Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

I Don't See One Single Reason Government Needs to Be in the Marriage Business...
Reaganite Republican ^ | 19 March 2013 | Reaganite Republican

Posted on 03/19/2013 3:23:54 AM PDT by Reaganite Republican

Privatization’s the only way to handle the issue 
and get this off the GOP’s back- we don’t need it.

My conservative/libertarian friends, imho it is time for government on both the federal and state levels to remove marriage from the tax-code and walk away from the term completely- two adults of any sort can register a household as legal entity for the purpose of benefits, hospital visitations, agreed inheritance contracts, etc, but let us be married by the church of our own choosing. Marriage was created as a religious ceremony/bond anyway- maybe that's where it belongs.

Being a church-going Catholic, I’m confident Rome will be defining it the same way I see ‘marriage’... hope you feel the same about yours.


Why not remove this issue from the political arena once-and-for-all while paring the statists' influence? And everybody gets what they want... libs can go marry their vacuum cleaner for all I care.

I myself used to know these kinda crazy twin sisters who lived their entire lives together, worked together, etc- there are probably many other non-traditional households, such as best friends who have chosen to live together over the long term in a non-sexual context- for all practices and purposes a Common Law marriage, which is still legal in 11 US states 
(between a man and a woman, anyway).

Shouldn't people like that -or anybody- be able to create a formal entity providing rights a spouse would enjoy, purely for legal purposes: you can't patrol the country's bedrooms, so why even try? But when government is no longer involved, we in the political sphere won't be talking about it anymore, either- and that's a good thing.

There's even a term for it: Marriage Privatization. Sounds great to me, thus the Left would be denied the club they've been pounding us over the head with- there'll never be a more practical, politically beneficial (for the GOP), and fiscally prudent way to do it.  

The Left only benefits from social issues when Big Government has it's tentacles in there, and they can frame conservatives as the enemy and grab a block of voters-  so why not pull the rug out from under 'em?

I doubt greatly that groups like GOProud would have a problem with such a policy, either- although with 'gay' no longer relevant politically, they don't really have a reason to organize as a separate faction of fiscal conservatives, do they? Don't ask/don't tell seems more sensible to me when their sexual practices are no longer something we need to be discussing.

Just one more area where we need to get government out of our lives, and where the statists' influence can be pared as well:
this issue needs to go-away, and handling it in this way serves to further the cause of Liberty in this country by ending 'gay marriage' as a political issue... just as school vouchers could largely remove government from the education business while getting American kids away from what have evolved into taxpayer-funded NEA indoctrination centers, cranking out
'lil Obots by the score... 




TOPICS: Government; Politics; Religion; Society
KEYWORDS: church; fifthcolumn; gay; government; historyofmarriage; homosesualagenda; homosexualagenda; libertarians; marriage; socialliberals
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-130 next last

1 posted on 03/19/2013 3:23:54 AM PDT by Reaganite Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: AdvisorB; ken5050; sten; paythefiddler; gattaca; bayliving; SeminoleCounty; chesley; Vendome; ...

*** PING ***

Any who’d like to be added to the RR ping-list, pls FReepmail me at ‘Reaganite Republican’

TIA


2 posted on 03/19/2013 3:24:59 AM PDT by Reaganite Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican

I’d say government has a role in guiding social standards. Stable families benefit society, and government ought to recognize and encourage such building blocks. If we pass up on the concept of standards for social behavior, then its anything goes and we lose all hope of a society with moral underpinnings.


3 posted on 03/19/2013 3:33:23 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (The ballot box is a sham. Nothing will change until after the war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican
Support of the civil society, both at the state and federal level is a good thing, for republics cannot long endure without it. Marriage between man and woman is the civil society's foundation.

That said, the states should be perfectly free to enact faggot marriage if they wish, through their Legislative, not judicial process.

As for the national government, there is no 14th Amendment or natural right to marry a person of the same sex, and no enumerated power to order the states to implement it. I differentiate between no national law regarding the institution of marriage and a tax code that promotes traditional families. Tax deductions for kids and no benefits for homo couples working for the national government is not a violation of any right or equal protection.

4 posted on 03/19/2013 3:40:06 AM PDT by Jacquerie ("How few were left who had seen the republic!" - Tacitus, The Annals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican

Great article.

A lot of the problems that government has encountered arise from the fact that government, specifically big government advocates in the Democratic Party, have actively tried to shrivel up the role of the church in our lives and replace it with government.

Providing for the poor used to be an act of Christian charity ... and now it’s being done by the IRS, and the government agencies it supports ... with predictable results.

Education used to be done by the church. All the colleges and universities founded before 1850 were founded by the various churches, with few exceptions. At first, public education (as created by the Northwest Ordinance) openly acknowledged the importance of religion as the source of morality ... but now government has pretty much taken over education ... with predictable results.

Marriage, as you’ve noted, started out as a dedication by a man and a woman to each other and to the church, and it was an exclusively religious institution ... then government started taking it over ... with predictable results.


5 posted on 03/19/2013 3:41:31 AM PDT by Bryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican

I agree with this. Government shouldn’t be marrying anyone. Just let churches do it.

So many problems started by government getting involved in things it has no business in. By politicians gaining favor by bestowing government ‘legitimacy’ on one group over another.

After gay marriage is going to come polygamy. It’s going to be a constant irritant.


6 posted on 03/19/2013 3:42:12 AM PDT by tje
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican

What prevents a couple from living together and calling it marriage?


7 posted on 03/19/2013 3:43:11 AM PDT by count-your-change (you don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Our government has not done what is best for a stable country for a long time. Based on that I am all for taking marriage out of the equation of politics.


8 posted on 03/19/2013 3:47:28 AM PDT by she geek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

I agree with you in full... but I do not feel it gay marriage can be banned on the federal level, and this country is in SUCH desperate straights militarily and fiscally, we must shed ourselves of ANY politically-damaging issues that prevent true conservatives from being elected and righting the ship.

I don’t think we’re going to be able to save this country unless we strip the GOP down to primarily fiscal issues, we won’t get elected battling in the social issues swamp with the left, so it won’t win us the presidency in 2016 either. It should be removed from the tax code too, as I’m a flat-tax guy... so government has no need to be involved anymore.


9 posted on 03/19/2013 3:48:37 AM PDT by Reaganite Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
I’d say government has a role in guiding social standards.

Maybe, but our government can no longer be trusted to do that. We have a government that's going to legitimize homosexual marriage. They've already legitimized baby killing. Gay marriage is happening and will continue to happen on a larger scale. Get them the hell out of the marriage business and let us define marriage ourselves.

10 posted on 03/19/2013 3:49:21 AM PDT by old and tired
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

That’s a Common Law bond, legal in 11 states


11 posted on 03/19/2013 3:49:41 AM PDT by Reaganite Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
What prevents a couple from living together and calling it marriage?

Nothing. What prevents it now?

12 posted on 03/19/2013 3:52:23 AM PDT by old and tired
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican
The main problem is child custody, but there are many other ramifications as well, besides the fact that sodomy has nothing to do with marriage! Sheesh. We've all gone mad.

What authority can adjudicate child custody issues? The church? Which one? The wive's or the husband's?

Suppose you and your wife die. Would you want your kids to be adopted by two homos? Are you kidding? But you don't care enough about your fellow man to turn their kids over to a couple of sodomites?

The list goes on and on. God help us!

13 posted on 03/19/2013 3:57:48 AM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: old and tired
Seems to me that if two men live together, they can just say to themselves "We're married" and the government has nothing to do with it. If three people live together and say "we're married" then there is nothing I can do about it.

But the government can declare that a man and woman can form a special union and this can be encouraged and recognized as valid and important.

I see no value in giving up and just saying "Whatever you like" to such a crucial institution. I'm a social conservative and proud of it. Government recognition of traditional marriage is a good thing.

14 posted on 03/19/2013 3:58:35 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (The ballot box is a sham. Nothing will change until after the war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican
The State has a vested interest in promoting marriage between a man and a woman. It is the only low cost (to the State) and efficient way of increasing Citizens/taxpayers. Just like the State may want to encourage home ownership or fuel efficiency by offering tax breaks for mortgage interest or hybrid car purchases, it is wise for a State to give a benefit for marriage. A married couple can cheaply create taxpayers, have stability to support them, and not require significant State funding. In exchange, more future workers are created (not imported) and the tax base increases to help pay for the defense and other needs of the State. In our Sate, it's even more important for the sustainability of Social Security. Which is why debasing State endorsed marriage between a man and woman is sort of like killing the modern tansfer payment based retirement system.
15 posted on 03/19/2013 4:05:29 AM PDT by Nicojones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy; All

“I’d say government has a role in guiding social standards. Stable families benefit society, and government ought to recognize and encourage such building blocks. If we pass up on the concept of standards for social behavior, then its anything goes and we lose all hope of a society with moral underpinnings.”

Since all governments, in the end, are derived from the consent and will of the people, government is more or less going to govern with moral dictates as mandated by the people. If the people are sinful and corrupt, then the government is going to sinful and corrupt. If the people should repent and become as a whole, much more virtuous then its government, then over time so will their government(kicking and screaming though it may).

Thusly, unless the moral drift in our nation is corrected we are doomed as a nation. The only hope of the righteous folk left, after such a national shattering of our nation would be to attempt to dwell in those regions where people of like mind would join together to rebuild and as they rebuild, correct those flaws in those legislations and governing apparatus that led to our downfall.


16 posted on 03/19/2013 4:08:11 AM PDT by mdmathis6 (Rest assured, Mankind is loved....both completely and severely!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas
What authority can adjudicate child custody issues?

What authority adjudicates them now? 40 something percent of births are out of wedlock.

When my children were minors, we had family designated in our wills to take custody. And I certainly hope you do as well. Back then, we weren't worried about the government giving our children to homosexuals but we still didn't trust the government to make the decision of who should be raising our children in the event of our deaths. No one should. But when a couple dies in testate, generally a family member steps forward. Already an in testate couple risks having their children raised by homosexual couples within their own family.

Our government has legitimized baby killing. They can be trusted on nothing. They should not be allowed to define marriage as there can be no doubt that they will muck it up in the end.

17 posted on 03/19/2013 4:11:21 AM PDT by old and tired
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
But the government can declare that a man and woman can form a special union and this can be encouraged and recognized as valid and important.

By whom? I personally don't recognize a couple as married unless they were married by a priest, minister, or rabbi. Without God blessing the union, in my opinion, it's nothing.

18 posted on 03/19/2013 4:17:22 AM PDT by old and tired
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican

Quite sensible


19 posted on 03/19/2013 4:22:09 AM PDT by babble-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: old and tired
By whom? I personally don't recognize a couple as married unless they were married by a priest, minister, or rabbi. Without God blessing the union, in my opinion, it's nothing.

My wife and I were married by a judge.

I'll go let her know that "old and tired" thinks it's nothing.

20 posted on 03/19/2013 4:24:14 AM PDT by justlurking (tagline removed, as demanded by Admin Moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

I guess I missed that enumerated power in the constitution...can you point that out to me?


21 posted on 03/19/2013 4:24:37 AM PDT by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: old and tired
I recognize that you have a point, but I don't think you are considering the other side at all. We have an increasingly atheistic society. I work with someone who just found out that Easter is a holiday that has something -- not sure what -- to do with Christianity. There is ignorance and opposition to all religion. This is what we have become.

Sure, we can say that marriage is a church matter and not a government matter, but that really becomes the equivalent of saying "There isn't going to be much marriage in our future, because so many people have given up on religion". And so you just have people milling about having babies with various people.

We have a problem, and I'm not sure that giving up a legal (government) approach makes sense.

22 posted on 03/19/2013 4:24:52 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (The ballot box is a sham. Nothing will change until after the war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: mdmathis6

I agree with the marriage arguement that a stable relationship benefits the state, however these arguements don’t include the children of this stable relationship, which is why marriage entered the tax code in the first place.

Children in a stable father-mother household grow up to provide tax revenue back to the state, so it is an “investment” by the state to give tax breaks to encourage marriage and family. That is why communists and Socialist-Democrats want to break that bond and structure to put government as the father figure in single-mother homes. Majority of convicts in prison come from single-family homes.


23 posted on 03/19/2013 4:26:25 AM PDT by broken_arrow1 (I regret that I have but one life to give for my country - Nathan Hale "Patriot")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican

What stops 3 men from being married?


24 posted on 03/19/2013 4:28:52 AM PDT by Berlin_Freeper (Can there be nothing Great and Good in this world?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican

There are many legal issues involved in marriage. The government has to be able to tell who is married and who isn’t.


25 posted on 03/19/2013 4:31:10 AM PDT by freedomfiter2 (Brutal acts of commission and yawning acts of omission both strengthen the hand of the devil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican

There is no support in the Bible for church involvement in marriage. From the beginning it was always between the couple and God with community and family sanctions and support.


26 posted on 03/19/2013 4:33:57 AM PDT by freedomfiter2 (Brutal acts of commission and yawning acts of omission both strengthen the hand of the devil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: broken_arrow1

Ding, Ding, Ding! Give mdmathis6 a prize for nailing this issue. Aside from a religious/moral argument, there is an overwhelming secular basis for a State to support heterosexul marriage.


27 posted on 03/19/2013 4:36:23 AM PDT by Nicojones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Nicojones

Woops, mean’t broken arrow responding to mdmathis6


28 posted on 03/19/2013 4:38:05 AM PDT by Nicojones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican

I’m totally against gay partners adopting children. The government decides who can adopt. If you are deemed too old, they won’t let you adopt, but two gays are okay in many states.


29 posted on 03/19/2013 4:39:23 AM PDT by FR_addict
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bryan

Amen

I really don’t think I can keep two people from living together -or doing whatever they’re into- SO if they want to pay their taxes and visit the other one in hospital, I have no reason to care.

I don’t have to respect what they’re doing or call it ‘marriage’ if I don’t want to... that’s all I ask


30 posted on 03/19/2013 4:39:30 AM PDT by Reaganite Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: old and tired

Agreed in full


31 posted on 03/19/2013 4:40:13 AM PDT by Reaganite Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas

I am adopted from a Catholic home, so privatization of adoption services is A OK with me


32 posted on 03/19/2013 4:41:07 AM PDT by Reaganite Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: babble-on

Thanks, and driven by a sense of urgency to gain power as rapidly as possible in 2014 and 2016

You have to choose your fights they say


33 posted on 03/19/2013 4:42:26 AM PDT by Reaganite Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican

The article is correct on a very simple basis- the government obviously cannot be trusted to be in charge of marriage because it can then be taken over by those who are out to destroy it.

Nobody should ever fool themselves into thinking that you will always control the levers of power. Hence you should be damned careful with what those levers can do.

The Left has worked for 50+ years to destroy the institution of marriage, and will continue to do so as long as it remains in the public sphere.


34 posted on 03/19/2013 4:44:34 AM PDT by drbuzzard (All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican

My law professor described this marriage ceremony from the early middle ages.

“Remember, this was a time where almost nobody could read or write. So, to this ceremony they invited all the children in the town and had a big feast. They held the marriage on the groom’s land. Then the priest, or mayor, whomever they had who was the most important man they could get, would reach down and take a piece of dirt from the groom’s land and smear it on the bride’s face. Then, and this is the important part, they beat the hell out of all the children. This was to mark the event in the children’s memory. Those children would forever carry the feast and the marriage in their minds so that during the lives of the groom’s children there would be no doubt as to the children’s inheritance rights.”

The point was this is where inheritance law came from. But the idea was, the marriage was conducted by the most important individual the groom could find. As the church has faded from life the government has become the most important thing in our lives. We need to reverse this and I agree with the author. Get government and tax laws and insurance laws out of marriage.

If the spouse is to be covered by insurance, then that should be between the insured and his insurance company.


35 posted on 03/19/2013 4:44:35 AM PDT by Gen.Blather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican

Its been my opinion for a long time.

Why do you need a license if the action is considered illegal without a license?

There was a time when cohabitating was illegal, it no longer is. So why would you get a government license?

You cannot prevent people from stating that they are married or that they are a dog for that matter.

There are few benefits to getting a government license, in fact, there are many penalities. It would be better to take the gigantic tax savings and pay a small amount for a power of attorney.

Get married in the church and tell the government to go fly a kite.


36 posted on 03/19/2013 4:49:14 AM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tje

“After gay marriage is going to come polygamy. It’s going to be a constant irritant.”

BINGO!

We need to get rid of these issue politically, it will NEVER end, and it will NEVER help us... just like we should probably quit doing TV debates unless they stop it with the ‘progressive’ moderators...


37 posted on 03/19/2013 4:50:03 AM PDT by Reaganite Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican
Giving up is cowardly. Defend what is Holy and Good. Government should support what is good especially if it is in society's best interest.

By the way, whoever wrote the article is a heretic.

38 posted on 03/19/2013 4:50:58 AM PDT by frogjerk (Obama: Government by Freakout)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican

not as long as there is money to be made and elections to be won

common sense and logic cannot overcome political inertia


39 posted on 03/19/2013 4:56:59 AM PDT by fnord (My life is like the movie Willard, except with hummingbirds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Berlin_Freeper

It is up to churches, mine of course would never consider such a thing.

What I am for is making the term ‘marriage’ irrelevant to government, BF- take it out of the tax code and such.

I am sick of gay issues and they never are going to help our party, going along with the left doesn’t’ help and fighting it doesn’t really help.

The government will only recognize a legal household, and only for the simplest of things. Government also needs to be out of the adoption business and all such things, I was adopted from a Catholic childrens’ home, the kind that would never have used me in a cruel social experiment with some gay couple... I can’t trust gov’t to do the right thing like that , NO way

With that out of gov’ts hands, they don’t need to care who calls themselves married anymore, it will have no legal significance whatsoever.


40 posted on 03/19/2013 4:57:29 AM PDT by Reaganite Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: broken_arrow1

You missed my point. Our government is broken and we are passed the tipping point. Even if the righteous of our nation banded together now and put up a spirited fight the best we get out of it is a nation split into 3 or 4 nations with someone holding onto nukes somewhere.

There are really hard times coming and it will happen suddenly like a thief entering a household unawares!

You are right about how the government “should view marriage” vs how the Libs think that government should be everyone’s “father” and disrupt traditional family norms. What the Libs don’t get is that they’ll be unable control the monster they will let loose, though they think they can.

I could see a repeated scenario occurring during the collapse where inner city minority types, their EBT systems not working, start to raid the white liberal neighbor hoods. An uberliberal type might be seen pleading...”But I believe in equality and I love all people groups, I voted for Obama even,,,to which the reply will be..”In the name of the people’s equality, my homies and me be sharin’ yo’ fine house and yo’ fine spouse be my ho’!


41 posted on 03/19/2013 4:58:43 AM PDT by mdmathis6 (Rest assured, Mankind is loved....both completely and severely!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk

Thanks, I’ll pray for you frogjerk


42 posted on 03/19/2013 4:59:12 AM PDT by Reaganite Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican

Marriage is a private matter. Government was happy to get into the marriage business because when we gave tax exemptions based on marital status, or when we taxed a person’s estate upon their death, or when the State stepped in to direct the disposition of an estate, or when we used the State to enforce marital fidelity, we had to define who was “married” and who was not.

And with all things Statist, the secular State’s definition of marriage came to have more weight in society than God’s definition.

God defines marriage as being between men and women. While many men who God called righteous in the Bible were practicing polygamy, Jesus said is quoted in Matthew chapter 19 that from the beginning of humanity, it was God’s intent that marriage would only be one man and one woman.

God defines sexual relations between people of the same sex as sin, that is immoral. In Revelation 22:15, a book dictated to John by Jesus, God tells us that anyone who practices sexual immorality will not be granted eternal life.

But these are ecclesiastical considerations that are outside of secular government, that is unless we want government to police sexual behavior between consenting adults based on the standards of the Bible, that is if we can agree what those are. Do we want Congress to have that debate?

Maybe it is time to get government out of the marriage business and to return it to the private sphere. The problem for me today is that people who want to call themselves “married” against God’s law (as I read it) are willing to use the State to force me to recognize that marriage, which I cannot do. The want to have the State’s public education system indoctrinate my children that homosexual marriage is “normal”. They want to force me to subsidize the homosexual marriage in the tax code just like the godly marriage is subsidized.

If the State must force me to acknowledge its power to declare to men to be married, then I must support efforts to remove that power from the State. If people demand a separation of church and State because they do not want displays of the Ten Commandments in public venues, then let us also have separation of marriage and State as well.


43 posted on 03/19/2013 5:03:43 AM PDT by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican
Wait a minute ... hold on ...

A lot of the problems that government has encountered created ...

There. Fixed it.

44 posted on 03/19/2013 5:04:38 AM PDT by Bryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican

As I will for you. You say you are a Church going Catholic but you don’t believe the basic tenents of the faith. Who’s side are you on?


45 posted on 03/19/2013 5:04:39 AM PDT by frogjerk (Obama: Government by Freakout)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican

I agree with this, and with the way attitudes are going these days about gay marriage, this is probably the best we can do.


46 posted on 03/19/2013 5:05:38 AM PDT by Paradox (Unexpected things coming for the next few years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican

Giving up on Virtue is not an option.


47 posted on 03/19/2013 5:06:18 AM PDT by frogjerk (Obama: Government by Freakout)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Berlin_Freeper
What stops 3 men from being married?

Precisely the correct question, which is why it is never asked. The answer would be that "Well, marriage is defined to be between two people". And the obvious response is "Well, marriage is today (and has been for millennia across all cultures) defined to be between a man and a woman and you've just told me that that definition can be changed. If the definition of marriage is re-definable for whatever reason then there's no reason why it can't continue to be redefined into anything we choose. Why do you think it will stop here?"

If marriage is just a branch of contract law then there's no reason why it can't be whatever arrangement the parties wish it to be. Certainly polygamy has far stronger historical claims to legitimacy than does "gay marriage". The same goes for "marriage" between siblings. And just consider the inheritance tax advantages of being able to "marry" one's elderly parents, be they widowed or not.

The nuclear family consisting of one man and one woman and their children is the bedrock of any society, which is why the state does have a compelling interest in protecting marriage. It is rooted in human biology as well sacred tradition across all times and cultures. Marriage exists to provide a stable family structure essential to the optimum raising of the next generation of citizens. It's not about the adults. Only a completely narcissistic culture would forget this, which is why this "debate" even exists.

48 posted on 03/19/2013 5:06:34 AM PDT by AustinBill (consequence is what makes our choices real)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
I’d say government has a role in guiding social standards. Stable families benefit society, and government ought to recognize and encourage such building blocks. If we pass up on the concept of standards for social behavior, then its anything goes and we lose all hope of a society with moral underpinnings.

When government was a force for good, you were right and government promotion of real marriage and other guiding social standards was a positive force that helped to make America strong. Now that government is on the other side in the battle between good and evil, we are better off paring government back to the minimum role we can attain. Sadly, this now includes severing the government's role in marriage, a role that no longer contributes to stable families.

49 posted on 03/19/2013 5:08:17 AM PDT by Pollster1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican

St. Joseph, foster father of our Lord, protector of the Virgin Mary, Head of the Holy Family, pray for us.


50 posted on 03/19/2013 5:10:39 AM PDT by frogjerk (Obama: Government by Freakout)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-130 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson