Posted on 10/31/2014 4:21:04 PM PDT by NYer
FYI, ping!
Changes nothing in Canon law but changes everything in civil law.
Didn’t the gays laugh at these predictions? Say that these shenanigans would stop only if they were allowed to be wed in holy matrimony?
Paving the way for the Musloids and Sharia Law.
Ricky, Ricky, Ricky. Keep those hands where we can see them.
Yes they did. When there are no absolutes to govern society, society becomes the absolute. Welcome to the brave new world, the killing fields are next.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=deliverance%3brocky+mountain+breakdown&FORM=VIRE5#view=detail&mid=CD6FE4133E0A7CCE303DCD6FE4133E0A7CCE303D
The North American Man Dog Love Association is about to confirm their existence as well Im told.
I guess this clears the way for George and Rhisa.
The title is somewhat misleading. Being as this is only her mother’s half-brother there is a trickier relationship.
I have come to the conclusion that the government should not be involved in marriage at all.
In a _real_ country the judges would be impeached/removed/or_hung: legislating from the bench is _not_ what judges do.
You can't really preserve that compromise while at the same time permitting same sex marriage, "since time immemorial," societies have opposed marriages of same sex couples.
OK Kiddies! How about this. Whom did Franklin Delano Rosevelt marry ? What familial relationshup was she to him ?
The whole story is misleading. A 34-year old marries her 38-year old half-uncle for the sole purpose of gaining U.S. permanent residency. I wonder if the "marriage" was even consummated?
Sounds like immigration fraud more than incest.
This should come as No Surprise.
I am wondering what ‘they’ will do when 2 men or 2 women get married just for the ‘bennies’.
Sex isn’t really necessary and it shouldn’t be the states business. WHO (in the state etal) says a marriage HAS to be consummated?
This is heading to where a bartender will be allowed to marry two of his customers for the convenience of whatever and the state ONLY having a say if one of the couple are married to someone else - Does the ‘law’ require a married couple to ‘live’ together?
Which really shouldn’t be the states business either.. UNLESS the state is paying one or both of the parties as the result of the marriage.
Of course, my personal opinion is that the State should have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with marriage in the way of permission, license etc.
Just another case of the state being able to make money off the suffering of others.
I guess the state will have to write laws to specify what makes a ‘marriable’ couple.
THEY opened this door, let the games begin.
>> this is only her mother’s half-brother there is a trickier relationship <<
Yes, indeed. A niece/nephew and FULL uncle/aunt will share ca. 25% of their DNA, whereas a niece/nephew will share only ca. 12.5% of her/his DNA with a HALF uncle/aunt.
BUT:
Two first cousins will also share ca. 12.5% of their DNA.
Therefore, the degree of “genetic inbreeding” is the same
for a niece-uncle marriage as for a marriage between two first cousins.
In other words, if a state permits first cousins to marry one another, it’s hard to find a scientific justification for outlawing a marriage between a niece and her half-uncle.
On the other hand, there may be valid religious objections. I wonder if the Bible has anything to say on the matter?
Agreed.... which is why the government ought to get out of the marriage business.
If your religion has objection then deal with it there.
I think it was the daughter of his fifth cousin.
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.