Boop His Cute Little Tootsies!
Pretty Baby Looks Innocent Now
But He'll Be Huge and Fiery Soon
Donate!
Sponsors will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign-up
Posted on 02/07/2012 10:46:18 AM PST by RobinMasters
I look at this measure as a way to authorize 5 wives by the back door.
I have actually read the Constitution and the Federalist papers. I don’t remember marriage being discussed.
Never was, the major legal issues that exist with family relationships are designating whose job it is to pull your plug if you are left a vegetable, who is on your insurance plan, how your inheritance gets divided, and which kids deserve to be in your custody, but then again, being considered a biological parent, according to court cases, is no longer the great deal it used to be.
If worst comes to worse, I can see major churches no longer asking, in fact plenty asking for you to not get out a government marriage license, which is probably the way it should have been in the first place. The morality of government and the morality of God are wholly incompatible, I would always think twice when seeing how lax the morality of man’s laws are in comparison to the morality of God’s laws.
I look at this measure as a way to authorize 5 wives by the back door.
Well in plenty of ways, having multiple wives is essentially decriminalized. I could have five girlfriends, father children through all of them, have them live in the house, but since there is no marriage license, and they are all adult women, there is no crime. Hugh Hefner is a great example of this, and lives quite the big daddy life.
Polygamy is an example of how something once okay turned ugly. Perhaps one of few cases where the importance of actually only allowing people with a marriage license to simply live together was actually enforced, but ever since the 19th century, our government has been corrupted to the point where it no longer treats adultery, cohabitation, or various other offenses as serious crimes.
“ever since the 19th century”
“My Fair Lady” was on last weekend, and I watched it. I had forgotten that “I’m Getting Married in the Morning” was in it. The father said he was going to be very middle class and marry the woman he’d been living with. I had forgotten all about that implication, but it’s true. A wedding is a very big deal for middle class people, only now, it’s a bit of a burden in many ways.
I was married in judge’s chambers. Then, we went out to dinner. Very private, just 3 witnesses and us. Strange to remember that at this moment. But we are actually fiercely private on many counts.
What a simplistic, reductio ad absurdum rebuttal. Is the institution of marriage nothing more than an attempt to elevate or increase the status and human dignity of heterosexuals? Or is it much, much more — namely a cornerstone of our civilization that has been extant in some form for all of recorded history?
Well, never before have treated marriage like something that everyone has to accept as true, or in a do-or-die fashion. Marriage also wasn’t always about a license either. Some people may think my marriage vows weren’t made with authority from God (atheist) or that my marriage isn’t legit (person believing in the sanctity of the state).
Either way, I decided to bypass getting a marriage license, which I have found, amounts to close to nothing legally. Everything else, such as healthcare directives, will & testament, and registered insurance policy, actually does. Interesting enough, the fact that people make a deal about the marriage license shows people adopting a worshipful attitude toward the state instead of God. Interestingly enough, the Bible has quite a number of harsh words regarding people feeling worshipful, or encouraging worship in the wrong way towards government officials. God was angry that King Saul decided to offer the sacrifice instead of allowing Samuel, through his office of a Levite, to do it. God was enraged at the bondage of Israel under the Egyptian monarchy, which was regarded as dieties on Earth, and Samuel was angry at the fact that the people in Israel actually wanted a monarchy, which he warned would produce all sorts of ills. No thousands of years later, the same inclination still exists, plenty of people who seem to not wish to worship God, seem to exert an equivalent of religious faith in the morality of the state government, such an attitude of government worship is a driving force behind communism, or even simply government corruption. It sometimes appears a secular substitute for religion itself.
This is a bit off-topic, but I recall decades ago that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was grossly understaffed based on its allotted number of jurists.
At that time, the hypothesis was broached that the Ninth Circuit sought to keep its numbers small so they could continue to hand down inane decisions similar to the one highlighted in this post.
I noticed the Court ruled 2 to 1. Does anyone know how many justices are currently on the 9th Circuit and how many justices should be seated on that court to place the court at full strength?
By the way, I got over being astonished, surprized, disgusted etc. by 9th Circuit rulings many years ago. The lunacy of the justices is transparent.
EODGUY
Round them all up!
Texas is calling. CA is toxic.
will of the people, not-upheld..............again.
LOL - there won't be any argument. They'll just be consigned to hell the instant they die. They can scream and holler all they want to, but no one in heaven will hear them.
Voting....just like pissing in the wind.
Great catch. Have you read either ruling to see which one is stronger? It would be great if SCJ’s could build on the CA SC’s ruling.
Not just our civilization, but every great civilization every recorded anywhere on earth.
They’re not always overturned and that’s what’s scary about this ruling.
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.