Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 08/06/2010 6:42:06 AM PDT by TitansAFC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: TitansAFC

Marriage is a privilege like driving, not a “right”; the state licenses both. It sets qualifications for both.


2 posted on 08/06/2010 6:48:10 AM PDT by steve8714 (Our long national nightmare is over. We can resume our proper disdain for soccer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TitansAFC

Yep, classic leftist approach to an issue “heads I win, tails you lose”


3 posted on 08/06/2010 6:48:32 AM PDT by drbuzzard (different league)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TitansAFC

The problem is that we’ve been drawn into a debate about HOW government defines marriage rather than WHETHER government defines marriage. If we concede that government can define marriage, we’ve already lost.

SnakeDoc


4 posted on 08/06/2010 6:49:30 AM PDT by SnakeDoctor ("Shut it down" ... 00:00:03 ... 00:00:02 ... 00:00:01 ... 00:00:00.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TitansAFC

I still contend that this issue is, ultimately, not about marriage itself. If that were true, there would have been thousands of same-sex couples moving to Massachusetts to legally “marry”. I lived in MA when the State Supreme Court created that “right” and there was a brief flurry of marriages, but those were to get media attention. Then it all quickly died down.

I believe this is truly about an assault on the churches in this country. Once the “right” to marry is recognized as a being “Constitutional” we’ll see hundreds, if not thousands, of same-sex couples filing lawsuits against churches who refuse to perform their “marriages”.


12 posted on 08/06/2010 7:15:36 AM PDT by Jackson57
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TitansAFC

aol news.

works both ways the homosexuals have the same but opposite catch.

Notice how all the articles are spinning to avoid examination of the judges piss poor opinion.

if this was a law school paper it would have just barely been a borderline D. at best.


24 posted on 08/06/2010 8:09:05 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TitansAFC
It's not a State's Rights issue. Nor is "State's Rights" the most compelling issue.

It's a matter of words, that words have meaning. A state has no right to redefine some basic words. By this same 'logic' a state could redefine what 'man' means, what 'woman' means, and remove all sex (or gender) from that definition. It could, for example, redefine all persons older than 80 -- non-human.

Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856 Edition

MARRIAGE. A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought io exist between husband and wife. By the terms freeman and freewoman in this definition are meant, not only that they are free and not slaves, but also that they are clear of all bars to a lawful marriage.

Webster's 1913 Dictionary

\Mar"riage\, n. [OE. mariage, F. mariage. See {Marry}, v. t.]

  1. 1. The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife; wedlock; matrimony.

34 posted on 08/06/2010 3:10:30 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson