Posted on 04/14/2005 9:50:36 AM PDT by AZScreamingEagle
The gist of your argument seems to be "for the children". The state does everything you say now, regardless of "marriage" which is in the realm of religion not Government.
If it does not meet those criteria, then a vote of the people is not required.
Are children best raised by the man and woman who gave them life, and who have committed themselves to each other for life?
This institution is called "marriage," and is the bedrock of society. The primary duty of the State is to promote the common good, and marriage serves the common good. As marriage goes, so goes society, and the State.
Not always. And Millions and millions of adopted children will tell you why.
and who have committed themselves to each other for life?
50%+ divorce rate says otherwise.
Of course. And further, I was married in a church... weren't you?
What has any of that to do with the Gov't? I think that the bedrock of society as you like to say is NOT to continually empower Government. But then you are from Massachusetts and I am from New Hampshire.
Bravo! Leave marriage to the churches.
What about those who do not want to be married in a church? Are they barred from marriage?
This seems such a strange question... what about those who do not want to take communion in a church are they barred from taking communion?... what about those who do not want to go to confession in a church are they barred from confession? Barred? By whom? the Government? No way. Check your Constitution.
I ask again. What about those who do not want to be married in/by a church?
(s)If gov. is out of the marriage business, then they are out of the divorce business, the child support business, they are also out of the probate business. The only legal place of gov. is to protect the right to same sex recreational sex.(/s)
Well first that's not my statement: "and the church should wed them". But to answer your question: Do whatever your beliefs say you should do... go to a church or don't. It's none of my business, it's your business. But if you are asking OUR Government to get involved, I'll ask you why?
They can still sign the same contracts, and if they wish hire someone to do a 'wedding' for them. Eliminate all govt mention of marrage, civil unions, etc...
Nope, they are still in the child support business - the Gov't doesn't care a twit if people have a piece of paper from the city hall. You have a kid - YOU SUPPORT THAT KID. It has nothing to do with the word "marriage" on that scrap of paper.
Also, I am not asking the government to get involved. I mearly stated at the beginning of this thread, that unlike in Mass and other places who have ordered gay marriage by judicial action, CT is going about it in the proper fashion, through legislation by the elected representatives.
Yes I would agree with you that it is far preferable to do these things through the legislature. However I think we'd all be a lot happier if we just stuck to civil unions with the Gov't (with legislatively specified conditions) and left the word "marriage" to be defined however people want as their personal faiths or lack of dictate.
The point of the (s=sarcasm) tags.
Marriage is about children. Society's future. homoseuxal sex has zero possibility of producing any future for society.
As for government in marriage, government was not in the marriage business. The hodgpodge of do it yourself registration was subject to fraud, and any other number of mischief. (don't divorce, just abandon and since there is no central registry no way to prevent bigamy)
There was a REASON marriages had to be recorded. Gov. is not in the marriage business per se, they are in the marriage RECORDING business.
How about civil unions? Business partnerships, etc - let's leave the word "marriage" to be defined by those who have their own very strong beliefs and faiths about such things - such religious beliefs should be encouraged but not legislated.
newsflash, that is exactly the current plan of the homo-advocates. They want to make all unions civil unions which are defined by government and de-recognize the institution of marriage. This will allow the redefinition of children as a mere accessory of "couples" who are breeders.
(see ABA model divorce code)
What you suggest is pure propaganda (unintentional of course) from the homo-advocates.
Homo- Shlmomo... wait until the bigamists get started. What exactly are you afraid of? Stand by your own religion. It should be strong enough without depending on the Gov't as a crutch.
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.