Marriage Court Case and Questions.

[Ruiz]

Interesting article on marriage and Prop 8 in California.

There were some questions the judge (Walker) asked one of the lawyers which I think are interesting questions. So, how would you answer the following questions?


Walker: Why does the state regulate marriage, he asked. Do people get married to benefit the community? Why doesn’t the state just consider it a private contract?

Walker: “Why is it that marriage has such a large public role? What is the purpose?”


Walker: “But the state doesn’t withhold marriage from people who cannot have children.”

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I could not answer the judge's questions without the Bible and the ground for the definition of marriage and what is moral or immoral, what is right or wrong, which this judge probably would not accept.

I might make an additional appeal to natural law, how that unions between same sexes are not, by nature, productive and edifying to society.

If arguments are made that do not base their foundation in the eternal and immutable Law of God and natural law, then this court will do what is right in its own eyes.

The legalization of homosexuality in the nation is a sign that the nation has departed from the true God. I do not see Judge Walker having the fear of God or making his judgment based on the Law of God.

 

[Ruiz]

Interesting article on marriage and Prop 8 in California.

There were some questions the judge (Walker) asked one of the lawyers which I think are interesting questions. So, how would you answer the following questions?


Walker: Why does the state regulate marriage, he asked. Do people get married to benefit the community? Why doesn’t the state just consider it a private contract?

Walker: “Why is it that marriage has such a large public role? What is the purpose?”


Walker: “But the state doesn’t withhold marriage from people who cannot have children.”

Well, I will answer my own questions. I agree with you a little Reformed in that you cannot answer this outside of a presuppositional standpoint. I often tell others that they have no justification for marriage, only religions does.

Walker: Why does the state regulate marriage, he asked. Do people get married to benefit the community? Why doesn’t the state just consider it a private contract?

This is where I may agree. While I know that Puritans said that marriage is a state issue and thus not religious (the ceremony, not the definition), I actually take the opposite stand in saying that marriage is a religious institution and not the state. I actually think the state should get out of the marriage business. It won't, so I support defining marriage on the state level. However, until the 1920's there were few laws regulating marriage and in many places you could get married without the government involvement.

Walker: “Why is it that marriage has such a large public role? What is the purpose?”

The purpose is religious with religious implications. It has such a large public role because it is God's design for the family. My reverse question is why would someone who rejects Biblical ideals want marriage?

“But the state doesn’t withhold marriage from people who cannot have children.”

No, but the purpose of marriage is not to have babies. The purpose of marriage is to come into a covenant before God . While we do not deny people who are not Christians the right to marriage, we also recognize that marriage is intrinsically religious. To separate the religious definition from marriage is to separate what marriage is, a God ordained and defined institution.