Posted on 03/20/2013 5:57:00 AM PDT by 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.”
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.
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.
The monetary and morality effects on this country will be disastrous if same sex marriage becomes law, or no laws regarding marriage.
Sorry, but I disagree. This is anything but satire
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.
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.
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.
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.
What about religions that believe in multiple marriages?
The Constitution was not intended to cover every possible breach of morality or every threat to our existence.
That's why the framers didn't really want a Bill of Rights, because they knew that one could help mislead people into thinking it could cover every base. But, politically, Madison lost that political argument, which led to the passage of the Bill of Rights. He thought he had dealt with the threat he foresaw by the inclusion of the Ninth Amendment, but it isn't looking like that was enough. Because there are people like yourself claiming that natural rights can be destroyed because the Constitution doesn't address something.
Sorry, but I disagree. This is anything but satire
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are correct. Its not satire. As we know - the choices are Satire or Stupidity.
In the final analysis of what Shapiro is writing - Stupidity is the only response.
As goes the American Family - so goes America. Shapiro and other liberals are apparently only too happy to destroy the SECULAR benefits of Marriage. Notice I said secular.
I could argue all day for marriage from a RELIGIOUS POV. But staying inside the Constitution and the law, I can also argue for traditional marriage from a secular and legal POV.
Unfortunately liberals are too stupid to see this. That’s why I say - The want to destroy marriage in order to save it.
Ridiculous.
I said none of those things. You did.
Do you not see the difference between Man’s Laws and God’s Laws?
I sense a well-intentioned, pious, yet fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution.
“What about religions that believe in multiple marriages?”
It is clearly unconstitutional to arrest someone for having multiple spouses sanctioned by their religous body and agreed to by adults as long as they are only getting the civil benefits of one spouse.
“The institution of marriage MUST be protected at every level of governance.”
Protected BY the State?
Marriage is a Sacred Mystery (Sacrament, as some call it) given to mankind. It is a union formed by God. The Holy Spirit acts to make a marriage.
Do you wish to attempt to “grant” this power to the state? “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”
If you claim the State has the power to form a marriage, what will you have to stop the corruption of marriage? Popular vote? Since “the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it,” why would you expect marriage to be protected by a popular vote of the majority?
If a society is fundamentally evil, will you, by legal fiat, make the society holy? Will God bless evil men because they have “holy” laws that (ironically) claim to usurp authority that is, by definition, His?
Marriage in a holy society is protected FROM the state, not BY the state. This is not only demonstrated in argument by the very founders of our nation, but in practice by the degenerate laws we have already enacted.
Marriage is a Holy Mystery, which comes from God. It not only does not need your protection (it has God’s), but you think yourself too powerful by assuming you can do what, so you presume, God can’t. If our society is so evil that it claims to have the authority of God, it will degenerate further and further. The only way to turn the ship is for individuals to choose to do what is right. If they do not, the society will fall. No law will prevent it.
The state has no business in either defining Marriage or, as is done now, taxing it.
Sounds like a “surrender” to me, with the Federal Government seeing no difference and no societal value between real marriages and homo couplings.
...and it is because of people like you that the government enacts willy-nilly laws (like the 32oz coke, or the gun ban) based on their own whims and personal beliefs. This is why we have a Constitution! Our current politicians write laws based on their beliefs, without regard to constitutionality - this is what gets us into trouble.
I am amazed at how many people who consider themselves on ‘the right’ are so willing to throw away the Constitution. Very sad indeed.
The only bennies would be a deduction for the “extra” spouse(s).
Wrong.
Marriage is a spiritual thing, of the highest degree, a mystery, actually, its meaning is of such depth.
But, it is more that that. It is the nexus of the spiritual, the moral, the physical, the governmental, the economic.
It must be defended on every single front, or our nation, our republic, cannot possibly survive. The homosexual movement is a threat to the very existence of the United States, of American liberty, and of Posterity.
It is not the role of the Federal Government to determine what does and doesn’t have societal value. That’s slippery slope we don’t want to go down. Adherence to our Constitution brings things that each of us might not like. But the alternative is to vacate that which makes us great.
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.