Posted on 03/11/2009 12:03:59 PM PDT by TruthHound
A.K.A. "We are mad so we are gonna take our ball and go home!"
I always said its none of the State's Biz. If people want a legal document denoting who gets what in case of death or breakup of the partnership, they can seek such with a lawyer.
Then if one wants to be married via their Church AND have the legalities of survivorship etc. they go to their Church for the religious aspect and the lawyers for the legal aspect.
That way it get the dang Government out of the religious side of it altogether.
Bingo.
Then if one wants to be married via their Church AND have the legalities of survivorship etc. they go to their Church for the religious aspect and the lawyers for the legal aspect.
Double Bingo.
The proper way to settle this entire thing is to remove the State as a player. That way homosexuals can go the Our Brother Of Gerbils and Rumprangers "Church" and have any sort of ceremony they like.
Normal people can go the the Church of their choice and have any sort of a ceremony they like.
The State gets NO money from either one, and has no say in who is 'married' to whom.
Of course the State would not have any power to mandate any sort of 'benefit' whatsoever, a power which it will not give up easily.
L
This is going no where. If they get enough signatures to put it on the ballot it will not pass.
Wait a minute! I’m from Massachusetts! People really get to VOTE on this in other states???????
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
There's a case to be made for the POV that the various churches can take care of the sacramental or ceremonial aspects of marriage, and private contract could take care of the rest.
Class: discuss.
It IS in the state’s interest to promote and support the basic unit of society.
“Libertarians” may not think the gov’t has any business promoting morals or traditions, but the founders thought differently.
"Civil" marriage shouldn't even exist. Period.
It's nothing more than an excuse for further State intrusion into areas it has no business being.
Most States are failing miserably at fulfilling their most basic responsibilities as it is. Allowing them any say into what is or is not a 'marriage' is simply silly.
L
That being said, even without bringing in the issues of same-sex unions, polygamy, and the like, much of what is called "marriage" by the state is a puny and wizened thing. When you think of the constitutive characteristics of marriage (a lifelong, exclusive, fertile union) and compare it to what passes for legal marriage today (divorceable, routinely preceded by fornication and intermittently open to adultery, temporarily or permanently sterile by choice) you can see that the word "marriage" has already lost most of its meaning.
Heterosexuals redefined marriage via creating no-fault divorce, a licentious junk-sex culture, and contraception.
I repeat: it was heterosexuals who queered marriage. That the queers now want in, is no surprise at all.
CB radio term - denotes that you are active on the radio
The Founders? Um, no. Marriage licenses didn't become commonplace in the United States until the 1920s, and only then to prevent interracial marriages.
The Founders managed to put together a country and preserve the "basic unit of society" without marriage licenses. Amazing.
Ah, thank you.
LOL! I’d pay to see that.
How long have you had this megalomaniacal blind spot separating opinion from reality?
Two thousand years of tradition and cultural norms out the window because you think it should?
The tempest is about a word.
The perverts want to deny its continued use by everyone else.
Not rational at all. Period.
See Tagline for my entire comment on the matter.
Everything else should be taken care of by contracts. (IE - Death benefits, custody, etc)
I agree with them. Marriage is an act of the church. Civil unions, regardless of sex, may be a government matter.
When my son told me they were going to the Court to get married, I told them I wasn’t interested. What you pledge before God matters to me. Anything else is just a tax shelter.
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.