Posted on 05/05/2009 9:02:07 AM PDT by Bokababe
Washington Post reporter Tim Craig relays that the D.C. Council has voted 13-0, without debate, to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Watch D.C. Wire for updates.
(Excerpt) Read more at voices.washingtonpost.com ...
Marion Barry asks for his vote back
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Confused-Barry-Asks-for-Same-Sex-Marriage-Vote-Back.html
That is a ridiculous and illogical argument for your case. It is far more likely for the scenarios I outlined to occur if "marriage" was left to the individual as you suggested. I suggest you try to come up with a more realistic argument to support your position.
It's not me who "doesn't get it", it's you.
Like it or not, this is no longer " a Christian country" where common sense prevails at the ballot box. We've elected a bunch of narcissistic idiots and lawyers to public office who will do whatever is popular and gets them re-elected.
Here in California the ONLY thing that got the "marriage between a man and a woman" clause successfully added to the State Constitution was the minority community -- Blacks & Hispanics. The Mormon Church did some in promoting it and Mormons became the primary target for a gay backlash, but that was only because gays didn't want to get called "racists". It was minorities who were the real numbers here in passing it.
But the demographics suggest that this will change in just a few years as a generation dies off and a new generation takes its place, because younger voters don't really care who "marriage" is between.
You can't hold the line with populism anymore, because the masses are against you.
The only reasonable solution is to take "marriage" off the table for government. We all get the legal protection of something like "a domestic contract" between two consenting adults and "marriage" stays where it belongs -- in the hands of the clergy and the private sphere, which is the only place that really regards it sacred, anyway.
Sure, fighting against legal recognition of homosexual "marriage" is tough, but it's doable. And there will always be enough people to stop the other nightmare "marriage" scenarios I listed if we put it to a vote. On the other hand, if your insane approach was tried now, we would immediately see homosexual "marriage", polygamous "marriage" and any other imagined kind of "marriage". That's not slouching towards Gomorrah, that's racing towards it!
Gubberment doesn’t define marriage. It doesn’t make anyone more or less married to have a piece of paper from the gubberment. Two gays calling themselves married are just as married with or without the gubberment’s permission, which is to say not at all married.
Freegards
But government does recognize legal marriages. And there has to be a definition that the government uses to determine what is a legal marriage. So what we're talking about here is the definition that the government uses to determine whether or not a marriage is legally recognized.
Repeating myself....please excuse...
You cannot change the wording of contracts people are already signed into...Marriage contract is between a Man and a Woman....we signed it. I will not enter into the same contract as Men and Men, Woman and Woman....there is precedence> not a lawyer, but dont you have to consider what has already been signed into and called within the confines of the law? If they change it to Same-Sex Marriage...we will then have to change, because I will not sit in the same contract, union as homosexuals....We will have convenant ceremonies those before God. Covenant, committment before God, who does not recognize homosexual partnerships....but only to say they are an abomination.
No, I am NOT suggesting "surrender". I am suggesting that you can only win by assessing your position and relative strength, and developing a realistic strategy for winning. In short, using your head instead of your emotions. Brute force isn't going to work, when they outnumber you.
Sure, fighting against legal recognition of homosexual "marriage" is tough, but it's doable.
That's the point. It's NOT "doable" as you've outlined it -- you'll kill yourself just to put a band aid on it that isn't going to hold because in just a very few years, it's going to be ripped off by younger voters.
The only possible solution is to let politicians deal with a purely "legal contract" aspect of a partnership between two adults, and leave the concept of "marriage" out of it. That's for priests and the clergy.
If two gay guys find some online "church of the holy toaster" to marry them, I could care less -- as long as the government isn't forcing me to call what they have "a marriage".
But you are gambling it all -- and I am sorry if I think that handing marriage over to politicians is a textbook case of "casting pearls before swine"!
Ultimately, what I am suggesting here is the "separation of Church and State" in a way that actually benefits Church for a change.
no surprise but I wonder how the black community will like this.
why not just cut the country and anything north of the potomac go their own way .
sounds great but then you have the benefits, you have employers who have to fork out extra and how do we know if two men are not room mates or homos anyway.
How do we know they are not just wanting the health benefits from work etc?
the fact is that if we allow this as you say then we should not allow Govt to have a say in any kind of marriage so when bubba comes in to his job and says he is just married to his goat then does his employer now have to pay for vet benefits?
fact is there is a line int eh sane , on one side it is normal marriage the other side of the line if anything goes
which side are you on?
NOT!!!
The Republicans should try to have a vote on overriding the DC Council. It's win-win. Either the DC Council is overridden or the D's goes on record as promoting gay marriage.
I think you mean "Obamanation".
"marriage" to animals, "marriage" to inanimate objects,
Did you miss the part where I said "two consenting adults"? Did I really have to add "humans"?
"fact is there is a line int eh sane , on one side it is normal marriage the other side of the line if anything goes. which side are you on?"
I am on the side that fights for the idea that government has no right to demand that I accept a bunch of elected idiot's view of "marriage" over that of my Church's and my Faith's view of marriage.
But I am also aware that once I empower politicians to decide what a "marriage" is, it's a crap shoot as to what off the wall definition they will come up with -- usually it will be whatever will get them re-elected. That's why I am for taking the definition of marriage out of their hands all together and simply letting them do what they are trained to do as lawyers, deal with the basic legal contract -- and leave the Marriage Sacrament to us.
I meant to add you to the reply above, but forgot even though I quoted you.
You have therefore surrendered the battle for traditional marriage, so I have absolutely no use for your, and am adamantly opposed to, your approach.
I am not a lawyer either, but in my real life work had to do a lot of legal interpretation, so I think that I can pretend to answer like one in the absence of a real lawyer (one who I just pinged).
My guess would be that a real lawyer would say that any changes in future contracts (marriages) with new parties (men & women, men & men, women & women) does not change the terms of your legal contract (marriage). In other words, that you entered into a legal marriage when legal marriage required that only members of the opposite sex could marry, they would say that your marriage is legally unaffected by any future decisions the legislature might make re the rules for State sanctioned legal marriage.
Forgive me Kolokotronis, but that's what I meant about lawyers and politicians deciding what "a marriage is" -- it's like "casting peals before swine". The spiritual meaning of "marriage" is irrelevant in arguing law.
“But government does recognize legal marriages.”
Has that been good or bad for the institution? Do you think that it is good that most folks accept that marriage can come from the gubberment? Folks don’t respect marriage because they have the idea that it is only a wishy-washy gubberment contract that can be broken and resumed with others at will.
I bet that if marriage had been left as a purely religious institution the number of folks willing to accept that “gay marriage” is possible because gubberment says so would be vastly reduced.
Freegards
The only thing that can save us is a Constitutional marriage amendment.
I respectfully disagree. I have no doubt there would be all manner of "churches" performing homosexual "marriage" in the scenario you propose, which is basically the same as what Bokababe suggests. Besides, yours is a hypothetical approach that has already been superseded by reality (government is in the marriage business, and there will be no getting it out), so it is a pointless exercise in speculation at this point.
you can address this as two humans as much as you want but when you take the Govt law of one man and woman out of marriage you will have all sorts of marriage.
Now why should I as an employer accept their kind of perverted so called marriage in the way of benefits?
I don’t if the law says as it has been since the birth of this country.
Besides this is not about marriage as I said earlier it is about shoving the homosexual agenda on to us and then letting them get kids, letting them teach it in schools etc.
If you think this is just about marriage then , well.......
One only has to look at the way they act on their freak parades to see these people are not up there.
It’s all about sex to them, and so be it as long as they keep it on the bedroom , but they are not and that is where I now starting to fight these perverts
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.