Skip to comments.Statement by the President on Marriage (MUST READ -- Dean/Kerry/Clark Statements Follow)
Posted on 11/18/2003 3:02:45 PM PST by PhiKapMom
click here to read article
It wouldn't surprise me if people start vandalizing road signs, blotting out or otherwise obscuring the first letter in "Massachussetts". Not that I advocate any such thing -- it's juvenile and criminal. I'm just saying it wouldn't surprise me.
Since they never talked about it how do you know they were Lesbians? Whatever happened to two spinsters who just never married because men didn't find them to their suiting or for some other reason they never married but not because of them being homosexual.
If your Aunt had made up a will she could have left whatever she had to whom ever she wanted.
Homosexuals already have all the same rights that heterolsexuals have. The only right they do not have is to change the diffination of marriage. They are not fighting for the right to have the ability to have spousel insurance or medical previlages etc, etc, they can have all that.
They just want to change the whole meaning of marriage as between a man and a women.
a) the government should not issue marriage licenses--that is unwarranted meddling in religion.
That is a logical conclusion. It's fair for the state to require registration after the fact, for legal record-keeping, tax purposes, etc., but it's wrong for the government to pretend to be God and grant or withhold permission by "licensing" marriages. No license is required to start a newspaper or print a book; surely marriage is at least as fundamental a human right.
b) any "marriage" performed at the county courthouse without benefit of clergy is null and void.
Only if the religion claims exclusive right to preside over the ceremony. That's certainly not the case of Christianity (the Bible records several marriages performed without clergy: e.g. Issac's marriage to Rebecca (Gen. 24:67), some Christians' mistaken views to the contrary notwithstanding.
c) there should be no such thing as legal marriage between two atheists.
Again, only if the religion claims such; which Christianity does not. The only restrictions of this sort that the Bible places on marriage is that Christians may not marry outside the faith.
d) there should be no such thing as legal marriage, period, since it is a matter of religion rather than secular law.
Again, only if the particular religion says the state has no right to recognize marriage legally, and there's nothing like that in the Bible. The state may, and should, add its recognition of marriage to the biblical one, but it may not legitimately supplant it, e.g., by requiring licenses.
More recent? And when might that have been?
"Hypocricy is the tribute vice pays to virtue."
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.
While there may be passages in Plato which imply acceptance of pederasty, in his last work, The Laws, he speaks as if he considers homosexuality to be contrary to nature. For example:
However, God willing, perhaps we'll succeed in imposing one or other of two standards of sexual conduct. (1) Ideally, no one will dare to have relations with any respectable citizen woman except his own wedded wife, or sow illegitimate and bastard seed in courtesans, or sterile seed in males in defiance of nature. (2) Alternatively, while suppressing sodomy entirely, we might insist that if a man does have intercourse with any woman (hired or procured in some other way) except the wife he wed in holy marriage with the blessing of the gods, he must do so without any other man or woman getting to know about it. (Translated by Trevor J. Saunders)
It's that old Full Faith And Credit Clause, again! Pretty simple, eh?
But if this is so unassailable, how come my licence to carry a pistol in NC doesn't mean squat in NY or Massachusetts? In fact, I can get thrown in jail there for a felony by doing just that!
I'm not persuaded. Your aunt either should have gotten a better lawyer or, more likely, should have started years earlier than she did, as effective estate planning (e.g. lowest possible tax hit) usually requires taking appropriate steps years in advance. And it is very possible to have a small tax hit even when one's heir is not part of the family.
So you want to put the last nail in the coffin by redefining it out of existence?
LOL ! I hadn't thought about it, but that wouldn't be surprising. ha! ha!
Maybe the State will make a pre-emptive move ... put up their own signs ...
Welcome to Fagachussetts ! < /bad humor > ...
quickly exits thread ...
Texas is Republican --- Fagachusettes is run by democrat, proving that you
get what you elect --- IOW --- the voters are reaping what they have sown.
The historical Christian interpretation is that all sexual sins are prohibited by the commandment against adultery.
In that context, heterosexual unfaithfulness is the natural predecessor to homosexual unfaithfulness. So our country needs to repent of the former while not ignoring the additonal threat posed by the latter.
It is necessary to impeach and remove judges to defend the sanctity of marriage. They will never stop unless they are stopped.
Shouldn't something like this be decided by the voters and their elected representatives-- and not some unaccountable black-robed elite?
Lay aside my own personal religious feelings-- and the inexplicable knot in my stomach. Lay aside my objections to the hubris of moderns rejecting what millennia of human evolution and relationships have taught us.
Let's talk about the civics of this case... We have a bunch of unaccountable elites in this nation ramming through legislation from the bench--- and whatever the overwhelming majority of the voters want be dammed. How is it that our jurists waited over two centuries before "discovering" that gay marriage is a constitutional right?
Why can't I marry my brother? Shoot-- if you buy the arguments that people are making-- what difference does it make if we won't be producing children? We love each other and have a lifelong commitment to each other. And who are YOU to tell us that it is wrong by imposing your morality on us? Why does the institution of marriage really exist?
Ladies and Gentleman, this is just one more stop down the slippery slope. If you refrain from making moral judgements, then anything can and will go. Why not legalize bestiality? Why not legalize consensual incest? Please give me a compelling argument against these measures shorn of moral judgements.
Frankly, the Massachusetts legislature should imeach the whole bally lot of these high handed usurpers. However, since the People's Republic of Massachusetts is under the iron hand of the Perjury Party--which dares not offend its core special interest groups-- forget it.
End of rant.
|10pm On Fire! with Tom Adkins|
|Guest: Bernard Goldberg, Author|
|BERNARD GOLDBERG was a CBS News correspondent for twenty-eight years and is the winner of seven Emmy Awards, six at CBS and one for his work at HBO's critically acclaimed Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel. At CBS News, Goldberg covered stories all over America and much of the world for the CBS Evening News and 48 Hours. He also brought his unique perspective to the news in a special CBS Evening News segment, "Bernard Goldberg's America."|
I appreciate your sentiments but I'm old enough to realize though that ones actions do usually speak louder than your words alone. I'll be awaiting to see if Bush does more than just offer right sounding words. His actions will tell me more about how concerned and committed he really is.