People arguing for the neutering of marriage cite the high divorce rate as a reason why a brideless or groomless couple should be able to get state marriage licenses for their voluntary association, or perhaps why we, the people, don't have moral authority to set marriage licensing requirements. After all, if it is God's will that marriage last for life and we as a society aren't following God’s will in that respect*, how can we invoke God's will when it comes to insisting that marriage uniting the sexes? They argue that if we want to protect marriage, we should ban divorce, or they claim they're going to push for such a ban themselves.
If you want to circulate a petition to place an initiative on the ballot that bans divorce, go ahead. Nobody is stopping you. You can vote for it, too. Be my guest. If you donate money to back it, I won't boycott your business.
One need not be religious nor believe in God nor believe that divorce is a bad to believe that authority over licensing requirements belongs with the people instead of the courts, or that state marriage licensing should be reserved for voluntary associations consisting of a bride and a groom. But in entertaining this appeal to the Bible or religious tradition, I still don't see that immorality in one thing precludes making a moral judgment at all. (If you fell down some stairs this morning, you should still try to avoid crashing your car into a wall.) If the political authority doesn't belong with the people, it belongs with nobody, as all authority of our branches of government is assigned to them by the consent of the people. The answer is not to promote more immorality or fundamentally alter the nature of marriage. It is also disingenuous to invoke Scripture or religious tradition against those who hold such things dear with one hand and dismiss it with the other.
Yes, divorce is a bad thing. Even if it gets someone away from a sociopath - and people should get away from sociopaths - it is bad in the sense that there never should have been a marriage in the first place, and the divorce is part of the larger mistake. Marriage, ideally, should be for life. But that there is divorce has no bearing on whether or not state marriage licensing should be neutered. It is an entirely different issue. I can cut an orange in half. I can destroy it. It can be eaten away by fruit fly maggots. There can be a wax likeness of an orange fraudulently passed off as a legitimate orange. None of that makes an orange rubber ball an orange, even though it is round and orange in color. We even revoke the state-issued driver's licenses of some drivers because they have been horrible drivers, but that doesn't obligate us to issue driver's licenses to bus riders, bicyclists, pedestrians, or anyone who can apply for a state identification card, even though driver's licenses are considered more desirable.
Really, it is silly to say that because there is divorce, we should neuter marriage. It simply does not follow. A state-licensed marriage is essentially a kind of partnership. Partnerships are dissolved all of the time.
The high divorce rate can be cited as evidence for a devaluation of marriage in our culture. But how would neutering marriage help that? To me, it seems, it would be kicking marriage while it is down. Some may argue that "heterosexual couples haven't been doing such a great job with marriage, so why not let same-sex couples have a shot at it?" That may sound appealing to some at first, but it also does not make any sense, as bride-groom couples will still be able to get state licenses, and it is akin to saying "orange growers have been doing a lousy job, so let's throw rubber balls into the crate with the oranges."
Yes, the divorce rate is too high, and those who want to protect marriage should take steps to change that. There are ways of addressing that, but neutering marriage isn't one of them. That there are a lot of divorces in no way means we should forfeit our votes to judges or activists.
*From a religious standpoint, (which, we are constantly reminded, the state can't consider), any church that takes the Bible seriously should not be performing marriage ceremonies or recognizing the marriage of anyone who divorced a previous spouse without Biblical grounds. (Biblical grounds boil down to abandonment – actual geographical or sexual abandonment or other forms, such as abuse of others or self or adultery. If someone divorces you without just cause, that is abandonment.)
I do agree that divorce is detrimental to marriage. To this end, I could see it as reasonable if a state decided it was going to change its laws so as to stop issuing marriage licenses to couples in which at least one of the individuals had previously filed for and received a divorce, say, two or more times. Note - that means being the divorce initiator, not the spouse presented with the papers. I could especially see it as a reasonable restriction if the state also allowed some other form of civil licensing for such couples. Ultimately, however, no number of divorces changes the basic nature of marriage, or the state's interest in licensing it.
If you want to circulate a petition to place an initiative on the ballot that bans divorce, go ahead. Nobody is stopping you. You can vote for it, too. Be my guest. If you donate money to back it, I won't boycott your business.
One need not be religious nor believe in God nor believe that divorce is a bad to believe that authority over licensing requirements belongs with the people instead of the courts, or that state marriage licensing should be reserved for voluntary associations consisting of a bride and a groom. But in entertaining this appeal to the Bible or religious tradition, I still don't see that immorality in one thing precludes making a moral judgment at all. (If you fell down some stairs this morning, you should still try to avoid crashing your car into a wall.) If the political authority doesn't belong with the people, it belongs with nobody, as all authority of our branches of government is assigned to them by the consent of the people. The answer is not to promote more immorality or fundamentally alter the nature of marriage. It is also disingenuous to invoke Scripture or religious tradition against those who hold such things dear with one hand and dismiss it with the other.
Yes, divorce is a bad thing. Even if it gets someone away from a sociopath - and people should get away from sociopaths - it is bad in the sense that there never should have been a marriage in the first place, and the divorce is part of the larger mistake. Marriage, ideally, should be for life. But that there is divorce has no bearing on whether or not state marriage licensing should be neutered. It is an entirely different issue. I can cut an orange in half. I can destroy it. It can be eaten away by fruit fly maggots. There can be a wax likeness of an orange fraudulently passed off as a legitimate orange. None of that makes an orange rubber ball an orange, even though it is round and orange in color. We even revoke the state-issued driver's licenses of some drivers because they have been horrible drivers, but that doesn't obligate us to issue driver's licenses to bus riders, bicyclists, pedestrians, or anyone who can apply for a state identification card, even though driver's licenses are considered more desirable.
Really, it is silly to say that because there is divorce, we should neuter marriage. It simply does not follow. A state-licensed marriage is essentially a kind of partnership. Partnerships are dissolved all of the time.
The high divorce rate can be cited as evidence for a devaluation of marriage in our culture. But how would neutering marriage help that? To me, it seems, it would be kicking marriage while it is down. Some may argue that "heterosexual couples haven't been doing such a great job with marriage, so why not let same-sex couples have a shot at it?" That may sound appealing to some at first, but it also does not make any sense, as bride-groom couples will still be able to get state licenses, and it is akin to saying "orange growers have been doing a lousy job, so let's throw rubber balls into the crate with the oranges."
Yes, the divorce rate is too high, and those who want to protect marriage should take steps to change that. There are ways of addressing that, but neutering marriage isn't one of them. That there are a lot of divorces in no way means we should forfeit our votes to judges or activists.
*From a religious standpoint, (which, we are constantly reminded, the state can't consider), any church that takes the Bible seriously should not be performing marriage ceremonies or recognizing the marriage of anyone who divorced a previous spouse without Biblical grounds. (Biblical grounds boil down to abandonment – actual geographical or sexual abandonment or other forms, such as abuse of others or self or adultery. If someone divorces you without just cause, that is abandonment.)
I do agree that divorce is detrimental to marriage. To this end, I could see it as reasonable if a state decided it was going to change its laws so as to stop issuing marriage licenses to couples in which at least one of the individuals had previously filed for and received a divorce, say, two or more times. Note - that means being the divorce initiator, not the spouse presented with the papers. I could especially see it as a reasonable restriction if the state also allowed some other form of civil licensing for such couples. Ultimately, however, no number of divorces changes the basic nature of marriage, or the state's interest in licensing it.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I always welcome comments. Be aware that anything you write may be thoroughly analyzed and used in subsequent blog entries.