Posted on 06/12/2014 10:24:43 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd
I will create a company, get certified to teach the class. Collect 60 bucks from each participant and get rich. I will pretend to teach and they will pretend to listen.
Oh, I know it is not meant to change minds, and I am sure someone had good intentions, but it is still not a good law, IMO.
"And to hell with my kids . . . it's all about ME!" Davon added.
Its not a question of Morality its a question of the meaningfulness of Marriage. Does it do anything at all to protect the product(children)?
Whats the point if the parents can just decide willynilly that they lost feelings and its time to put in Jeperty or wreak their kids lives with divorce?
That is no better than a casual acquaintance that belies the seriousness of the commitment they had agreed to just as it betrays the children they had conseved together.
The liberal solution to the problem of children in “marrage” is to just not have them. That of course is why all civilization that have accepted their view on life are no longer around.
“Is this the government i want? Really? This current government sits upon the shoulders of countless usurptations of power. All good intentioned. It is the old argument. Good King, Bad King. The government needs to get out of the way (Ronaldus Magnus).”
I agree, that in printable your marriage never really ends.
I also agree that the State of Oklahoma as the controlling party to the Contract they created and called marriage can dictate terms of its ending and creating in their eyes.
The simple solution is to just not get married under their contract.
Look it’s not the class itself that bothers me. It is the meddlsome interventionist attitudes that people, and government perpetuate.
Look folks we are not going to “fix” every ill. We don’t need to.
Honestly If the State wants to be involved in marriage this is the only useful way it could be involved.
That being said If the State wants to fix some of the damage it did, it should offer a variety of contractual packages.
At least one of which should include Life time Commitment(IE: no Divorce).
Legally speaking they would all have to be defined in intrastate terms, so that other states and Washington can’t interfere. Althou you can give theses contracts a legal equivalency to marriage it must be clear that the important ones are exclusive to families(child rearing man-woman pairs) The others should be created just to give liberals, sodomite, animal, and inhabitant object perverts something to wast their time and money on, while permitting us to legally argue for them keeping their hands off the meaningful ‘marriage’ contract.
It may be a bad idea, but it something we can do to help regrow the seed of western civilization we save in ourselves and families and posterity.
Just remember ultimately in the long run the leftist and sodomites will die out as their natural tendency is toward few to no children. If we follow them in that tendency we will die out with them but one way or the other they will die out leaving behind a land to be run by foreign cultures that don’t follow that fatally flawed wickedness. We, or rather our posterity can either be part of that future or we can die out with the self-destructive leftist ideals that dictate life in the “politically correct” present.
People pay to get divorces... they pay lawyers, they pay court fees. Think of this as one more fee... Americans are tired of having to pick up the costs for irresponsible parents. Choices have consequences - this is one.
A woman with two or three kids just walk away? And go where? And use what to put food on the table and a roof over their heads -- and if she is already working to support them, what would she use to pay a reliable childcare person until she gets home? Surely you have heard that the most dangerous person in a child's life is mommy's boyfriend? Or maybe you are suggesting that because her husband cheats and abuses them, she should walk away by herself and leave the kids alone with him?
No, there is no getting around it: marriage is for grown-ups. A father who would cause his wife to want to walk away has seen the Responsibility bus pass him by many times, but has never gotten on board.
Not sure what point you are trying to make here like it or not marriage in the eyes of the state is a legal matter not a spiritual one... You could go fine some pastor willing to marry you without a marriage license I suppose is you just care about the spiritual but like it or not that’s not what is being discussed here... Since those marriages would not be marriages in the eyes of the state.
These are folks petitioning the state to dissolve their state sanctions marriage as such the state can require them to jump through whatever hoop they wish.. Hard to argue some state intrusion when the entire matter here is something the folks willfully requested of the state in the first place.
So what do we do about it?
Personally I intend to preach to my (eventual) congregation about the true meaning of marriage without apology, and to try to raise any kids I might have in the right way.
Is there anything else other than pray and complain on the Internet?
” Hard to argue some state intrusion when the entire matter here is something the folks willfully requested of the state in the first place.”
That’s my point. Throwing pearls to swines. You want sanctity in marriage, why turn it to the state? Gay “marriage” and the current state of families is not because the government isn’t involved enough, it’s because they shouldn’t have been involved in the first place. State sanctioned marriage is a relic of state controlled religion.
The state doesn’t have the power to perform a real marriage and the state doesn’t have the power to effect a real divorce either. They can do whatever they like and make up whatever legal game they want to play (although the legal game based on a bad fiction can cause real world damage). It doesn’t matter and you are correct, it’s not an intrusion.
The damage to marriage isn’t done when the state allows homos to marry or no-fault divorces. The damage was done when we chose to pretend the state had the authority of God.
I agree with the civil contracts. Let the government deal with the civil contracts and let the churches deal with marriage.
Though, personally, I think the money would be put to better use by substituting some real factual classes on divorce for the "homosexuality is normal" crap which goes on in the public schools.
The Mrs. and I had some serious disagreements early in our marriage. At least we thought they were serious then. We stayed together for the sake of the children.
Thirty years, three happily married daughters and three gorgeous grandchildren later, we now mostly laugh about how fleeting and temporary those seemingly serious problems really were.
This part of your rant was the best:
State sanctioned marriage is a relic of state controlled religion.
What a great tagline!
Well said.
Unfortunately, far too many parents today are self-centered.
“I agree with the civil contracts. Let the government deal with the civil contracts and let the churches deal with marriage.”
Exactly we clearly can’t trust the State to maintain anything that is sacrate. Not while there is such powerful cultural evil about.
If we fall back to the official name of “Civil Contract” for the legal aspects of Marriage then the moral and cultural aspects should be the Provence of the church and exist mainly between religious people.
In time demographics of practical marriage will rid the world of the Sodomite leftist we are unable to save thou introducing them to God.
BINGO!
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.