Posted on 07/31/2010 8:07:55 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
Interesting read, but one thing that came to mind during the reading: When is the Catholic Church going to excommunicate those libtard idiot Catholics advocating same-sex marriage along with abortion (pro-choice), etc.?
GREAT POST.
THANKS MUCH.
—
STILL PRAYING, BTW.
This bit of government is necessary for a union of man and woman since it is not unknown that after the fire dies, selfishness and irresponsibility rear their heads, and consequences affecting far more than just the couple have occurred.
But why should it be necessary for a pair of homosexuals?
Re the headline: Limbaugh is not in favor of same-sex marriages. Although he does support civil unions. This is a substantive distinction. SS Marriage makes the statement that homosexual behavior is good. CUs don’t.
Marriage should be by contracts mostly given out by large institutions such as the church.
That why we could have different types of marriages and everyone is happy.
Nice reasonable and logical, warm and fuzzy discussion gently expressing tolerance for the violently intolerant.
I prefer the old:
“You already have it, a gay guy has as much right to marry a woman as does the next guy.”
Ping-a-ling
KISS. Keep it simple. The problem is more fundamental. There is a federal ban on government being involved in religion, and marriage is a religious ceremony and institution.
Marriage should be left up to churches. End of story. The government should have no say in the matter.
Government shouldn't have anything to do with Marriage.
Correct.
And to the liberal:
"What about your belief in 'separation of church and state'? So if marriage is a church thing, why should the state have anything to say about it period?"
Marriage should be strictly a religious bonding. Any contractural agreements attached to a marriage ought to be put in writing, signed by both parties, and adhered to, to the letter. Should divorce occur, the written contract MUST be followed. No more “punish the evil male” divorces as are the case now days.
The license is about recording in order to prevent FRAUD.
We USED TO HAVE a voluntary non government system but it was fraught with abuse and fraud.
Marriage is an institution.
Society rewards the institution no the individual
Society rewards Marriabe BECAUSE it is not about the individual.
There is no love test. The love argument is the red herring used by homosexuals.
Marriage is how society guarantees its future.
Keep in mind traditional marriage is a common law construct and thus has BROAD protection.
Civil unions/homosexual based marriage are 100% statutory and thus interprited narrowly.
Rush’s/civil union advocates entire argument rests on the falacy of “born that way.”
We must have government involvement in order to protect inheritance, taxation, and offspring. Homosexuals contribute NOTHING to society’s future. NOTHING.
The libertarian stand you advocate is what homosexuals and the left want to do to marriage and society. Eliminate it.
marriage law/divorce law changes annually.
Your premise utterly fails on the child support front.
In fact your argument falls full square of the lefts/ABA view of children as a mere acessory of sex.
Marriage is not based on popping orgasms.
Marriage is based on propagating society.
I have a radical idea-— what if the government just butts out completely and lets individuals decide for themselves if they wish to enter into mutual contracts like marriage or civil unions? There should be no tax benefits for that decision, no benefits accruing from entering or not entering into such contracts. The same can be said for the decision to have children. Why should single, childless adults have a larger tax liability? It is none of the governments’ business and all benefits or ill consequences for individuals’ decisions should be theirs alone.
IOW you advocate the communist or socialist system of making marriage illegal.
das vidanya - komrad.
without marriage there is no intestate inheritance.
without marriage there is no widow’s/widower’s share inheritance. (the percentage of inheritance that can not be forbidden a spouce via a will. The guaranteed inheritance to the spouse absent an upheld pre/post nup)
without marriage and intestate inheritance there is no property rights.
Here’s a shorter article on civil marriage:
Marriage: Not so Gay.
http://stumpedagain.wordpress.com/marriage-not-so-gay/
ps: office depot has the cohabitation agreement you want. As do any other office supply stores.
You can do that now.
The homosexuals political hacktivists do not want that.
The free market overwhelmingly does not want that.
LOL
“What do they think Marriage is, a sex license?”
EXCELLENT ARTICLE.
It’s a farce issue anyway.
less than what . . . 2% of ‘gays’ marry . . . and extremely few of those stay married.
And even married, they are still humping whatever wiggles by.
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.