Neutering Marriage is Not Conservative

Don’t be fooled by marriage neutering advocates who say that neutering marriage is a conservative or limited-government position.

Don’t be fooled by Leftists and other Democrats who say the same thing (Duh… do you think they want to help us?) If it was a conservative or limited-government position, why do you think it was originated and touted by extremists on the Left?

Don’t be fooled by self-identified Republicans and conservatives who have been fooled by the people above.

It isn’t conservative to call a brideless or groomless pairing a marriage. It’s an entirely new concept about 15 years old, in direct conflict with thousands of years of universal human history, legal traditions, and religious practices.

Having it be official government policy that the uniting of a bride and groom is no different than a brideless or groomless pairing is not a limited government position. Rather, it imposes government-enforced social engineering on the people and will lead to further family breakdown and more dependence on the government.



Two or more people of whatever sexes and whatever sexual orientations were already free to have  ceremonies, exchange jewelry and vows, receive presents, have receptions, go on trips, live together, have sex, change their names, and ask others (family, friends, employers, businesses, etc.) to consider them married. What marriage neutering advocates have demanded is that the state or federal government force everyone else to treat a brideless or groomless couple as though they unite both sexes, as a married couple does – force everyone to treat sex segregation the same as sex integration – force everyone to treat homosexual sodomy the same as heterosexual coitus, regardless of their convictions.

The conservative or limited-government position is NOT to "get government out of marriage". That is because the government is currently involved in marriage in these ways:

1) A state-licensed marriage forms a legal/financial partnership. If the relationship ends in divorce, the government can decide how to divide assets. If the relationship ends with a death of a partner, the  marital property defaults to the survivor. If, instead, there is no legal recognition of marriage, the government would STILL usually need to get involved in dividing assets when then relationship breaks up, and in the event of a death, the estate would then go through probate, adding more government. As far as taxation, if married couples are no longer rewarded nor punished compared to unmarried people, we’ll still all have to deal with taxation. So, that doesn’t reduce government involvement in our lives.

2) A state-licensed marriage usually assigns paternity of children born during the marriage to the husband. This has been intended to protect children and to assign financial responsibility of the child to one man instead of taxpayers. How would no longer legally recognizing marriages get government out of our lives in area? I don’t see it. I only see the possibility for MORE government involvement as more paternity disputes could possibly happen.

3) A state-licensed marriage creates default next-of-kin and beneficiary status. If the government no longer legally recognizes marriages, people will still have legal next-of-kin and can still designate beneficiaries. So, how does this reduce government involvement in our lives? Again, I see more lawsuits as possibly resulting in disputes.

4) A state-licensed marriage sometimes means that one spouse can’t be compelled to testify against another spouse in court. If this went away, how that that mean smaller government?

Hmmm.

Maybe it is possible that neutering aligns with conservative principles or limiting government another way?

For example, some people appear to be attempting to make the case that neutering state licenses to include brideless or groomless couples will make the behavior of those couples and/or individuals and/or "homosexual community" more conservative. However, why are we to believe this would be so? Commitment ceremonies, including by ordained clergy, have been available to brideless and groomless couples for many years how. Are we really to believe that getting a state license will make any person identifying as homosexual, gay, lesbian, bisexual, etc. more conservative? Fornication, promiscuity, shacking up, and raising children out of wedlock have mostly lost their stigma in our broader culture, why would knowing that a state license is available change the behavior of homosexual people if it hasn’t stopped heterosexuals from descending to current depths? Will a license from the state reduce the higher-than-the-general-population rates of mental illness, substance abuse, STD infection rates, domestic violence, suicide, and nonmonogamy? I do not think there is any virtue or value in and of itself in having more people recognized as being married by the state. If people aren't good partners for each other or their behaviors are immoral or destructive, having the legal designation of "marriage" assigned to their relationship does not make anything better.

Some people try to make the case that since there are same-sex couples raising children, it would be conservative for their parents to be married. However, it would be even better if the parents had a domestic partnership rather than a "marriage", as preserving marriage and public policy keeping a distinction will benefit children in general. (It would have been conservative to NOT create a situation where a child will be raised without their father or without their mother in the home in the first place.)

Although I often make a solid case for the defense of the bride+groom requirement in marriage licensing without invoking religion, church doctrine, or Scripture, since traditional Judeo-Christian values are often linked with conservatism, we should consider that issue as well. Getting a license from the state in no way changes what the Bible teaches about sexuality - that sex is for marriage and marriage unites a bride and groom. Neutering state marriage licenses does not mitigate conservative religious concerns about homosexual behavior, any more than getting a state certificate deeming as "kosher" a cheeseburger topped with bacon-wrapped shrimp will make such a meal acceptable to an observant Orthodox Jew to eat after cooking it over an open flame he ignited on the Sabbath. God is considered a higher authority to believers than the state, so the state neutering licenses does not change God's definition of marriage.

It wouldn't be conservative for the people of a state to put a ballot measure to neuter state marriage licenses on the ballot and to pass that ballot measure, as has happened in exactly one state.

It isn't conservatism nor limited-government when judges, especially federal judges, to tell a state that had duly amended their Constitution to reaffirm the universally established bride+groom requirement that the federal Constitution requires they neuter their state licenses.

It isn't conservatism nor limited-government when the Supreme Court of the United States rules that one state's neutering of marriage has to be accepted by the federal government for taxation purposes, in violation of a federal law.

It isn't conservatism nor limited-government when a state's officials ignore an intact state constitutional amendment and actively, publicly participate in violating the law, and for them to not be held accountable for doing so.

It isn't conservatism nor limited-government when county officials ignore intact state laws and established policies that have not been ruled unconstitutional by any court with jurisdiction, nor to ignore state authorities who are acting according to the law.

It isn't conservatism nor limited-government when government executives and attorneys do not enforce nor defend laws they were sworn to uphold.

It isn't conservatism nor limited-government when the Supreme Court of the United States subverts the entire basis of a state's ballot initiative process, even after the state's highest court grudgingly accepted the authority of the voters.

It isn't conservatism nor limited-government when state officials and judges attack the freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of enterprise, freedom of religion of a baker or photographer, especially one who has shown no illegal discrimination against individuals, but has rather chosen not to participate in an event that violates their conscience and religion.

It isn't conservatism nor limited-government to give Leftists homosexuality advocates a powerful tool with which to bludgeon those who resist their fascist tendencies.

It isn't conservatism nor limited-government to invent a new "right" that infringes on the rights of others.

It isn't conservatism when news reporters and editors deliberately use deceptive language to advocate for a new "right".

It isn't conservatism to try to bully churches into abandoning their convictions and traditions that marriage unites the sexes and that sex is for marriage.

It isn't conservatism when parents and grandparents capitulate to the opinions and feelings of teenagers or adult children on matters of marriage and family that have a universal tradition, especially in the hopes of gaining their approval or at least an end to their toddler-like foot-stomping.

It isn't conservatism to devalue men and women, husband and wives, mothers and fathers, masculinity and femininity, and gender differences.

It isn't conservative to defer on matters of marriage to the very people who once said it was "just a piece of paper" or that it was "oppressive to women" but now insist it is vitally important for two women to have together.

It isn't conservative to counterfeit.

It isn't conservative to dilute the meanings of words.

It isn't conservative to defer important matters of marriage law to people who say, privately and publicly, that they'd be just peachy with the abolition of marriage entirely. Since "equality" is what is important to them over everything else, it won't be limited-government when they used the force of government to try to impose equal outcomes, including requiring others pay to mitigate for their "infertility".

Nor is neutering marriage a matter of "marriage equality" because there are still adults who consider themselves married who would be denied equal treatment of their relationships.

While individual couples can have different motivations for seeking state licenses, the advocacy for neutering marriage is about forcing everyone else to elevate and affirm homosexual behavior and to disallow distinguishing heterosexual behavior from homosexual behavior in the public square. That is not conservative and it is not in line with limited government.

So, if you're a conservative, a Republican, or a proponent of limited government who thinks your support of neutering marriage is the kind thing do to, or will buy the love of your child or friend (who doesn't seem to give a damn about anyone else's convictions), or you want your child to be able to have the big series of parties (even though they can have them anyway), or you think will gain more political clout for "our" side, you can cling to that. But don't call it a matter of conservatism or limited government.

Marriage unites the sexes, forming a microcosm of society that usually perpetuates society. It joins families and it makes family of people who are not otherwise closely related, and gives resulting children a role model, guardian, and bonding partner from each of the two sexes, legally and socially bound to each other and the children, which are usually the biological heritage of both families.