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

Skip to comments.

Yes, Letís Keep Government Out of Marriage
Red State ^ | 04/01/2013 | Erick Erickson

Posted on 04/01/2013 1:42:04 PM PDT by SeekAndFind

Last week at RedState, we spent a lot of time focusing on politics from a faith perspective because it was Holy Week. Throughout the week, many people who support gay marriage lambasted me and others that Christians were just trying to use government to legislate marriage or morality.

But I agree that we should keep the government out of marriage.

Last I checked, George and Martha Washington did not get remarried after 1776 when the United States declared independence from Great Britain. Nor did they do so after 1789, when the constitution was enacted.

In fact, not one of the founding fathers married prior to 1776 remarried the same person after the United States was formed.

Government did not create marriage. The only laws on the books related to marriage are state laws and federal laws that recognize the marriage structure that previously existed before the government established them.

To be sure, over time those marriages evolved. The age of consent and the ability to contract have changed and impacted marriage, but the structure and operation of marriage were still the same.

The most significant changes in the law regarding marriage have been on how to end a marriage, not how to begin a marriage or what constitutes a marriage.

But marriage pre-existed the state and has evolved institutionally over a few thousand years.

What’s happening now is that gay marriage advocates are attempting to use the state to change marriage. When they say Christians are trying to use the state to legislate their version of marriage, they are full of crap. All Christians are doing is defending an institution that already exists from being changed to something it has never been.

It is the gay marriage advocates who want to force, by the power of the state, a pre-existing institution to change. If the state has the power to change the definition of an institution that it did not create, the state can force everyone to do so. It is already happening in this country at the state level.

Marriage may evolve to include gays one day. But the time is not there year. The laws enacted across the country to preserve the status quo are just that — there to keep the state, via the courts or legislature from changing an institution neither the courts nor legislatures of the several states created, but chose to recognize.

Let’s be clear here — you can support gay marriage, but don’t tell me Christians are trying to legislate their version of marriage. The only people trying to legislate, from the bench or otherwise, are gay rights advocates who refuse to let the institution naturally evolve because of their own impatience for the trappings of normalcy in a society that has long viewed them as outside the mainstream.

That the loudest proponents of gay marriage cannot even be honest in what’s going on loudly suggests they are not being honest when they say they’re cool with conscientious objectors to the whole idea. Consider, for example, this blog post from the Cato Institute entitled, “We Support Gay Marriage but Oppose Forcing People to Support It.”

They filed an amicus brief in support of Elane Photography, which was punished in New Mexico for refusing to help a gay wedding. Cato bases its defense on photography being protected by the first amendment. But note this:

Our brief explains that photography is an art form protected by the First Amendment because clients seek out the photographer’s method of staging, posing, lighting, and editing. Photography is thus a form of expression subject to the First Amendment’s protection, unlike many other wedding-related businesses (e.g., caterers, hotels, limousine drivers).

So if you are a Christian caterer, bed and breakfast, etc. too bad. You will be forced to provide services to a gay wedding. You will be made to by the power of the state. That’s where we are headed. If the state has the power to change the definition of an institution it did not create, the state can compel your services to that institution.

So yes, let’s keep the government out of marriage. Its definition will change over time through the natural evolution of all institutions. That evolution may include gay marriage, but it might not.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: gaymarriage; government; homosexualagenda; homosexuality; marriage; ssm
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-69 next last

1 posted on 04/01/2013 1:42:04 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I posted this before:

My wife and I are religiously married (Jewish). The state has no business regarding my marital status. Most of my wife family immigrated to Israel from the Ukraine. According the her it is common in Israel to marry without civil license.

A couple of caveats. We were both in our late 30s when we married (my first her second) and we did not plan to have children. My wife already had two great children, the youngest was my best man.


2 posted on 04/01/2013 1:49:37 PM PDT by deltabean (Born free, die free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

we definitely need a separation between merge and state


3 posted on 04/01/2013 1:53:38 PM PDT by InvisibleChurch (http://thegatwickview.tumblr.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The elderly gay woman with the sob story about how she had to pay a high tax bill on an inheritance when her partner died took the cake for me. She lamented that she could have avoided this tax penalty if only her union had been recognized as a marriage and the inheritance could have been transferred without tax.

Too bad that someone in the GOP didn't trounce on the fact that an estate tax is unfair to everyone gay and straight as life savings that have already been taxed many times over should not be hit with a death tax by the greedy government. I also think the woman should be suing her estate planner. There are lots of ways she could have structured this estate and avoided most if not all of the tax. Her sob story is not really about gay marriage but our unfair and greedy tax code. It is the same government she is crying to for gay marriage is the same one who needlessly taxed the hell out of her partner's estate.

4 posted on 04/01/2013 1:58:33 PM PDT by The Great RJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
So if you are a Christian caterer, bed and breakfast, etc. too bad. You will be forced to provide services to a gay wedding. You will be made to by the power of the state. That’s where we are headed. If the state has the power to change the definition of an institution it did not create, the state can compel your services to that institution.

I'm so old I can remember when people said this about hotels allowing black people and Asians. Time change, countries change.
5 posted on 04/01/2013 1:58:58 PM PDT by Vladiator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

I agree the govt has no business in the affairs in marriage.

The citizens have granted the govt too much power to determine morality through swift, Orwellian procedures.


6 posted on 04/01/2013 2:02:36 PM PDT by Gene Eric (The Palin Doctrine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I got a better idea. We define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, civil or religious, like it always has been. Then we label dissenters as the godless Commie scum they are, and treat them as such.


7 posted on 04/01/2013 2:04:26 PM PDT by GenXteacher (You have chosen dishonor to avoid war; you shall have war also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GenXteacher

RE: Then we label dissenters as the godless Commie scum they are

I don’t think Ted Olson is a commie... he’s just totally misguided on this issue.


8 posted on 04/01/2013 2:05:59 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I agree, ditch the federal definition of marriage and leave that one to God and the churches.


9 posted on 04/01/2013 2:08:15 PM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Knowingly or not, he serves their ends:
http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”


10 posted on 04/01/2013 2:09:04 PM PDT by GenXteacher (You have chosen dishonor to avoid war; you shall have war also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: deltabean
My wife and I are religiously married (Jewish). The state has no business regarding my marital status.

What if you are a 35 year Green Beret who is Muslim and has 4 women that you want to marry, does the government need to decide if those marriages are valid for housing and rations and as dependents when you are stationed and housed in obscure places on the planet, or do they just depend on the Mosque to define it?

11 posted on 04/01/2013 2:13:12 PM PDT by ansel12 (The lefts most effective quote-I'm libertarian on social issues, but conservative on economics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
I agree, ditch the federal definition of marriage and leave that one to God and the churches.

Then anything goes, because in America, the Mosque and the atheist and the Mormon and the Episcopalian are on the same footing as whatever church you belong to.

12 posted on 04/01/2013 2:16:36 PM PDT by ansel12 (The lefts most effective quote-I'm libertarian on social issues, but conservative on economics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I have always maintained that this is the solution to this problem, on two levels - first, the practical one. If you get pissed about gay marriage, the REAL reply has always been, “married in what church or religion or spiritual tradition”? In fact, that goes right now. But state marriage gives the illusion that none of that matters, that marriage is something that stands on its own, without any support other than state acknowledgement. Hello? How is this possible? Which brings up the second point - What part of the government has the authority to validate the love and commitment between two people before God? Zip.

In point of fact, a marriage license is a TAX ID. That’s it - it’s your verification to the tax authorities that you are married, or to the healthcare tax authorities that you are married, etc. Which means that in its usual way, government has reduced the absolute highest, to the absolute lowest. But the real atrocity is that so many people have been fooled by it, and even welcome it and defend it.

Wake up.


13 posted on 04/01/2013 2:19:23 PM PDT by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
What if you are a 35 year Green Beret who is Muslim and has 4 women that you want to marry, does the government need to decide if those marriages are valid for housing and rations and as dependents when you are stationed and housed in obscure places on the planet, or do they just depend on the Mosque to define it?

Apples and oranges. MARRIAGE is defined by the religious or spiritual tradition, given that such a religious or spiritual tradition is acknowledged AS a religious or spiritual tradition under the 1st Amendment. Government entitlement identifications are a COMPLETELY SEPARATE ISSUE. Should you be responsible for shortening your name or coloring your hair if the government computers don't have enough spaces or color choices in its database?

But as usual, ansel12, you confuse things with a twist. Because in addition to your basic marriage confusion cited above, you then added (1)a marriage of an active duty combat armed forces person to a member of enemy forces (2) in a time of war (3) while personally fighting in that war (4) involving polygamy (5) in group that claims to be a religion while requiring the murder of anyone who rejects it and thus more clearly defining itself as a terrorist organization than a religion (6) and thereby implying that said active duty combat armed forces person has doubtful loyalties to his country.

Quite a score, even for you. I hope you're paid well to write your disruptive, cognitive dissonance crap, because you sure put a lot of effort into it.

14 posted on 04/01/2013 2:33:00 PM PDT by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

That is a good question. BTW, if the state is involve, I believe marriage should be defined as between a man and a women who have both reached their majority.

I guess I’m a libertarian whose default position is to not involve the state in my business whenever possible. It’s never the perfect solution, and you may very well be correct in this case. As I stated in my first post while we have raised a child together, we did not plan on having children of our own. If we did I most likely would have obtained a marriage license.

Anyway, thanks for the response.


15 posted on 04/01/2013 2:36:13 PM PDT by deltabean (Born free, die free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Talisker
Because in addition to your basic marriage confusion cited above, you then added (1)a marriage of an active duty combat armed forces person to a member of enemy forces (2) in a time of war (3) while personally fighting in that war (4) involving polygamy (5) in group that claims to be a religion while requiring the murder of anyone who rejects it and thus more clearly defining itself as a terrorist organization than a religion (6) and thereby implying that said active duty combat armed forces person has doubtful loyalties to his country.

Aside from your childish personal attack, what in the world are you talking about? Would you show me the post and quotes where I did that?

16 posted on 04/01/2013 2:39:57 PM PDT by ansel12 (The lefts most effective quote-I'm libertarian on social issues, but conservative on economics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: deltabean

In 1780 the federal govt, and the military was already necessarily in the business of deciding on the validity of the marriages of GIs.


17 posted on 04/01/2013 2:42:09 PM PDT by ansel12 (The lefts most effective quote-I'm libertarian on social issues, but conservative on economics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

But they were married and the community at large recognized their married state. And having their marriage recognized with the protections and obligations attached to it was the goal of going through some ceremony witnessed by others.

Getting the government out of marriage wouldn’t be difficult if enough people wanted to do so.


18 posted on 04/01/2013 2:42:36 PM PDT by count-your-change (you don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I agree with you. But I also agree that states should step out of the way, too.

When the priest, minister, or other religious leader conducting the marriage ceremony says “By the power vested in me by the State of New York (Texas, Florida, whatever)...” it makes me gag. I thought we were supposed to have a separation between church and state in this country?

Unfortunately the cat is out of the bag on the state and federal level.

Social security benefits, federal tax classifications, and other federal goodies make it impossible to get the federal government out of the marriage business.


19 posted on 04/01/2013 2:45:42 PM PDT by AC86UT89
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

When were the first official state marriage licenses required in America?

Anyone?


20 posted on 04/01/2013 2:46:48 PM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: AC86UT89
Social security benefits, federal tax classifications, and other federal goodies make it impossible to get the federal government out of the marriage business.

Sounds like a great reason to do away with the federal classification to me.
21 posted on 04/01/2013 2:47:53 PM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Another good point. Although with an all volunteer army, you might say that service is now a privilege and as such the military may require a military marriage license, like requiring feet with arches. Trust me I know that wouldn’t happen under or current administration.

I know JAG law isn’t always consistent with civilian law.

Just a thought.


22 posted on 04/01/2013 2:52:09 PM PDT by deltabean (Born free, die free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: deltabean

Aside from the fact that the military can’t find people in modern America who want that “privilege” of serving, the military already has to make a decision on the validity of your marriage, just as they did in 1780.

If everybody gets to legally define it themselves, from Mosques to atheists, then the feds would have to recognize them, as would eventually all the other states and court systems.


23 posted on 04/01/2013 2:58:56 PM PDT by ansel12 (The lefts most effective quote-I'm libertarian on social issues, but conservative on economics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

They were somewhat common by the late 1600s, although the population groups here were still tiny and pretty homogeneous.


24 posted on 04/01/2013 3:04:51 PM PDT by ansel12 (The lefts most effective quote-I'm libertarian on social issues, but conservative on economics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
From wiki for further investigation.

In the United States, until the mid-19th century, common-law marriages were recognized as valid, but thereafter some states began to invalidate common-law marriages. Common-law marriages, if recognized, are valid, notwithstanding the absence of a marriage license. The requirement for a marriage license was used as a mechanism to prohibit whites from marrying blacks, mulattos, Japanese, Chinese, Native Americans, Mongolians, Malays or Filipinos. By the 1920s, 38 states used the mechanism.
25 posted on 04/01/2013 3:07:35 PM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: The Great RJ

what is not even acknowledged in these here debates, is the fact that if a heterosexual married couple has one die without a will, it goes to probate... PERIOD..

the only way to avoid probate is to leave a will..

fags can leave a will just like a normal couple can...

dirty little secret to spread around...


26 posted on 04/01/2013 3:08:06 PM PDT by joe fonebone (The clueless... they walk among us, and they vote...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GenXteacher

and where would that definition happen???

federal level???

show me where in the constitution the feds were given the specific right to regulate marriage...

state level???

now you got the 10th amendment working for you..

judging by your response, you are basically a totaltarian, nanny state type that wants to regulate what I think, feel, and do...

go to hell, and find a different website ( i recommend the young communists, you would fit right in there )


27 posted on 04/01/2013 3:10:48 PM PDT by joe fonebone (The clueless... they walk among us, and they vote...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone

Personally I think eliminating the federal definition of marriage opens the door to real reform of social security.


28 posted on 04/01/2013 3:12:27 PM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

What is your point?

Common-law marriage is still recognized by all 50 states and is legal in states like my home state of Texas.

But you asked about licenses, and they were common from the 1600s until today.


29 posted on 04/01/2013 3:18:32 PM PDT by ansel12 (The lefts most effective quote-I'm libertarian on social issues, but conservative on economics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone

You go to hell. Your libertarian atheist bs just enables the left to destroy civilization. This is supposed to be a conservative site, so you should be the one leaving.


30 posted on 04/01/2013 3:23:13 PM PDT by GenXteacher (You have chosen dishonor to avoid war; you shall have war also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

“Then anything goes, because in America, the Mosque and the atheist and the Mormon and the Episcopalian are on the same footing as whatever church you belong to.”

Welcome to Freedom of Religion. Or maybe you are in favor of establishing a State Religion?


31 posted on 04/01/2013 3:24:35 PM PDT by spaced
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

If the Supreme Court says that Obamacare is constitutional because of the taxing power of Congress, then DOMA is constitutional tax policy.

Reynolds v. United States in 1878 already defined marriage as one woman and one man.

Leon Puñettas was so occupied with gay pride celebrations at the Pentagon, he forgot there was a war, a US Ambassador was murdered and US Navy Seals were completely abandoned to their deaths because everyone was being so fücking gay...


32 posted on 04/01/2013 3:25:11 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood ("Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spaced

LOL, welcome to the world of being a lefty troll in service to the cause of homosexual marriage and polygamy and Islam.

You might want to check which forum you are on, this isn’t DU.


33 posted on 04/01/2013 3:30:22 PM PDT by ansel12 (The lefts most effective quote-I'm libertarian on social issues, but conservative on economics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

“What part of the government has the authority to validate the love and commitment between two people before God? Zip.”

Well, except that governments have done exactly that since civilization began.

The first Chief Og of the cave men gave protection to his people’s families- from each other. It’s the oldest government racket, the most successful, and possibly the most beneficial jusging by it’s fruits.

The Magna Carta had much in it to keep the King from messing with the laws of state-recognized marriages. Once we all felt as those nobles did, now we are less proud and more obeisant to the ‘King’. More like the peasants of those days than the nobles.


34 posted on 04/01/2013 3:54:15 PM PDT by mrsmith (Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“So yes, let’s keep the government out of marriage. Its definition will change over time through the natural evolution of all institutions. That evolution may include gay marriage, but it might not.”

The funny thing about evolution is it survival of the fittest, and Homosexuals including any union among them is quite incapable of passing on whatever genetic or cultural defect that led them to a life of sodomy.


35 posted on 04/01/2013 3:55:41 PM PDT by Monorprise (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric

I think the only chance we have of winning is for conservatives to sacrifice the tax status that comes with state sanctioned marriage.

Unfortunately I think that tax status matters more than anything else to most Americans.


36 posted on 04/01/2013 4:04:13 PM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

I guess if the state, fed included neither punish nor reward marriage, then there would be nothing to recognize.

If the military wanted to set different standards, via the UCMJ, I supposed it could.

BTW. I found this on answerbag.

The first marriage license was issued in Shawnee, Kansas to John D. Skidmore and Arabella Z. Rice. Their marriage was performed on February 24, 1856 and the first marriage license was recorded on April 18, 1856.

I would guess census data would show marriages before this without benefit of state license.


37 posted on 04/01/2013 4:41:00 PM PDT by deltabean (Born free, die free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: GenXteacher

“I got a better idea. We define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, civil or religious, like it always has been. Then we label dissenters as the godless Commie scum they are, and treat them as such.”

Godless sodomites, but not commies.

Let us at least be accurate.


38 posted on 04/01/2013 4:41:06 PM PDT by Monorprise (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise

Look at the link I posted upthread in post 10. The left is behind the sodomites for a reason.


39 posted on 04/01/2013 4:55:53 PM PDT by GenXteacher (You have chosen dishonor to avoid war; you shall have war also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: deltabean

Lots going on in Kansas at that point in time. 2 years after being opened to settlement with pro and anti slavery forces battling for control.


40 posted on 04/01/2013 4:57:10 PM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

This is true, but its also true that such benefits are for the posterity of the man(his children) not just the wife that produced them.

Abandoning all benefits under the title of “marriage” and instead replacing them with family(child rearing) benefits might be the economic sensible thing to do.

After all why should the state or an employer or society at large care where or not your bonded to a particular woman? Women work for themselves now. What matters is your children.


41 posted on 04/01/2013 4:58:55 PM PDT by Monorprise (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: GenXteacher

“Knowingly or not, he serves their ends:
http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”

On that list are most of the vices of the last 50 years.


42 posted on 04/01/2013 5:22:06 PM PDT by Monorprise (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: deltabean
I guess if the state, fed included neither punish nor reward marriage, then there would be nothing to recognize.

That is impossible and why we had federal law as early as 1780 in that regard. Besides, there is much besides punishment and reward in government being forced to recognize marriage, and that recognition goes back thousands of years.

As far as licenses, they have been issued in America since the 1600s, from genealogy magazine "However, the customary “banns” (public announcements made in church), used in the old country to notify family, friends, and neighbors of an impending marriage, were unsuited to the widely dispersed settlements in the colonies. Some historians claim that marriage licenses, issued by county clerks, developed to replace the banns. By the late-17th-century, the use of license spread northward to the Middle Colonies."

DESCRIPTION: Chapter 12, Laws of 1777: An ACT concerning marriages
CREATED/PUBLISHED: 1777
NOTES: Set forth table of Degree of Kindred and Affinity within which marriage not allowed. Marriage allowed only by religious official. Marriage allowed only after license from county court or publication of banns. Provision against marriage outside of Maryland continued. Every Church had to be registered in county court or not esteemed for publication of banns. Marriage without parental consent forbidden for males under 21 and females under 16 and not before married. Form of license set forth. Quakers allowed to marry according to their own practice.
SOURCE: Archives of Maryland Online
REPOSITORY: Maryland State Archives

Passed in 1790--BE it enacted, by the General Assembly of Maryland, That so much of the act of assembly, entitled, An act concerning marriages, as prohibits and declared void marriages between persons related within the following degrees of affinity, to wit: A man with his wife's sister, or brother's wife; a woman with her husband's brother, or sister's husband; shall be and the same is hereby repealed and made void; and all marriages heretofore made and celebrated by and between persons related within the degrees of affinity before mentioned, are hereby confirmed and made valid in law, to every intent and purpose, from the time of the celebration of such marriage respectively; and all penalties, forfeitures and consequences, which may have been incurred under the said recited act, by any marriage within the degrees of affinity aforesaid, are hereby released and discharged, and the parties for ever acquitted of the same; and no penalties shall hereafter be incurred under the said act in consequence of any marriage within the degrees of affinity herein before mentioned, but every such marriage shall be good, sufficient and valid, in law, any thing in the said recited act to the contrary thereof in anywise notwithstanding.

43 posted on 04/01/2013 5:33:17 PM PDT by ansel12 (The lefts most effective quote-I'm libertarian on social issues, but conservative on economics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

A status that is only symbolic of the govt’s (past) endorsement of wholesome marriage — nearly meaningless now.

We must stop electing legislators and start electing abrogators. We’re being suffocated by the manipulation of once purposeful legislation and precedent.


44 posted on 04/01/2013 5:38:03 PM PDT by Gene Eric (The Palin Doctrine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise

If you want to do away with the military taking into consideration the needs of the married soldier and his family, then go after that, I’m not interested in fantasy.


45 posted on 04/01/2013 5:41:07 PM PDT by ansel12 (The lefts most effective quote-I'm libertarian on social issues, but conservative on economics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

“If you want to do away with the military taking into consideration the needs of the married soldier and his family, then go after that, I’m not interested in fantasy.”

I don’t want to do away with the military, merely most of the Federal forces and not because I don’t honor and admire them but because we can’t afford the risk to future domestic liberty, or frankly the price tag.

In regards to the soldiers families I have nothing but the utmost of honor and admiration. I wish very much to encourage and support the procreative efforts of the men and women that risk their lives for freedom.

I simply suggest that we aut to do so more directly as to address actual procreative unions rather than wast what little resources we have left supporting dead-end(homosexual) association.


46 posted on 04/01/2013 5:54:49 PM PDT by Monorprise (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Excellent and true. Fundamentally marriage is the union of a man and a woman and always has been - state or no state.


47 posted on 04/01/2013 6:50:02 PM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise

I didn’t interpret your idea as being against the military, but I know that the military must, and will continue to recognize the spouses of GIs, a job that entails living in back water places where careers and work cannot be pursued, in marriages where the husband may spend a year or more at a time away from the family while engaged in work against international enemies, where the husband is involved in work that requires his willingness to die and be maimed.

Sometimes people here just suggest things that aren’t realistic when talking about actual real life political issues, like the libertarians who think that they can explain away completely opening our nation to the world today in unlimited immigration, by combining it with a bizarre fantasy of how that would be OK and would work just fine because they would eliminate all welfare and social programs in America.


48 posted on 04/01/2013 7:23:55 PM PDT by ansel12 (The lefts most effective quote-I'm libertarian on social issues, but conservative on economics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Perhaps something as simple as designating a dependent. No licence no nothing. Just pick someone(anyone) and you can change at any time almost like an insurance policy.


49 posted on 04/01/2013 8:35:13 PM PDT by Monorprise (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise

I don’t think that you know much about military life.


50 posted on 04/01/2013 8:43:22 PM PDT by ansel12 (The lefts most effective quote-I'm libertarian on social issues, but conservative on economics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-69 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