Thread: How the State Seized Control of Marriage

Both the US Senate and the House of Representatives are expected to pass new same-sex marriage legislation in coming days. The legislation is expected to codify what is already de facto law in the US under the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Obgerfell v. Hodges. The legislation further solidities federal law stating that states are required to recognize same-sex marriages that are legal in other U.S. member states. The legislation also ensures that same-sex spouses will continue to be eligible for federal benefits through programs like Medicare and Social Security. The legislation does not mandate that each state government establish its own provisions for same-sex unions, however.


In the year 2021, there’s not really anything remarkable about this in the minds of most people. To most modern thinking, marriage is just yet another thing that is to be regulated and modified according to the whims of a civil government’s lawmakers and judges. Even among those who think there ought not be any federal role in marriage legislation, very few dispute that the governments of the member states themselves—or foreign national governments, for that matter—can rightfully exercise immense legislative authority over the regulation of marriage. The only disagreement is often over how government officials ought to regulate marriage, and to what ends.


“Historically, the Government Was Very Uninvolved in Marriage.”



The only dissenters to this consensus appear to be some libertarians like Ron Paul. For example, in 2012, Paul told a rally audience “I’d like to see all governments out of the marriage question. I don’t think it’s a state decision. I think it’s a religious function.” These comments followed earlier comments from Paul contending that “Biblically and historically, the government was very uninvolved in marriage.”

Paul is right in saying that marriage historically had (often) been a matter for religious authorities instead of agents of the civil governments. Yet, given the rise of the modern sovereign state, which is currently the ultimate legal authority on virtually all matters, it has become difficult to even imagine the particulars of the historical reality to which Paul refers.


Nonetheless, state regulation of marriage—and the ensuing secularization of marriage that followed—is a historical development that was part of the larger trend toward the expansion and consolidation of state power that began in the late Middle Ages. It was during this period that states gradually came to exercise monopolistic authority over all of society’s institutions including the towns, the nobility, and even the monarchies themselves. Also brought under the state’s power were the churches and state control of marriage was an important component of this. State control of marriage, that we now consider to be so normal, was simply one aspect of the state building that set the stage for our modern era of nearly untrammeled state power . . .
Full article: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2022/12/...l-of-marriage/

Now that we're out, they need someone to pay for the divorce rape industry, don't they?

I guess this puts the holy shit in holy matrimony!

I wonder if their marital pronouns will be brown eye, or rug muncher?

I don't know why so many people in the manosphere have such an issue with same sex marriage. With the exception of the tradcons most are anti marriage anyway.

Few gay people actually want to get married. If they want to put themselves through the legal and financial minefield that straight couples have to go through. Then I say they are welcome to it.

Originally Posted by stanmsl

Few gay people actually want to get married. If they want to put themselves through the legal and financial minefield that straight couples have to go through. Then I say they are welcome to it.

When it's a man and a woman in family court, they have no problem affixing blame. But what are they going to do when there's no woman to favor? Or when they have two women, how will they choose which to treat unfairly?

Originally Posted by frog

When it's a man and a woman in family court, they have no problem affixing blame. But what are they going to do when there's no woman to favor? Or when they have two women, how will they choose which to treat unfairly?

That’s the best part. Gay marriage benefits straight marriage because it’ll show the bullshit injustice for what It is. Man hating.

How will tender years bullshit doctrine work with two men?

Oh wait, men will work it out because they aren’t women.

Two munchers will probably just give the kid to the state and walk away since there’s no money to be made.