Posted on 11/18/2003 3:02:45 PM PST by PhiKapMom
Statement by the President On Marriage
November 18, 2003
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. Today's decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court violates this important principle. I will work with congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage.
Actually, the whole issue is based on the decades long plan of homosexuals and their supporters to destroy the fabric of civilization so that they can feel comfortable in a sexual mayhem. I'm starting to think that the socialists/marxists are on the same page, as a morally destroyed society soon becomes totalitarian, since no one can control themselves any more, the government must step in.
John / Billybob
Bush needs to hand Dumbocrats a gift-wrapped package of dynamite wedge issues and Dummycrats anti-religionism -- showcased by big buck anti-Bush campaign donors George Soros and Norman Lear (the latter runs the religio-phobic People for The American Way) - is a good place to start ...Excellent points !
Bush has played the 'RATS quite well for almost three years now. I look forward to his next FIVE in the White House ...
Entrapment by Bush:
He plays Democrats for fools,
and they always rise to his bait
The Rewards of Boldness
Bush and the art of Rope-a-Dope
"Somehow, Bush managed, once again, to do exactly what his critics wanted him to and defeat them entirely in the process."...This tactic has come to be known, by critics and admirers alike, as the "rope-a-dope" strategy...
Mark Steyn: No flies on Bush
Everything in life isn't always fair, just, equal or what seems right to someone. In fact, what seems right, fair and so on to one person or group of people, will usually seem the opposite to another person or group. That's just the way it is - some women are more beautiful, some men more handsome. Suppose your two "aunts" were not lesbians (as I assume you meant) but just very good friends who lived together platonically? Should there be a special law for them? Maybe the real culprit in this case is crapola probate laws, and estate tax laws.
Pastors and priests are witnesses, not notaries, to the marriage covenant that is executed between the husband and wife and God. That's why the most a pastor does is "pronounce" the two husband and wife. He doesn't make them so. They do, and what they start in the ceremony they must subsequently consummate in order to complete. So while this is such thing as a religious wedding ceremony that the government recognizes, the pastor doesn't marry anyone.
The institution of marriage is the model we use to raise children.
Parents raise children, not "we" the village.
If government is removed from marriage, then government must be removed from all issues of all forms of property since marriage follows inheritances and property interests.
The state should record and recognise these interests (in order to punish criminal actions such as theft), but I agree that it should not meddle with and constrain them to the extent it does.
Bingo. Its like the old saying: If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a women. Much like a female sibling is a sister, not a brother - its a definition, and not subject to change.
If they need a piece of paper to keep their promised commitment to each other, is it worth the fight? 99.9% of gay couples in committed relationships don't last. Its the gay life style.
BTW, is Taxachussetts an alimony state? see how quickly gays don't get married when they start experiencing alimony payments. The tough part will be the judges job of selecting which one wore the pants in the relationship.
Close. The institution of marriage is called "sacred" because it was instituted by God. The household was the first government, predating both the church and the state. The latter two were created by God in addition to marriage after the fall of man into sin. Each of these governments has its own areas of responsibility and its own limits ordained by God.
The present dispute over homosexual marriage is as fierce as it is in part because one sphere of government (the state) is making a massive power grab from another sphere of government (the family).
I'm making the point that even in polygamous cultures, a man marries only women, and one at a time.
Yes, I can see it now. Dean is invited to the wedding of Patrick Fitzmorris and Morris Fitzpatrick (sorry, couldn't resist this old punchline).
By no means.
Traditional marriage has already been destroyed, by heterosexuals, for heterosexuals.
The gays are just getting in on the party near its end.
Restoration is going to be much more of a project that the "traditional marriage amendment" crowd thinks-because limiting marriage to men and women while allowing unilateral divorce and penalty-free adultery restores nothing.
...and should use it as an example of why we need to get conservative judges confirmed. Make it a HUGE issue.
There's an old saying: "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" That may be an overstatement, but it makes the point.
Most government programs (e.g. social security) are started with good intentions, but their merit is better judged by their consequences. Marriages licenses are wrong because they require men and women to get state permission to marry, which is presumptuous. The proper way to deal with fraudulent marriages is to punish offenders severely (e.g. large fines) when they record the marriages.
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.