*** PING ***
Any who’d like to be added to the RR ping-list, pls FReepmail me at ‘Reaganite Republican’
TIA
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.
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.
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.
What prevents a couple from living together and calling it marriage?
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!
Quite sensible
What stops 3 men from being married?
There are many legal issues involved in marriage. The government has to be able to tell who is married and who isn’t.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
By the way, whoever wrote the article is a heretic.
not as long as there is money to be made and elections to be won
common sense and logic cannot overcome political inertia
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.
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.