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

Skip to comments.

To Save Traditional Marriage, End State Involvement in Marriage (Bingo)
Townhall.com ^ | March 20, 2013 | Ben Shapiro

Posted on 03/20/2013 5:57:00 AM PDT by Kaslin

Within the next few months, Justice Anthony Kennedy will likely rule that same-sex marriage is mandated by the Constitution of the United States. The ruling will offend both common sense and Constitutional law. But it will nonetheless become the law of the land. With it, states will be forced to recognize same-sex marriages; same-sex marriage will enter the public school lexicon; religious institutions will be forced to recognize same-sex marriages or lose their tax-exempt status. Religious Americans will be forced into violating their beliefs or facing legal consequences by the government. The First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty will largely become obsolete.

There is only one way to stop this development: Get the government out of the business of marriage. Right now.

States and localities originally gave tax benefits and crafted specific legal systems in order to incentivize Americans to get married and have children within the context of marriage. But those legal institutions have been undermined over the past several decades by a culture that degrades marriage and child rearing. Incentive structures that used to provide the cherry on top of good moral decision-making no longer matter enough to drive such decision-making.

That gap between culture and the legal system has led to a cycle of defining deviancy down, with government taking the lead. The view of the value of marriage in American life changed in the 1950's and 1960's; the left used that cultural shift in order to legitimize no-fault divorce laws, legal custody and child support arrangements that incentivized divorce and social welfare systems that incentivized unwed motherhood.

The last bastion of the old value system was the state's approval of traditional marriage. But thanks to a decades-long cultural shift away from marriage, the left is now in position to use the levers of government to redefine the institution once and for all -- and in the process, destroy the American religious culture that under-girds American freedom.

Unlike the movement to retract laws restricting sexual behavior, the same-sex marriage movement has never been about freedom in any real sense. The push for same-sex marriage is not about wanting freedom to copulate; same-sex copulation has been effectively legal in this country for decades, and formally legal since Lawrence v. Texas (2003). The push for same-sex marriage is not about wanting legal benefits available to heterosexual couples; same-sex couples are largely able to make contractual arrangements to achieve those benefits, and in many states, civil unions equate legally with marriage.

The push for same-sex marriage is about placing the power of government in direct opposition to traditional religious viewpoints.

And conservatives cannot stop that push unless they are willing to restrict government power. Conservatism has always been about preventing the power of government from invading the lives of citizens. Leftism has always been about using the power of government to restrict the behavior of others. It is time for conservatives to recognize the reality of their situation, realize the dangers inherent in their insistence on government interventionism and act quickly.

Getting the government out of marriage would mean voluntary lifestyle arrangements governed by contract -- a practice that has roots stretching back millennia. Religious people would not be forced by the state to approve behavior they find morally problematic. They would not have to worry about their children being taught about such behavior. Conservatives would be forced to rebuild a culture of marriage rather than focusing on a crumbling legal bulwark.

Conservatives lost the culture. Then they lost the law. They can only regain traditional values by removing legal coercion and incentivization from the table -- the left will never hesitate to use those means -- and focusing once again on the raising and production of children within a culture of traditional morality.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: civilrights; faithandfamily; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; libertarians; marriage; socialliberals; trolls
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-111 next last

1 posted on 03/20/2013 5:57:00 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Problem is....what is already happening...momma has ten children...5 boyfriends, collects welfare and we pay. It’ll be a bigger snowball.


2 posted on 03/20/2013 6:05:32 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

imho the government should have zero interest in whether someone is married or not.


3 posted on 03/20/2013 6:10:17 AM PDT by privatedrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: privatedrive

Government has no interest in promoting a stable society?

Hmmm... I’ll have to think about that.


4 posted on 03/20/2013 6:12:00 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

make any government involvement in marriage such as taxes etc. be changed to a ‘domestic partnership’ as the legal definition.

Let churches/synagogues be responsible for marriage and those clergy can fill out the government partnership paperwork as well as their church’s ‘marriage certificates’

don’t want to go to church? go to the justice of the peace, where you will only get a partnership certificate...


5 posted on 03/20/2013 6:13:45 AM PDT by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Same thing is true with illegal immigrants. We’ve always had ‘em, but when the state was not giving away free stuff to all comers it was not a big deal. Now it is.


6 posted on 03/20/2013 6:15:05 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Not so unusual. My wife and I are religiously married (Jewish). The state has no business in my marital statis. Most of my wife family immigrated to Israel from the Ukraine. According the her it is common in Israel to marry without civil license.


7 posted on 03/20/2013 6:18:35 AM PDT by deltabean (Born free, die free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Our current government has a vested interest in promoting an unstable society.

The push for same-sex marriage is about placing the power of government in direct opposition to traditional religious viewpoints.

Ben Shapiro is absolutely correct here. I wish he weren't. But he is.

8 posted on 03/20/2013 6:19:04 AM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Marriage is a institution outside of the bounds of government. People who live on a desert island with no government can marry and respect the marriage of others. God invented marriage, not man.

Government was happy to get into the marriage business because when we gave tax exemptions based on marital status, or when we taxed a person’s estate upon their death, or when the State stepped in to direct the disposition of an estate, or when we used the State to enforce marital fidelity, we had to allow the State to define who was “married” and who was not.

And with all things Statist, the secular State’s definition of marriage came to have more weight in society than God’s definition.

God defines marriage as being between men and women. While many men whom God called righteous in the Bible practiced polygamy, Jesus said is quoted in Matthew chapter 19 that from the beginning of humanity, it was God’s intent that marriage would only be one man and one woman.

God defines sexual relations between people of the same sex as sin, that is immoral. In Revelation 22:15, a book dictated to John by Jesus, God tells us that anyone who practices sexual immorality will not be granted eternal life.

But these are ecclesiastical considerations that are outside of secular government, that is unless we want government to police sexual behavior between consenting adults based on the standards of the Bible, that is if we can agree what those are. Do we want Congress to have that debate?

Maybe it is time to get government out of the marriage business and to return it to the private sphere. The problem for me today is that people who want to call themselves “married” against God’s law (as I read it) are willing to use the State to force me to recognize that marriage, which I cannot do. The want to have the State’s public education system indoctrinate my children that homosexual marriage is “normal”. They want to force me to subsidize the homosexual marriage in the tax code just like the godly marriage is subsidized.

If the State must force me to acknowledge its power to declare two men to be “married”, then I must support efforts to remove that power from the State. If people who don’t want God defining their personal morality demand a separation of church and State then let us also have separation of marriage and State as well. If those people don’t want any displays of the Ten Commandments in government buildings, they cannot hide behind the Commandments that protect marriage when it comes to homosexual “marriage”.


9 posted on 03/20/2013 6:20:31 AM PDT by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I doubt if it ever happens. There’s people on both sides who want the state involved for completely different reasons. One one hand you have conservatives who recognize that a good state can potentially be condusive to a good culture by promoting traditional marriage through gov’t. On the other hand you have statists and homosexualists who see the state’s involvement as a way to punish and keep punishing those who will never buy into ‘gay marriage’ with state power. Statists like that that many are conditioned to think the state defines marriage, it provides too much control of the culture to give up.

Freegards


10 posted on 03/20/2013 6:20:32 AM PDT by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Sorry to say it, but I expect the ONLY way out is to eliminate ANY "marriage-based" Benefits, period.

That may, in fact, be the goal here, where the Government can then hide behind "single people are not being treated equally", in the future, and Revenues can thus be increased by eliminating deductions/Benefits for Married Filings.

11 posted on 03/20/2013 6:20:49 AM PDT by traditional1 (Amerika.....Providing public housing for the Mulatto Messiah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman

Dittos...

And it’s not “traditional religious viewpoints” they are opposed to. They hate Christianity and Christians.


12 posted on 03/20/2013 6:21:24 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Here in Maryland many couples have their Federal taxes go up because they get married, not down.
Mainly couples with no kids.

Why?

Alternative minimum tax takes away all their deductions and it is triggered by married couples combined income over a limit (a good incentive to have the wife work part time and take care of the kids)

Married couples working at the grocery stores dont have this problem though.

Hopefully the gays will be nailed by this, if the SCOTUS does this.


13 posted on 03/20/2013 6:25:15 AM PDT by sickoflibs (O's sequester Apocalypse tour just proved why we need the 2nd amendment more than ever NOW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: theBuckwheat

If you run a business that could provide services to the public, you will be sanctioned if you decline to treat gays as non-gays. For example, if you run a wedding photography business, you will be sanctioned if you decline to photograph a gay wedding. This has already happened in California and New Mexico [1].

You may lose control of your own property. [2]

You might have to go out of business to stay true to your principles, so as to avoid being fined or sued into bankruptcy. [3,4]

From the article:

“Wedding vendors elsewhere who refused to accommodate same-sex couples have faced discrimination lawsuits — and lost. Legal experts said Discover Annapolis Tours sidesteps legal trouble by avoiding all weddings.

“If they’re providing services to the public, they can’t discriminate who they provide their services to,” said Glendora Hughes, general counsel for the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights. The commission enforces public accommodation laws that prohibit businesses from discriminating on the basis of race, sexual orientation and other characteristics.”

To advance the legal case that a marriage between two people of the same sex is no different than a marriage as God defines it, the US Justice Department will base their arguments before the Supreme Court that a child does not need, nor have a right to a mother. [5]

In short, gays will demand that non-gays accept them as moral equals, which they are not and cannot be. When the State says they are equal it is forbidden for a private citizen to dissent from that status. In doing so, they seek to force me to give them approval for something that I will never approve of. It is that last point that galls gays the most.

Curiously, when advocates of gay marriage are asked if their policy also would allow polygamy or polyandry, they recoil in horror and insist that it does not. However, logic demands that it does. I would ask how same-sex parents are going to react in the future when, for example, Utah public schools officials require that teachers instruct the children that LDS-related polygamy is just as “normal” as same-sex “marriage”. The fact that this will be an issue will show yet again that gay “marriage” is not about marriage at all it is about forcing the rest of us to approve of repugnant sexual immorality, something that LDS polygamists never demanded.

After same-sex marriage causes polygamy to be recognized polyandry won’t be far behind. Brave new world!

[1] Refusing To Shoot Gay Marriage Is Discrimination, Says New Mexico Appeals Court
http://www.popphoto.com/news/2012/06/refusing-to-shoot-gay-marriage-discrimination-says-new-mexico-appeals-court

[2] Judge Rules Christian facility cannot ban same-sex civil union ceremony on its own premises
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/judge-rules-christian-facility-cannot-ban-same-sex-civil-union-ceremony-on

[3] Opposed to same-sex marriage, company ends wedding business
Trolley owner says move made to avoid potential lawsuit
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-ar-annapolis-trolley-suspends-wedding-servic-20121225,0,7100399,full.story

[4] Baker refuses to make wedding cake for lesbian couple and ‘calls them abominations unto the Lord’

Aaron Klein, owner of Sweet Cakes in Gresham, Oregon is the subject of a state investigation after one of the brides-to-be filed a complaint

link:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2272429/Aaron-Klein-complaint-Baker-refuses-make-wedding-cake-lesbian-couple-calls-abominations-unto-Lord.html

[5] DOJ: Children Do Not Need—and Have No Right to—Mothers March 3, 2013 By Terence P. Jeffrey
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/doj-children-do-not-need-and-have-no-right-mothers


14 posted on 03/20/2013 6:25:36 AM PDT by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I once lived in a relatively sane society.


15 posted on 03/20/2013 6:28:27 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

This was the fundamental choice placed before Mitt Romney when he was governor of Massachusetts. Their supreme court declared that ALL existing marriages were in conflict with the ‘law’ and thus would be declared null and void lest the state no longer required marriage to mean ‘the union of a man and a woman.’

Had he called the bluff of the state supreme court on the matter, and protected marriage by no longer letting it be a tool of politics, this snowball would have melted away and the state would have reversed course, as I doubt that the state supreme court wanted to contemplate the legal ramifications of undoing more than 200 years of marriage.


16 posted on 03/20/2013 6:28:42 AM PDT by kingu (Everything starts with slashing the size and scope of the federal government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

When did Shapiro start writing satire?

I don’t remember him being completely stupid, so this article has to be satire.

(Yes, I added the keyword)


17 posted on 03/20/2013 6:29:43 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

Correct. The government is involved in marriage only because of the money and control of the population. Think about it. Income tax calculations, “entitlement” requirements (social security, ADC, welfare, social security) and the consequences of inheritance and property ownership. There are huge bureaucracies connected with all that and the cost.

To eliminate the involvement of government in marriage, education, and a huge list of other functions would revive the nation. But it will not happen, because this is all about control, subjection and social engineering. It is planned that way by the lefties. They want us all so dependent that we cannot make any decisions for ourselves.

Failure planned from the top. Despotism.

The only way out of the mess we are in is to DownSize DC and the state and local bureaucracies. That would have consequences that many would not at this point easily accept.


18 posted on 03/20/2013 6:36:56 AM PDT by Texas Fossil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Government has no interest in promoting a stable society?

Actually the present statist style of government is not particularly interested in strong or stable family relationships. That's why they subsidize and encourage single parent families, and that's one reason there has been a steady increase in the number of children born outside of marriage.

To a government seeking to expand its role in society replacing the family as the primary caregiver is a wonderful tactic. We saw that on display in the last presidential election, where Democrats campaigned on how they, once in power, would take care of women's needs. Notice how our current president never takes to the bully pulpit to encourage young women to get married before having children.

So as it stands today I don't think you can characterize the government as a supporter of family life. They may want a stable society of people dependent on government, but they most certainly don't want a stable, family based society with little need for a strong central government. Recent actions by the Justice Department underscore the animosity of the federal government to families. Amazingly, when we have millions of illegal immigrants, the DOJ is litigating against a family of Swedish homeschoolers who are seeking asylum in the USA so they can continue to home school.

Given the hostility of government towards traditional families and religious institutions, it would be better if they simply had nothing to do with marriage. After all, why should any adult have to ask permission from the government to get married?

The first step in promoting a stable society is to reduce the negative effects of a large, overbearing government which is damaging the very institutions, like marriage and families, that society really depends on.

19 posted on 03/20/2013 6:39:58 AM PDT by freeandfreezing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: freeandfreezing

The current 1984 style fascists are promoting “anti-families”.

The goal is dependence on nothing and no one but the State.


20 posted on 03/20/2013 6:42:33 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
The ruling will offend both common sense and Constitutional law. But it will nonetheless become the law of the land.

Mr. Shapiro has apparently never read the Constitution. Because in Article One, Section 1, law-making power is granted only to the legislative branch. The courts do NOT make law.

This article is part of the mass Republican surrender to the coup d'etat that is attempting to turn our constitutional republican form of representative self-government into a judicial oligarchy.

To put it bluntly, Shapiro and those who are taking this position are Quislings.

21 posted on 03/20/2013 6:42:47 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (Go ahead and violate the laws of nature. But nature and nature's God will have the last word.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Well - that’s not what I said.

Government should have no interest in marriage.


22 posted on 03/20/2013 6:44:12 AM PDT by privatedrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: theBuckwheat

I’m not so sure Kennedy will rule that same sex marriage is a basic right.

First, that requires finding that marriage is a right, and by definition, it cannot be since it requires two cooperating individuals. How does a single person demand his/her right to marriage? Does the government find some partner and force that person to marry the other?

Second, that also requires finding that the government has some compelling interest in “marriage” and what that interest is. As this article points out, government isn’t really necessary for marriage to take place. Anyone can pledge undying devotion to another at any time and any place without any government involvement whatsoever.

Therefore, the basis of the government’s involvement must logically provide some benefit to the government. The only benefit involvement in marriage provides to the state has to do with government’s interest in the rearing of the next generation of human beings, and that means its interest is in potentially procreative persons.

That pretty much includes any heterosexual union from teens to 60’s. It is purely convention that elders marrying in their 70’s receive marital concessions from the government.

HOWEVER, it makes more sense to deny that government support to those past any possibility of procreativity than it does to provide it to any couple which totally lacks any procreative potential whatsoever.

Third, children have an absolutely vested interest (a right?) to be reared by their biological parents, since that bonding and that interest has been shown throughout history to be the best working means of providing for the balanced social upbringing of children.


23 posted on 03/20/2013 6:44:36 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The radical homosexual activists literally stand and cheer when they hear those who have been infected by the Libertarian Ron Paul disease take a “leave it to the states” position on marriage. Because they know without a doubt that their divide and conquer tactics have worked, and that they have won.

The institution of marriage MUST be protected at every level of governance. It’s a fundamental moral matter, but it is also a matter of national, physical survival.


24 posted on 03/20/2013 6:48:07 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (Go ahead and violate the laws of nature. But nature and nature's God will have the last word.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: privatedrive

Traditional marriage is inextricably linked to stable society. Do you care to deny that?


25 posted on 03/20/2013 6:50:16 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: privatedrive
Government should have no interest in marriage.

Nonsense. Natural marriage and the natural family are essential to the very survival of the nation.

That's why the ultimate stated purpose of the United States Constitution is:

"To secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves AND OUR POSTERITY."

26 posted on 03/20/2013 6:50:50 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (Go ahead and violate the laws of nature. But nature and nature's God will have the last word.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: MrB

No sir I do not deny that at all.

My position is strictly regarding the legality or constitutionally of government involvement in marriage.

When we start straying from constitutionality, and make laws because we believe something, without regard to constitutionality - well that’s when we get into trouble (and start sounding like leftists).

I stand by my statement: Government should have no interest in marriage.


27 posted on 03/20/2013 6:54:26 AM PDT by privatedrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

To follow your logic: Government should mandate marriage for everyone. Divorce should be illegal. As you say: nonsense.


28 posted on 03/20/2013 6:57:38 AM PDT by privatedrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: theBuckwheat
Curiously, when advocates of gay marriage are asked if their policy also would allow polygamy or polyandry, they recoil in horror and insist that it does not. However, logic demands that it does.

Absolutely correct. And if you look at sheer numbers, polygamy is far more prevalent (in most of the Muslim world) than gay unions (in isolated whack-job pockets of the liberal west).

I don't know how common polyandry actually is, but there would be no legal recourse to disallow it either in an equality uber alles society which sanctions gay marriage.

This reminds me of an old joke. A sociologist decides to maroon three sets of nationalities, British, French and Russian on separate deserted islands to see how they behave.

Each set consists of two men and a woman in their mid 20s.

He checks back six months later to see how they are doing.

The Brits are living in separate sections of the island. The scientist asks what is wrong. "We haven't been properly introduced," they reply.

The French are living in the same grass hut with nothing but a curtain dividing the single guy from the living quarters of the fornicating couple. The scientist is intrigued and asks how they decided which man got the woman. "Oh, we share her on alternating nights", reply the men. "The arrangement works wonderfully and both of us are needed to satisfy her frequent sexual needs!"

Last stop is the island with the Russians. Both the men are in the hut, drunk as skunks on homemade liquior and busy making more. The woman is hitched up to a plow outside in the heat cultivating a vegetable garden. Neither of the men is sober enough to talk about sex, or anything else for that matter. And the woman refuses to do so.

29 posted on 03/20/2013 6:59:17 AM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: theBuckwheat
The fact that this will be an issue will show yet again that gay “marriage” is not about marriage at all it is about forcing the rest of us to approve of repugnant sexual immorality, something that LDS polygamists never demanded.

I keep asking everyone, on this forum and in my professional and personal life. What do they really want?

I think you have hit it, they want us to denounce 6,000 years of one man and one woman with God being the only true marriage. They will not stop with their homosexual "marriage" victory. They will spend the next decades cramming it down all of our throats, forcing our churches to accept them , marry them, celebrate them and most importantly they want to hear us denounce God and His commands on homosexuality.

30 posted on 03/20/2013 6:59:47 AM PDT by thirst4truth (www.Believer.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: privatedrive

The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

Make no mistake: The homosexual movement will completely destroy this country. Spiritually, morally, governmentally, and ultimately, physically.

Constitutional republican self-government cannot co-exist with the abrogation of the laws of nature and of nature’s God.

It’s one or the other. Can’t be both.

So, pick a side.


31 posted on 03/20/2013 7:06:00 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (Go ahead and violate the laws of nature. But nature and nature's God will have the last word.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: privatedrive

That’s just silly. A government founded upon the moral basis that makes liberty possible, and still operating thereby, isn’t going to force anyone to marry. Even though it is in the existential interest of that government that people do so.


32 posted on 03/20/2013 7:13:16 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (Go ahead and violate the laws of nature. But nature and nature's God will have the last word.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Verrry Interesting....

Pick a side: God or the Constitution?

Hmmmmm......

Well - when it comes to the LAW - I’ll pick the Constitution.

When we start to make laws based on our personal beliefs, rather than our Constitution, then we go down the road of Lefties, Dictators and Terrorists.


33 posted on 03/20/2013 7:15:23 AM PDT by privatedrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

I don’t think that Maryland is the only state were taxes are going up when both husband and wife work. I remember when both my husband and I were younger and I worked also, we ended up having to pay instead of getting a refund.


34 posted on 03/20/2013 7:15:31 AM PDT by Kaslin (He needed the ignorant to reelect him, and he got them. Now we all have to pay the consequenses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: privatedrive

Government should have no interest in marriage,
as long as those consenting to be governed by said government

have no interest in promoting a stable society.


35 posted on 03/20/2013 7:15:48 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Sounds like you agree with me: Government should have no involvement in marriage. You can’t have it both ways.


36 posted on 03/20/2013 7:17:44 AM PDT by privatedrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
This is satire to you?

WTH?

37 posted on 03/20/2013 7:20:02 AM PDT by Kaslin (He needed the ignorant to reelect him, and he got them. Now we all have to pay the consequenses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: MrB

So therefore: Anything that the government believes will “promote a stable society” is Legal and Constitutional?

Again - this is the thinking of The Left.

Is that a 32oz Coke on your desk?


38 posted on 03/20/2013 7:21:57 AM PDT by privatedrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: privatedrive
Without God there is no Constitution. There is no America. You're gravely mistaken.

“While our country remains untainted with the principles and manners which are now producing desolation in so many parts of the world; while she continues sincere, and incapable of insidious and impious policy, we shall have the strongest reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned us by Providence. But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation [that is, hypocrisy] towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation while it is practicing iniquity and extravagance, and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candor, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world; because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

-- John Adams, "letter to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts, October 11, 1798," in Works of John Adams, vol. 9 (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1854), 228-229.


39 posted on 03/20/2013 7:25:31 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (Go ahead and violate the laws of nature. But nature and nature's God will have the last word.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Satire. Or Stupidity. Your call.

But read Shapiro’s first paragraph again. This “We have to destroy the Village in order to save it” rhetoric is absurd.


40 posted on 03/20/2013 7:26:46 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The state wants control over non-religious marriage, so the flip side of this is for the Orthodox religions and the more conservative religions to take over “religious marriage”, and only recognize marriages made by their mutual rules. The same applies to divorce.

Importantly, each religion can add to the requirements for marriage, but they will only recognize religious marriage as marriage.

As an example, start with Roman Catholic rules for marriage. Marriage must be heterosexual, consensual, and there must be at least the possibility that it can be consummated. Divorce, as such, is not recognized by the Catholics, and nobody divorced can be remarried in church, a rule not universal in other religions.

Importantly, marriage must be seen by all as sacramental, not a social contrivance. And they must be adamant that no marriage outside of religious marriage will be treated as marriage within their churches.

Because the Anglicans allow married clergy, the Catholics have set up a personal ordinariate, so that they can “be Catholic, while still following many Anglican rules.”


41 posted on 03/20/2013 7:29:47 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy (Best WoT news at rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: privatedrive

Our government, our republic, even our economy, are built upon the first organizing unit of civilization, which is the natural family.

Again, you’re gravely mistaken.

The very existence of our form of government and our republic depend on the family’s defense.


42 posted on 03/20/2013 7:29:56 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (Go ahead and violate the laws of nature. But nature and nature's God will have the last word.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: privatedrive

I think I see our disconnect.
I have the view that the Constitution is based on certain cultural value assumptions (Western Christian) as to the role of government.

And, no, regulating a coke is not within that assumptive worldview, and my view is not “the same as the left”, who use the government to impose their humanist worldview on our society.

A worldview WILL be imposed. There is no neutral.


43 posted on 03/20/2013 7:34:19 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The monetary and morality effects on this country will be disastrous if same sex marriage becomes law, or no laws regarding marriage.


44 posted on 03/20/2013 7:35:35 AM PDT by Coldwater Creek (He who dwells in thee shelter of the Most High will rest in the shadows of the Almighty Psalm 91:)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

Sorry, but I disagree. This is anything but satire


45 posted on 03/20/2013 7:37:16 AM PDT by Kaslin (He needed the ignorant to reelect him, and he got them. Now we all have to pay the consequenses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Excellent quote, my Friend, and I enjoy the conversation - because I think we are addressing a fundamental principle that goes back to the founding of our country, and of Man’s Laws vs. God’s Laws.

My interpretation of Mr. Adams letter to the officers is this:

Even though We The People have decided to base our Laws on the Constitution, it does not abslove you Officers and your people of your duty to live by God’s Laws.

I totally agree with Mr Adams.

And therefore I hope you will see that I am not mistaken: Government has no business caring whether someone is married or not.


46 posted on 03/20/2013 7:40:47 AM PDT by privatedrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Marriage is a religous rite. Anything else is just a form of civil union no matter what you call it. As a Catholic, I don’t recognize any union performed at City Hall as “marriage”, even if the couple is heterosexual. That said, we need to identify the act as a sin, call on these folks to seek reconciliation with God for their sins and work toward not committing these sins. We do not need to be encouraging them to live in sin indefinitely. I don’t think there is a government role either way. What I am hearing on the streets is much more worrisome than anything the government can or can’t do.


47 posted on 03/20/2013 7:44:30 AM PDT by wolfman23601
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Well you and I certainly agree on one thing: There is no neutral.

You either agree to abide by the Constitution, or you do not.

Again...once we start to veer away from the Constitution because of our own personal beliefs, we have lost that which makes the USA the greatest country in the history of civilization.


48 posted on 03/20/2013 7:45:43 AM PDT by privatedrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: privatedrive

You are in effect saying that government has no interest then in fulfilling the ultimate stated purpose of its own Constitution.

You are saying that government has no interest in preserving the moral basis for our claim to liberty.

You are claiming that government has no interest in its very physical survival into the next generation.

Which is both illogical and unreasonable.


49 posted on 03/20/2013 7:46:33 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (Go ahead and violate the laws of nature. But nature and nature's God will have the last word.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

What about religions that believe in multiple marriages?


50 posted on 03/20/2013 7:49:44 AM PDT by USAF80
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-111 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