is disturbing. Preserving government created institutions is not the purpose of liberty.
Traditional marriage: One man, one or more women, possibly young girls, and arranged by the parents. That’s the proud tradition of marriage. Thankfully we’ve changed the definition over the years, and we should continue to do so.
He also is too vague on which level of government should ‘be involved’ on the marriage issue, and to what extent.
I, for one, believe that the 10th Amendment is the solution to the gay marriage issue, even if I do personally favor protecting traditional marriage.
Nevertheless, on the federal level, the government does need to stay out of defining marriage in the first place.
Unfortunately, these comments come from a neocon, so he does miss the mark on some parts of his piece.
It would seem not.
He really doesn’t know what liberty means, does he?