Posted on 06/07/2014 11:06:26 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Less than two years later, Santorum ran a victory lap after a federal judge struck down a ban on polygamy in Utah. The ruling didn’t enshrine the right to polygamy in the state per se; it only held that polygamous individuals can’t be discriminated against under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. They still don’t have the right to marry, but give it time.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
There is a slippery slope. Privately, homosexual groups have admitted this.
The goal was first to establish the right to homosexual marriage, so that marriage would be a partnership regardless of the sex of the individuals involved. Then, having established the right to same-sex monogamy, the goal is to move on to polygamy and group marriages, with any number of partners, any sex of the partners involved.
The legal arguments for polygamy and group marriage are the same as used for monogamous homosexual marriage. It is just a matter of time for a lawsuit on these issues to occur.
And liberal judges will impose these standards on the country. We have reached a point at which it appears that only federal judges are allowed to define marriage. The people’s votes on the definition of marriage are being overturned time and time again in federal court. State constitutional amendments on the subject are being cast aside as a violation of federal constitutional rights.
It seems that only judges are going to define marriage from now on. Against that backdrop, it’s very predictable that federal judges in the future will decree that marriage will consist of any number of people, and any gender of the people involved.
WHO KNEW? Homosexual Activists Aim to Destroy Marriage
http://www.sacra-pizza-man.org/who-knew-homosexual-activists-aim-to-destroy-marriage/
Wait’ll they start asking to marry their pets. Bad enough that that you already have some Muzzies types swapping spit with their camels.
and many libertarians agree with them - not surprisingly
Because we have allowed government to define “marriage” for its own purposes (such as taxation and regulation of estates), we have allowed government to define marriage as a social institution. That was fine as long as people in control of government were generally supportive of God’s original definition of marriage. However we have entered a time when a growing number of people in control of government are willing to redefine marriage for their own purposes, which in part is contrary to God’s definition.
Marriage is now far more a matter of politics and ideology than of private religious beliefs.
Therefore, for the sake of marriage as God defines it, it is time to remove from government the power to define who is married and who is not. Then gays could form whatever relationships they please but they could not force those who disagree to be enablers for those relationships. And we would not have schools that must teach that homosexual “marriages” are just as legitimate as heterosexual ones. Nor would we have owners of wedding photography services being threatened with arrest and being convicted of a crime for merely declining to artfully photograph a “marriage” they find morally repugnant.
You not only beat me to the punc, but said it better than I would have. tnx
An LGBT activist’s testimony:
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/04/what-few-deny-gay-marriage-will-do/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masha_Gessen
In 2004 Gessen was married in the U.S. to Svetlana Generalova, a Russian citizen who was also involved in the LGBT movement in Moscow. By the time Gessen returned to the U.S. from Russia in December 2013, she was married to Darya Oreshkina. Gessen is, however, opposed to the existence of marriage at all, and advocates for the fundamental change of the institution of marriage, including her three children being legally able to have five parents.
Gessen has three children, the older two being a boy, Vova, and a girl, Yolka, both of whom are U.S. citizens. Vova was born in 1997 in Russia and was adopted by Gessen from an orphanage in Kaliningrad for the children of HIV-positive women. “At the time,” she has written, “no other Russian citizen would have adopted him, so great was the fear of AIDS, and so rare were adoptions generally.” Yolka was born to Gessen in the U.S. in 2001. A third child, a son, was born to Oreshkina in February 2012.
If senators still represented states, there isn't a chance that judges hostile to the states would sit on federal benches.
There is no substitute for return to first principles.
Thanks! But write up a good summation of your thoughts on the matter, save it in a file and cut’n’paste it into the Reply box when your response is appropriate. Iron sharpens iron, so we need all the people we can get who each have worked out the best way to express a valid idea. The libs have armies of unpaid interns to help them push polished rhetoric. We must do what we can to respond.
At this point we should just dissolve state-recognized marriages. If they want to work through inheritance and rights to children, they can write a legal contract just like any other. Then the libs can call marriage whatever they want and sensible people can stick with the obvious definition.
Well put.
In which case it is not marriage at all and the institution is destroyed.
The only reason I can fathom is that by breaking the family unit it makes the strong bond of family and any traditional morality easier to destroy and denigrate. It makes the indoctrination of children much easier to do when those old nasty parents aren’t invilved...
And then America and its freedom can finally be put to bed...just an abberation in the totalitarian march.
God I hate these people so much...
>> At this point we should just dissolve state-recognized marriages.
The concept will still resolve to forcing the private sector into supporting the “contractual” relationships which essentially involves property and guardianship.
It’s not enough for the govt to get out of the marriage business — it would also require a new tax code, deregulation of insurance, revision of law concerning inheritance rights, etc. — a step too large for most to swallow.
I suspect marriage will remain under the statist realm indefinitely barring the unforeseen reset to a small, Constitutional govt.
You’re describing an ultra conservative view of govt not many are willing to tolerate.
and as Mr Wheat pointed out...
Iron sharpens iron, so we need all the people we can get who each have worked out the best way to express a valid idea. The libs have armies of unpaid interns to help them push polished rhetoric. We must do what we can to respond.
so here goes my barely polished $.02 worth...
we have arrived at a place in our history where the sexual revolution has turned the corner from hetero promiscuity to full blown homo-socialist agenda...
throughout history, pre/extra-marital sex has been a taboo, as the inherent Will of God demands that it be *saved* for the Marriage bed...but alas, as temporal beings, we seek the cheap thrill of succumbing to our basics instinct of life, and the excitment of the big 'O', therefore we turn from God, and embrace our temporal desires, first in the form of hetero, and then that movement eventually is hijacked and turned to sodomy relations as well...
historically, most, if not all of the greatest civilizations have passed thru the stages that we are endduring, and we will decline as did they, for God will not shine his favor on a disobedient people, not for very long in the grand scheme of things anyways...
we should, as was suggested, break the ties that bind Marriage to government, in so far as to negate any consequences of the queer lobby having the ability to pummel us with the power of the state...
after all, The Lord Himself instituted the institution of Marriage, outside of any framework of manmade [and therefore *broken*/sinful] *law*...
it would be a little more difficult in some ways to document valid relationships, but no more so than the current system in which a child can have multiple parents and extended families thru multiple marriages of convenience, and the rightful decisions to be made will be kept in the hands of priets and ministers and between the sheets of the Married man and wife...
or something along those lines...
Black robed emperors negate a free people.
I don't think gays are going to want the slope to get much more slippery. Now that they are allowed to get married, they get the goodies and tax breaks that all married people get.
If the institution is stretched even further to include group marriages, incestuous marriages, etc. then there might be too many married people, too many tax breaks to hand out, and the voters might decide to take all of the goodies and tax breaks away.
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.