Posted on 03/19/2013 3:23:54 AM PDT by Reaganite Republican
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’!
Thanks, I’ll pray for you frogjerk
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.
A lot of the problems that government has encountered created ...
There. Fixed it.
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?
I agree with this, and with the way attitudes are going these days about gay marriage, this is probably the best we can do.
Giving up on Virtue is not an option.
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.
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.
St. Joseph, foster father of our Lord, protector of the Virgin Mary, Head of the Holy Family, pray for us.
Jettosning Virtue to win political elections is not the solution either.
Although there were religious traditions with respect to marriage, the church didn't even require a religious ceremony officiated by clergy until 1563 in the Catholic church, 1753 in the Anglican church and 1545 in the Protestant church.
Even though religion has co-opted marriage in the past millennium, let the churches own and define "marriage", and redefine the relationship required for various financial and legal protections using another term. "Civil unions" is currently in fashion, but maybe there's a better one.
As long as a church's definition of marriage meets the legal requirements (such as the minimum age to prevent exploitation of children), it would automatically be a civil union. However, a civil union wouldn't be a marriage. The important point is that both relationships would be equal under the law.
As I mentioned earlier, a judge performed the ceremony for my wife and I. If you don't want to call it "marriage", I don't care. But, anyone who thinks their relationship is better than ours is a fool.
There is nothing that can be found that would suggest the Founders would support your proposal
So you want to live in a society where four men and two women are married. That will be acceptable to be promoted in the culture that your children will grow up in and be an option for them.
The political challenge is not what we stand for and believe in. The challenge is to express our ideas to win people over.
You being a regular blogger should know that. Maybe you should think about it or quit now, since you are quite useless.
Anything that is in the government sphere will eventually become grist for the greivance mongering mill. This includes marriage.
I have been saying government needs to get out of the marriage business for the last twenty years. Before I got married, I talked to my wife-to-be, her father, our Priest and her family. And yet, in the ceremony, it turns out the power was granted by the almighty State of New York. Who invited them to the wedding?
It should be absolutely none of the state’s business who is sleeping with whom. But if the state defines marriage, it is very much their business. But if the state were only defining domestic partnerships, they have no interest in sleeping arrangements.
Furthermore, there is no way we can prevent the government from adopting definitions that will pander to any aggrieved group that comes along. These things should be defined by the cultural institutions and churches.
If you have children, you should have a will that specifies who gets custody of the children in the event that both parents are dead. This can be written on a napkin, signed, dated and witnessed by the bartender. You can do it at the reception, and put it in the album along with the other souveniers!
There really is no excuse to not have a will.
Our state has proven, over and over again, that it is incapable of promoting marriage. It can only harm the institution. So we should get marriage as far away from the government as possible.
I don't talk about this much, but here goes, a long story...
I am at a wedding late 90's rehearsal diner. At our table, one of the big players in the late 90's legalize Gay Marriage Movement from Hawaii, and once they started talking about this, they were on a proselytizing screed. As the story told by said person, it was about his relationship with his ill lover, and couldn't get to the hospital, assets, and even Medicare and SSI. I remember kicking my better half under the table and whispering in her ear and saying he doesn't need Marriage, he needs a good Financial Planner. In all seriousness, I later learned about ILIT's and the subset of Financial Planning for Gays and how they elegantly work within the tax code. Tangent to this, we are more forgiving about hospital visits etc, so many of these issues have been dealt with for all family and friends with compassion.
I hate to be cynical, but when the Gov't bennies were mentioned by said individual it became clear to me as much as this maybe about what they define as love or relationships, you can't but help ask is this all about the Benjamin s via Medicare and SSI.....
For years silently I have been saying a Flat Tax with no Marriage bennies and no Death Tax would probably be real attractive to the Gay Community and get Gov't the hell out of all our lives. This article hints to that...
If I was the Czar of tax codes?
Flat Tax, with one deduction, Tax Free Purchase of Health Care and if you don't take advantage of it phooey on you and throw out Obamacare in the process....
Comedy routines used to make fun of Steve Forbes and the Flat Tax being the magic elixir for everything...
It would be almost comical if it did stop the Gay Marriage Movement in it's tracks...
Back during the administration of President George W. Bush, I always said that you should not grant any power to Dubya that you would not be happy to see wielded by Hillary.
I had no idea there was an even worse possibility out there...
I agree. it should be called a contractual partnership. Then people can marry their dogs if they want
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.