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

Skip to comments.

What Relationships Should Be Called Marriage: A Modest Proposal
Christian Post ^ | 10/1/12 | Dr. Richard D. Land

Posted on 10/24/2012 11:24:21 AM PDT by rhema

The issue of whether Americans should approve "same-sex" marriage continues to be debated heatedly in the 2012 election cycle. President Obama has "evolved" on the issue to the place where he supports "same-sex" marriage, making no distinction between the time-honored institution of marriage as being between one man and one woman and a relationship between two people of the same sex.

The issue emerged recently in a September 20th debate in the U.S. senatorial contest in Virginia between George Allen (R) and Tim Kaine (D). Former Governor Kaine, when asked about the issue, couched his answer in terms of civil rights and equality, stating "that relationships should be treated equally."

Marriage has been defined in Western civilization for at least two millennia now as being a sexual relationship between one man and one woman. Christianity has defined it so historically, most often coupling it with life-long permanence and monogamy. As an Evangelical Christian, I certainly embrace that definition.

However, how do we deal with those who would choose to extend some of the legal privileges our society has accorded marriage to same-sex relationships without shattering the definition of marriage or discriminating against people outside the heterosexual definition of marriage? How do we protect society against those who would extend the special status of marriage to homosexual, lesbian or polygamous relationships? How do we protect time-honored titles, like "husband" and "wife," from being attacked as homophobic or sexist terms to be replaced by spouse #1 and spouse #2 or "Mom" and "Dad" from being reduced legally to caregiver #1 and caregiver #2? Such legal assaults on these time-honored family terms seem inevitable if "same-sex" marriage becomes equal with heterosexual marriage.

I propose that as Americans we declare heterosexual marriage as the only relationship in our society that is to be defined by its sexual nature and that it will continue to be defined as a legal relationship between one man and one woman consummated by sexual intercourse.

If two men or two women are living together in a relationship and they want to ask the state legislature in their state to grant some of the special legal privileges accorded marriage to their relationship the state legislature should respond in the following fashion: "We will consider your request, but the sexual nature of your relationship will be irrelevant to our discussions because marriage is the only relationship in our society that is defined by its sexual nature. Why should other people who are living in committed relationships that do not involve sexual activity be discriminated against or left out?"

In other words, the state legislature would not discriminate against two maiden or widowed sisters who were living together or a mother and a devoted son or daughter who were living together in a platonic relationship. Why should such households and relationships be left behind when legal privileges and recognition are being passed out just because they are not in a sexual relationship?

If the peoples' elected representatives in the various states were to undertake such legislation, it would certainly do much to protect marriage as the unique institution that it is in our society, while according all other relationships that equality that former Governor Kaine so desires.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; US: Maryland; US: Minnesota
KEYWORDS: culturewar; downourthroats; homosexualagenda; inourfaces; lavendermafia; marriage; moralabsolutes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last

1 posted on 10/24/2012 11:24:22 AM PDT by rhema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: rhema

Interesting points. But, we’re not allowed to have any such discussions. The liberal homosexual activists have decided that it has to be marriage for.their relationships legal status. Liberal judges agree, such as when the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that that state’s civil union law amounted to discrimination.

If homosexual activists weren’t trying to shove this down our throats through the courts, it would be possible to discuss some of these issues. But they have poisoned the well, labeled all who oppose homosexual marriage as haters, etc. The media does the same. Would be nice to have a civilized discussion of how marriage ought to be defined.


2 posted on 10/24/2012 11:35:28 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema

Why does the author put the quotes around “same-sex” instead of “marriage?”


3 posted on 10/24/2012 11:36:45 AM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema

“...In other words, the state legislature would not discriminate against two maiden or widowed sisters who were living together or a mother and a devoted son or daughter who were living together in a platonic relationship. Why should such households and relationships be left behind when legal privileges and recognition are being passed out just because they are not in a sexual relationship?...”

Impossible to refute this logic ~ stellar quote!


4 posted on 10/24/2012 11:37:27 AM PDT by delcopatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema

I have a somewhat different suggestion. I would like to see government stay completely out of the marriage business.

My personal view is that marriage is a social issue. For those who believe in God, as I do, marriage is also, and even more significantly, a religious issue.

If two people want to have some sort of personal contract which gives each other various financial and legal rights, that is fine and they can do that with or without marriage.

If two people want to be married in the religious sense, that should be a matter for the couple and their God.

If two people want to be married in the eyes of society, that should be a matter for the couple and their family and friends.

Aside from any legal contracts, the government should butt out.


5 posted on 10/24/2012 11:45:22 AM PDT by generally (Don't be stupid. We have politicians for that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema

I have often said that people should be allowed to define their own households. Traditionally people have always done this, grandparents raise grandkids, take in family members or close friends who then become a part of the family. You used to hear of families taking in orphans without a lot of fanfare and raising them as their own. Problems can arise though in the modern era when you are dealing with school issues, medical issues, and the so-forth. I’d be happy to see a legal space for people to define for themselves their own household.

But only marriage is marriage.


6 posted on 10/24/2012 11:50:17 AM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: generally
I have a somewhat different suggestion. I would like to see government stay completely out of the marriage business.

That is the pro-polygamy, pro-homosexual agenda position, end civilization's definition of marriage, and let it become whatever anyone wants to define it as.

7 posted on 10/24/2012 12:13:29 PM PDT by ansel12 (Mitt Romney is a mixture of LBJ and Nixon, Obama is a mixture of LBJ and Jimmy Carter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: marron

What this would lead to is massive immigration fraud.

Marriage is defined, by the common law which predates the establishment of the US, and the states. Putting it to the states would be like putting Habeaus Corpus to the states. Letting people ‘choose their own’, would be a disaster.

We don’t negotiate away the essential components like trial by jury, so why are we negotiating marriage between one man and one woman just because some people don’t like it? When it comes to trial by jury, we tell people, “This is america. Don’t like it, leave it, and we should be telling them the same with respect to marriage.


8 posted on 10/24/2012 12:16:36 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas, Texas, Whisky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: generally
Marriage is the bedrock of society, precedes the institution of all governments, and government has an obligation to honor it so it can't just "get out of the marriage business."

Good Government requires that the two being married are not related or have certain infectious diseases thru a blood test.

Good Government doesn't pass no fault divorce laws.

Good Government recognizes and respects the unique and special nature of marriage by honoring laws of inheritance, property and custody.

Good Government understands that by protecting and upholding marriage and the family as the bedrock of society it reaps the rewards via good and prosperous citizens.

Bad Government tries to rewrite natural law which is called injustice.

9 posted on 10/24/2012 12:21:06 PM PDT by frogjerk (OBAMA NOV 2012 = HORSEMEAT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rhema

Call it “Queeriage”.

Problem solved.


10 posted on 10/24/2012 12:21:28 PM PDT by djf (Political Science: Conservatives = govern-ment. Liberals = givin-me-it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: generally
If two people want to have some sort of personal contract which gives each other various financial and legal rights, that is fine and they can do that with or without marriage.

Under the law, only certain financial and legal rights can be contracted. There are a number of preferences in the law that are only conveyed via marriage.

One example: the spousal exception for estate taxes. You can bequeath your spouse your entire part of the estate, with no tax consequences. You can't do that via contract.

11 posted on 10/24/2012 12:25:14 PM PDT by justlurking (tagline removed, as demanded by Admin Moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rhema

Unfortunately this version if A Modest Proposal might play right into a power-loving governments’ hands: Ultimately if all relationships were considered special then all would be given special treatment (government favor, leading to being beholden to the gov) which is what the ultimate purpose (as in pandering to the Sodomites) has been all along, so as to get as many citizens dependant on gov as possible = job security for gov employees. (Meanwhile the gov goes broke but that has become less and less of a concern as time wears on, isn’t it?) Thus, I am afraid the gov just might like his Modest Proposal and take it up as the next increment in (wrecklessly) empowering themselves!


12 posted on 10/24/2012 12:53:59 PM PDT by Repent and Believe (Never tolerate evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marron
In the 19th century, say, there were good argments for being against civil marriage altogether. But now in 21st century America, abolishing civil marriage would mean abolishing automatic inheritance for spouses, and various insurance and taxation benefits. Maybe you want to do that, but it would under many widows'/widowers' economic security and possibly force many into poverty.

Maybe that would be worth it? I don't know. Real questions.

13 posted on 10/24/2012 1:01:57 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Some learn from reading; some by others' experience; the rest just *have* to pee on the third rail.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: marron

Typo. I meant “undermine”.


14 posted on 10/24/2012 1:02:40 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Some learn from reading; some by others' experience; the rest just *have* to pee on the third rail.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: rhema

The author is clueless.

This is just the left wing line.

This is government establishing what is or is not marriage via legislation. Marriage is a common law institution.

society rewards the institution not the individual.

All the contract stuff discussed is law now.

This article is a waste of time.


15 posted on 10/24/2012 1:03:30 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justlurking

Good point. The government shouldn’t be in the business of deciding who does and doesn’t have to pay a death tax.


16 posted on 10/24/2012 1:08:35 PM PDT by stroll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: generally

Government used to be intended to underscore simply what God had already stated and protect us from those who would force us against His almighty will. (What is an “unalienable right”, afterall?) It seems that today however, many think government’s role is to determine things which God hasn’t stated and then to force them upon us.


17 posted on 10/24/2012 1:08:38 PM PDT by Repent and Believe (Never tolerate evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

The left wants to end the definition of marriage, and let people define it as individuals.


18 posted on 10/24/2012 1:11:06 PM PDT by ansel12 (Mitt Romney is a mixture of LBJ and Nixon, Obama is a mixture of LBJ and Jimmy Carter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

The left wants to end the definition of marriage so that offspring belong to the state instead of the family.

The primary goal is to criminalize Christianity and substitute worship of the state as god, provider, and protector.


19 posted on 10/24/2012 1:16:37 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: marron
I’d be happy to see a legal space for people to define for themselves their own household. But only marriage is marriage.

I agree. I've often suggested that states should have something like a "contractual household" status, with a standardized package of legal arrangements for inheritance, power of attorney, medical issues, real property ownership, and so on.

People can put together their own arrangements now, whether they're romantic couples or other associations such as siblings or parent-and-adult-child, but it could be made easier and more predictable for people, without reference to their motives for wishing to form a legal unit.

20 posted on 10/24/2012 1:17:31 PM PDT by Tax-chick (Now a hit television series starring Judi Dench!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: generally
If two people want to have some sort of personal contract which gives each other various financial and legal rights, that is fine and they can do that with or without marriage.

Your view seems simple and logical. What I think you don't fully appreciate, however, is that government got involved in the marriage contract several centuries ago -- and we have several centuries of law that is based on that contract.

It all got started, I believe, with the need to have an orderly process in distribution of inherited property.

A man's "legitimate" heirs, i.e. a wife whom he had properly married in the eyes of the state, + the children who were born of that legitimate union, were the heirs who had a first claim on the man's property at his death.

The state had a "legitimate" interest in officially sanctioning marriage, in that facilitating a stable and orderly transfer of property within families is beneficial to the state (partly because the state taxes that property).

21 posted on 10/24/2012 1:19:28 PM PDT by shhrubbery! (NIH!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: stroll

Nobody should have to pay a death tax. Everything a decedent owns has already been taxed, often multiple times.


22 posted on 10/24/2012 1:19:48 PM PDT by Tax-chick (Now a hit television series starring Judi Dench!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: stroll
The government shouldn’t be in the business of deciding who does and doesn’t have to pay a death tax.

Another preference: a person cannot be compelled to testify against their spouse in court.

23 posted on 10/24/2012 1:24:52 PM PDT by justlurking (tagline removed, as demanded by Admin Moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

We have a gift tax for gifts given above $13,000 a year. Why should a transfer of an inheritance be taxed differently than gifts?

Since I have to pay taxes on income that I earn on a job, it would be unfair that someone who is given money should be exempt from paying taxes on it.

The idea that you should be exempt from a tax because the money has “already been taxed” is a silly argument that can be applied to any tax. Why should I pay sales tax since I already paid income tax on the money I’m spending? My employer already paid income tax on the money he’s paying me, so why should I pay income tax on it again? Why should I pay a property tax since I already paid income tax on the money I bought the house with? You could exempt any tax you want with that argument. It’s meaningless.

I’m for abolishing the estate tax as long as you abolish the income tax along with it. Treating those two forms of income differently makes no sense at all and is grossly unfair to those who earned their income instead of being given it. Nobody likes paying taxes, but the taxes we do pay ought to be fair without putting extra burden on certain people. I’m in favor of tax cuts and lower taxes, but whatever taxes we are paying should be flat and applied equally to everybody.


24 posted on 10/24/2012 1:41:43 PM PDT by JediJones (ROMNEY/RYAN: TURNAROUND ARTISTS ***** OBAMA/BIDEN: BULL $HIT ARTISTS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: delcopatriot

As a society we should be allowed to encourage and incentivize marriage and reproduction between a man and a woman. And we should do it because these things help improve society. Allowing other types of relationships the same privileges totally negates and counteracts the results we’re trying to achieve by giving marriage a special status in society. With the way divorce and single-parent households have shattered our society, we should be doing more than ever now to encourage marriage, not completely throwing it away as a special institution, which this article suggests we do.


25 posted on 10/24/2012 1:48:16 PM PDT by JediJones (ROMNEY/RYAN: TURNAROUND ARTISTS ***** OBAMA/BIDEN: BULL $HIT ARTISTS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ansel12; 185JHP; 230FMJ; AFA-Michigan; AKA Elena; APatientMan; Abathar; Absolutely Nobama; ...
Homosexual Agenda and Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

Exactly what ansell2 said:

I have a somewhat different suggestion. I would like to see government stay completely out of the marriage business.

That is the pro-polygamy, pro-homosexual agenda position, end civilization's definition of marriage, and let it become whatever anyone wants to define it as.

Marriage has been recognized by government (both local and small and national) for millenia, both for protection of children and wives, and husbands; for legal inheritance and paternity reasons. But the underlying reason is because marriage is the foundation of family, which is the foundation of human society. As far as other legal arrangements, there are enough available to choose from.

26 posted on 10/24/2012 1:52:01 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: JediJones
Why should a transfer of an inheritance be taxed differently than gifts?

It shouldn't. Gifts should not be taxed, either.

whatever taxes we are paying should be flat and applied equally to everybody

That's a good principle, but in practice, no tax is going to affect everyone equally.

27 posted on 10/24/2012 2:08:57 PM PDT by Tax-chick (Now a hit television series starring Judi Dench!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: JediJones
We have a gift tax for gifts given above $13,000 a year. Why should a transfer of an inheritance be taxed differently than gifts?

Actually, I don't really think a gift should be taxed either, but thats another issue.

If the inheritance is cash, then it can easily be taxed at whatever rate you choose. The problem is when the inheritance is something not easily divided like a farm or a business. If you have to take out a loan to pay the tax, you may be pushed into bankruptcy if you could even get a loan in the first place. Its not automatic that you'll be able to get the loan in the first place. If you have to sell the farm or the business to pay the tax, then the point of the inheritance is destroyed.

Of course, a large piece of property you may have to sit on a couple of years until it sells, so even that may not save you as you're no doubt incurring penalties and interest as you try to sell it.

Thats the problem with an inheritance tax on anything other than cash, at least from my point of view.

28 posted on 10/24/2012 2:13:05 PM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: generally

Wrong.

For centuries marriage has proven to be a benefit to society and to government. A strong healthy nation is dependent on strong healthy families. For instance; As goes the American Family - so goes America.

Liberals believe just the opposite: A strong healthy nation is dependent on a strong healthy GOVERNMENT. And to attain the goal of governmental dominance, they seek to destroy marriage and the family.

There was a time when America was a strong and healthy economic society. But since the 60’s, LBJ and his Great Society programs have replaced the father with a Welfare check. And look what’s happened.

Leave the religious connotations out of marriage if you wish. But one thing is clear: This country MUST endorse the social values of the marriage contract or we’re doomed.


29 posted on 10/24/2012 2:21:44 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rhema

No one gets “the legal privileges and recognition” that a married man and woman get.

And while we are at it - no abortions, no drugs and no affirmative action.


30 posted on 10/24/2012 2:42:45 PM PDT by Berlin_Freeper (Winning is Everything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema
Deuteronomy 22:13-28 is pretty specific.

No doubt many Freepers abide these rules.

31 posted on 10/24/2012 2:49:37 PM PDT by GalaxyAB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

The entire gay agenda is like forcing Jews to eat pork because not eating pork discriminates against pig farmers.


32 posted on 10/24/2012 2:51:54 PM PDT by Albion Wilde (On Sesame Street, Obama is brought to you by the letter O and the number 16 billion. - Mitt Romney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: generally

It’s probably the best solution, but it is never going to happen.

The problem with the state’s involvement, at least in the modern era, is that the definition it uses to recognize the institution is simply whatever judges, pols or the majority thinks it is at any one time. And that’s it, and that’s all it will ever be. Combine that with the fact many have been conditioned to think marriage comes from and is defined by the state and you have what we have today. It was always a danger. Pope Leo XIII warned about it 130 years ago.

The statists won’t give it up, as it is a way to control the culture—look at the state of marriage in a general sense over the past decades and ask why statists might like it that way. The homosexualists won’t give it up, as it is the only way they can punish those faiths who will never buy into things like ‘gay marriage.’ Many others have simply been conditioned to think the institution comes from and is defined by the gov’t, so they accept whatever the state recognizes as marriage—it is denoted by pieces of paper issued by the state, and voided and resumed when the state decides it should be. Many who rightly consider ‘gay marriage’ repugnant and impossible won’t consider any of the drawbacks of state involvement itself in such a vital institution, but have no problem rightly seeing the drawbacks when it comes to other institutions like charity and education.

What I think will eventually happen is that those faiths that consider marriage independant of gov’t mutation and beyond a simple collection of legal strictures and benefits won’t bother with the state. It’s just a shame about the punishments that will have to be taken for not buying into whatever the gov’t calls marriage at the time.

Freegards


33 posted on 10/24/2012 3:02:54 PM PDT by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o; Tax-chick
abolishing civil marriage would mean abolishing automatic inheritance for spouses, and various insurance and taxation benefits. Maybe you want to do that

No. No way.

I was thinking in terms of the informal arrangements families have always made, taking in orphans or nephews or grandchildren and raising them, taking in family members or friends who had no place to go, but who then become essentially members of the family.

At one time people understood and respected these kinds of informal family arrangements but in the modern era you run into legal issues involving schools, medical care, and the like. I've been through it several times over the years and have had to finesse it various ways.

The kind of "legal space" to define your own household may or may not be practical in the modern era but the need for it is there, anyone who has informally "adopted" people into their families for whatever reason has run into the kinds of problems I'm thinking about. This kind of thing was becoming less common for a few decades but is returning, you are seeing it again more and more.

Thats what I was referring to. But as for marriage, no. Government has no right or authority to try to re-define marriage for all the reasons you refer to and for more basic moral reasons too. On that I'm with you.

34 posted on 10/24/2012 3:14:27 PM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: rhema

I find it curious that “civil union” rules explicitly forbid siblings from forming such unions, even though there may be sound reasons for siblings to join together in a household (e.g. if a brother and sister are widowed, and both have children, it may be better for the children to be raised by a parent and an aunt or uncle, than by a parent alone). If civil unions really weren’t about sex, why should their proponents exclude siblings?


35 posted on 10/24/2012 3:56:09 PM PDT by supercat (Renounce Covetousness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema

Guys, there is a cost to being married.

Maybe women don’t think so but men sure do.

In order to compensate for the cost, we used to provide exclusive benefits for traditional marriage. Legal and prestige benefits, mostly. That’s all now blown away, from brutal divorce proceedings, to others wanting in on the benefits.

Now there is almost no incentive to getting married. So why do the gays want in?


36 posted on 10/24/2012 4:12:25 PM PDT by AdSimp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

Saw a professional photography magazine with the cover date of October 2012.

It covered wedding photography (at least part of the issue did) and even devoted at least one page (and several other photos) to same sex weddings.

There was a list of things that can be different about photographing such ceremonies (often not held in a church, sometimes one or both sets of parents don’t attend so group photos may be unbalanced, using gender neutral terms and avoiding using explicitly traditional couple phrases like “bride and groom” on your website (use “brides and grooms” instead).

Then it went into some photographers who SPECIALIZE in homosexualist wedding photography. We’ve seen the lavender mafia take social conservatives to court for rejecting the photography of a same sex wedding. Would there likewise be a legal challenge if a photographer said (s)he SPECIALIZED in HETEROSEXUAL wedding photography?

Down is up. Wrong is right. This so called tolerance and equality for the politically protected class is BULLSTALIN. There is no tolerance for “diversity”. If you challenge them, you are to be persecuted/prosecuted but if they niche market, they are to be celebrated.


37 posted on 10/24/2012 4:16:05 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (Obama likes to claim credit for getting Osama. Why hasn't he tried Khalid Sheikh Mohammed yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

The Left also wants to ban inheritance and 401k savings plans.

If you “saved” for your retirement, you are demonized for being “rich” even though you draw no pension, unlike the socialist masses on the public trough.


38 posted on 10/24/2012 4:19:18 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (Obama likes to claim credit for getting Osama. Why hasn't he tried Khalid Sheikh Mohammed yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: marron; Tax-chick
Yes, I see what you're saying. Tax-chick's "household" idea seems very sensible, too.

I seem to remember that sometime in the past few years, the City of San Francisco had an ordinance that all employers had to include gay partners in employees' insurance. The Abp of San Francisco tried to work it out that Archdiocesan employees could designate one person as co-beneficiary on their plan, no questions asked about who that person might be: wife, husband, son, daughter, gay partner, business associate, or random-person-on-the-street.

If I'm remembering correctly, the City's response was: no, not good enough, nyet, ningun, nada.

But admittedly, San Fran is particularly narrow and bigoted that way.

39 posted on 10/24/2012 4:33:59 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Some learn from reading; some by others' experience; the rest just *have* to pee on the third rail.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o; marron

I’ve also suggested that insurance policies might, in place of “employee and spouse,” have “employee and additional adult resident.” That could be a cohabiting nonmarital romantic partner, a parent, a sibling, an adult child, other family member, or whatever. I don’t think that the costs in insurance payout would be greater than “employee and spouse,” because if you limit it to a household resident, a single employee couldn’t add a non-resident parent, for example, to his employer’s policy.

I think it makes sense for the law to recognize that there are other household configurations besides husband-wife-children ... and there always have been. Better, from the insurance standpoint, simply to separate insurance from employment entirely, though.


40 posted on 10/24/2012 5:14:14 PM PDT by Tax-chick (Now a hit television series starring Judi Dench!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: rhema
If two men or two women are living together in a relationship and they want to ask the state legislature in their state to grant some of the special legal privileges accorded marriage to their relationship the state legislature should respond in the following fashion: "We will consider your request, but the sexual nature of your relationship will be irrelevant to our discussions because marriage is the only relationship in our society that is defined by its sexual nature. Why should other people who are living in committed relationships that do not involve sexual activity be discriminated against or left out?"

Such response would be light years ahead of the muddle currently in the heads of the legislators, intimidated by homo thugs. However, there is one aspect missing.

True, two or more people should be able to grant one another any rights that they are in possession of. For example, they are automatic inheritance rights, hospital visits, medical care decisions, etc.

It is reasonable that they ask legal equality between various spacific instances of such union. For example, there is no reason to allow a gay couple to mutually granted rights and disallow two widowed sisters the same.

They cannot however demand that the state grants them privileges that the state chooses to grant properly married couples. Examples of such privileges are citizenship, taxation, adoption rights. That is because the heterosexual nature of the marital union is of a special value to the state, since in the event of children being produced or adopted by a married couple, the state has an interest in the children to be raised in a harmonious family, thus relieving the pressure on schools, juvenal law enforcement, etc. The state has no similar interest in non-sexual or homosexual or polygamous unions in the same way.

The demand of non-discrimination is valid between non-marital unions. It is not valid if a non-marital union is compared in privileges to marriage.

41 posted on 10/24/2012 6:32:07 PM PDT by annalex (fear them not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema

Maryland “Freak State” PING!


42 posted on 10/24/2012 6:39:15 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Obama should change his campaign slogan to "Yes, we am!" Sounds as stupid as his administration is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

I think we are more in agreement than disagreement.

I agree that marriage (traditional marriage, not homosexual “marriage”) is a benefit to society. Strong families are a benefit to society.

The problem comes in whenever government inserts itself into something and tries to tinker with it. And that is what we have now.

For thousands of years people have understood what marriage is. But now, democrats see that as an opportunity to get votes, and to line their own pockets. If they can “redefine” marriage, they can use it to pit one group against another. I will also bet that the vast majority of divorce lawyers (who profit very handsomely) are democrats.

The government corrupts and taints nearly everything it touches and marriage is no exception.

I’m not against marriage. Just the opposite. I am very pro-marriage. I’m just against government meddling with it. For me, personally, it is a covenant involving a man, a woman, and God. (I still recognize a heterosexual, but non-religious, union as a marriage in the societal sense, but obviously not in the religious sense. JMO)

As things stand now, the government acts as if they “own” marriage. They have the right to define it. They have the right to tax it. They have the right to manipulate it to do whatever suits them. That is what I tried to express in my post.

My goal was not to antagonize anyone, certainly not to disparage marriage. I hoped to throw out some ideas and make people think a little about how this is one more area where we are giving up our liberty and freedom by letting the government meddle where they don’t belong. If this were the America of our Founding Fathers, I wouldn’t be worrying about government meddling. But we have been corrupted and taken over by non-benevolent, anti-family, anti-marriage “rulers.” The less they have to say about our personal lives, the better. JMO


43 posted on 10/24/2012 7:53:54 PM PDT by generally (Don't be stupid. We have politicians for that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: generally

How do you protect marriage and keep it as it is, if you don’t?

If there is no definition of marriage, then there isn’t any such thing and the word means everything and nothing.

A church can’t define it because in modern America there is no church. Atheists, Muslims, Mormons, Christians, “the Church of Gay Polygamy”, and the “Church of True Animal Lovers” can make their own rules, so we end up with no such thing as “marriage”.


44 posted on 10/24/2012 11:27:19 PM PDT by ansel12 (Mitt Romney is a mixture of LBJ and Nixon, Obama is a mixture of LBJ and Jimmy Carter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: generally

except that things liek taxes and benefits are involved here.

Also I remember talking to a libertarian about marriage and he said the said crap of Govt should not be involved and then wanted all sorts of marriage, father daughter, under age marriage etc.

That no Govt crap now tends to make me think that it’s a cover to have their perverted sick marriage.

Once marriage is changed then no one should be surprised when all sorts of marriage is wanted and maybe made law.


45 posted on 10/25/2012 7:27:32 AM PDT by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: justlurking
Another preference: a person cannot be compelled to testify against their spouse in court.

Good point (and one that can't be emulated via contact law).

46 posted on 10/30/2012 4:22:56 PM PDT by stroll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: annalex

The fallacy of that “granted privileges” argument is that it depends on the premise that the people are there to serve the interest of the state rather than vice versa.


47 posted on 10/30/2012 4:48:07 PM PDT by stroll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego
Would be nice to have a civilized discussion of how marriage ought to be defined.

BIOLOGY

48 posted on 10/30/2012 4:57:00 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood ("Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rhema

It should be what your Religion says it is. The government should be no part of it.

I married a woman and will spend the rest of my life with her. This was our choice by our Religious tenets.

We would have done this regardless of government. As it should be.


49 posted on 10/30/2012 4:57:30 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stroll

No, not at all. The state definitely can grant a privilege that one does not possess intrinsically, usually to do with the operation of the state itself. I enumerated them: a privilege to adopt a child who is a ward of the state, or to gain a citizenship. None of these are intrinsic rights. It does not mean I serve the state, merely that I do not wholly control its laws.


50 posted on 10/30/2012 5:11:28 PM PDT by annalex (fear them not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last

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.

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