Dignity and sanctity of marriage - a modest proposal

If you decide to get married, and screw it up by choosing the wrong partner or having an affair, then that's it. No one who has a divorce allowed to get married again. Wouldn't that protect the dignity of marriage?

DrewDad wrote:

If you decide to get married, and screw it up by choosing the wrong partner or having an affair, then that's it. No one who has a divorce allowed to get married again. Wouldn't that protect the dignity of marriage?

I really would like to think that you posted your thread "tongue in cheek". People DO make mistakes. And it is really none of the government's business.

Sure, and we can have the same rules about abortion. After the fist, no more chances!

DrewDad wrote:

If you decide to get married, and screw it up by choosing the wrong partner or having an affair, then that's it. No one who has a divorce allowed to get married again. Wouldn't that protect the dignity of marriage?

I really would like to think that you posted your thread "tongue in cheek". People DO make mistakes. And it is really none of the government's business.

I mean, 5 and 6 marriages?

he he he.....

I happen to be wife #5......but, he did marry one of them twice.
.

DrewDad wrote:

If you decide to get married, and screw it up by choosing the wrong partner or having an affair, then that's it. No one who has a divorce allowed to get married again. Wouldn't that protect the dignity of marriage?

...And it is really none of the government's business...

Chai Tea wrote:

he he he.....

I happen to be wife #5......but, he did marry one of them twice.
.

I do too...but it has some truth to it. I mean, 5 and 6 marriages?

Let 'em have civil unions. Marriage is forever.

We might benefit from getting the government totally out of the business of marriages -- thereby nixing marriage licenses, tax benefits, marriage law, etc. -- but that isn't the status quo (far from it). Whether we like it or not, marriage has been the government's business for the entirety of U.S. history.

Quote:

I do too...but it has some truth to it. I mean, 5 and 6 marriages?

Hey, it is not illegal to be stupid, and make bad choices.

Quote:

Steppenwolf wrote:

We might benefit from getting the government totally out of the business of marriages -- thereby nixing marriage licenses, tax benefits, marriage law, etc. -- but that isn't the status quo (far from it). Whether we like it or not, marriage has been the government's business for the entirety of U.S. history.

You guys stole my idea. Months ago, I wrote that the government should create civil union contracts between two people, and get out of the marriage business altogther. Then, if the couple wants their union blessed in a house of worship, they can then get "married".

Ah, but that wouldn't really be getting out of the marriage business altogether. It would merely be substituting one word for a longer phrase ("marriage" for "civil union contract"), and one set of state granted rights for another set. After all, government is in the business of interpreting and enforcing contracts, no? I realize this isn't what people normally associate with "government action," but the judiciary is plainly part of the government, and legislatures would presumably enable these civil unions via statute, as many courts would likely not enforce them under common law. When you create a contract, you are effectively inviting government intervention. The "private sphere" is really rather small when you get down to it. In truth, the concept is practically a non sequitur.

But I realize that I'm getting my panties all up in a knot on a rather small point...

It is not true that marriage has been the government's business for the entirety of U.S. History. It was only with the abolition of established churches in the several states (and not all of them had established churches) that the notion of regulating marriage by statute arose. As has been the case for a very long time, before the European colonization of America, in fact, marriage is above all a contract for assuring rights in property...

You are conflating the authority of canon courts with that of civil courts. Civil courts (and therefore the common law) only became concerned with the regulation of marriage when the abolition of established churches resulted in the perceived need for statutory control. William Blackstone, the great English jurist and commentator on the common law, stated that: "Law is the embodiment of the moral sentiment of the people." Nevertheless, his comment on marriage is simply a reference to the canon courts of the established, Episcopal church in England. It is only with the abolition of established churches in Europe and North America that statutory, secular control of marriage arises. The first secular regulation of marriage only appears in Europe with the promulgation of the Civil Code by Napoleon.

You're just confusing this issue for yourself. I mentioned Blackstone because he is the oracle on common law, and he wrote before the American Revolution. So my point was that the common law did not concern itself with marriage because that was the purview of cannon courts--the courts of the established church. In Massachusetts and Connecticutt, the established church was the Congregational church. By extension, then, Maine, as a "province" of Massachusetts, had a Congregational establishment. Rhode Island purposefully had no established church. The established church of New York and New Jersey was nominally Dutch Reformed, but their authority fell into desuetude with the inrush of English-speaking settlers. The established church of Delaware was the Lutheran church (formerly a Swedish colony, and therefore Lutheran, it was conquered by the Dutch, who in turn fell to the English). There was no established church in Pennsylvania. The established church in Maryland, although a Catholic refuge, was nominally the Episcopal church. The Episcopal church was the nominal established church in Virginia, but as new settlers, many former convicts, flooded the western counties, the authority of the church eroded until finally, before the Stamp Act crisis, Patrick Henry defended a parish against a suit by an Anglican minister, and lost--but the jury awarded damages of one penny, so Henry was considered to have won nonetheless, and the power of the religious establishment was broken in Virginia. In the Carolinas and Georgia, the Episcopal church was the nominal establishment. From New York south to Georgia, the western wilderness filled up with Scots-Irish Presbyterians, French Huguenots and German charismatics (Moravians, Silesians, and Mennonites as well as German Reformed). These people paid no heed to religious establishment. And that is the point, as well as the point about the Civil Code in France after 1804. No one gave a thought to civil law with regard to marriage until the established churchs with their canon law authority were disestablished--there was no need for civil law on a subject regulated by canon courts.

Try to keep up, will ya? State statutory control of marriage is a recent phenomenon.

Whether we like it or not, marriage has been the government's business for the entirety of U.S. history.