Tex. bill would bar local officials from issuing same-sex-marriage licenses

[naturalmwa]

Right but would they have signed if they knew we were going to end up with the mess we have or would they have put an end to it?

I'm not convinced there is any real harm done by the current system and I can think of a lot of good it probably does to have the government make special allowances in law for family units.

I could envision all sorts a horrors under your system where spouses or children are treated unfairly without those family rights.

 

[HRiscool]

I wonder how many of our grand parents or great grand parents were able to be married without a piece of paper telling them it was ok.

I assume marriages have been publicly recorded for quite some time. But to your point, "legal" and/or "religious" marriage is relatively new. I think anthropologists would tell us that "economic" marriage has been around much, much longer. I recall a show that said historically a male would impregnate a female and then stay around for 5 years before moving on and impregnating another female. The reason for this was purely selfish economics. The male would protect/provide for mother and child until the child was past the most perilous point of development. Once the child was 4 or 5 years old the male felt his DNA had successfully passed on and started looking for another female to carry his DNA into the future. Obviously these cave men were being driven by evolutionary instinct rather than modern science.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Well that is a big problem and that is my point - how did the government get to a thousand laws just on marital status without people realizing this was bad. One law seems to be like a rabbit that breeds other laws and then it leads to this.

Because most people don't think it was bad? This is a bit simplified, but there wasn't a concerned push for government to get out of marriage untilsome of those allowed that right disagreed with those who now get it.

Marriage wasn't evil until we included gays. Precisely the debate I wanted to have with Phantom, but he refused.

What was good about marriage before is still good now.

Let me use one easy example: a mother is a mother because she actually pushed out the baby, but who is the legal father (or whatever)? By most State laws it is the mothers married partner, including in Iowa. Seems a pretty valid legal presumption. It works in most cases. Can you get around it? Sure, but marriage laws simplify it, and imo for good reason.

 

[TexMichFan]

Because most people don't think it was bad? This is a bit simplified, but there wasn't a concerned push for government to get out of marriage untilsome of those allowed that right disagreed with those who now get it.

Marriage wasn't evil until we included gays. Precisely the debate I wanted to have with Phantom, but he refused.

What was good about marriage before is still good now.

Let me use one easy example: a mother is a mother because she actually pushed out the baby, but who is the legal father (or whatever)? By most State laws it is the mothers married partner, including in Iowa. Seems a pretty valid legal presumption. It works in most cases. Can you get around it? Sure, but marriage laws simplify it, and imo for good reason.

However the arguments play out marriage is not evil and what is good about marriage I don't credit my government for.

 

[theIowaHawk]

However the arguments play out marriage is not evil and what is good about marriage I don't credit my government for.

You've completely misconstrued my post. Marriage is not good because of government, I'm saying there were, and still are good reasons for the government to sanction and encourage it.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Right but would they have signed if they knew we were going to end up with the mess we have or would they have put an end to it?

What "mess"? Gays being married?

Marriage is pretty simple.

 

[TexMichFan]

You've completely misconstrued my post. Marriage is not good because of government, I'm saying there were, and still are good reasons for the government to sanction and encourage it.

I understood your post I just disagree that government needs to sanction or encourage it for marriage to work.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I understood your post I just disagree that government needs to sanction or encourage it for marriage to work.

You are still misunderstanding. Marriage does not need government to work.

There are good reasons for the government to legally sanction and encourage marriage.