Three ways conservatives can take out gay marriage: (Vanity).

Me | 6-28-2015 | JSDude1

[JSDude1]

Ok so here's my take on ways that conservatives can take on gay marriage legally and reverse this aweful decision.

#1. We can through the legislative process radically simplify the tax code so that it doesn't deal with marriage and is much simpler, also make it so that anyone can easily gain the power of atty, inheritance from anyone else. Marriage where it intersects with government would be separated, the government wouldn't have the motivation or the power to regulate marriage. Any kind of "marriage certificate issued by the govt. would be moot and void. We'd basically be back to the 1800's with marriage any anyone could be in any kind of relationship they want, but I as a Christian wouldn't have to recognize it.

#2. We could elect a conservative Republican President, then they appoint three new originalist justices to the Supreme Court, someone challenges this ruling and we have the court re-adjudicate the issue of the constitutionality of gay marriage. Or

#3. We have a constutuonal amendment passed that either outright defines marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman or an amendment which passes the right to define marriages back to the states. Of course we'd need MANY more Republicans in both houses of Congress to get this one accomplished, as well as in the states.

I'd say that he first would be easiest to achieve, just my 2 c. I'

[ansel12]

Back to 1800?

Marriage licenses became mandatory in 1639, in Massachusetts.

From THE COLONIAL FAMILY IN AMERICA “While we think of the early New England settlers as very religious, they actually viewed marriage as a civil contract, not a religious contract. Consequently, marriage was a function of the magistrates more than the clergy.”

From LEGISLATIVE GUIDE TO MARRIAGE LAW Iowa.gov “They (Puritans founders of Massachusetts) believed that marriage was not a religious ceremony but a civil contract. They required that this covenant must be “agreed” or “executed” (not “performed” or “solemnized”) before a magistrate, and not a minister. They also insisted that if the terms of the marriage covenant were broken, then the union could be ended by divorce. These attitudes became the basis of regional marriage customs throughout New England.”

[MUDDOG]

You also have to address property deeds. There are some forms currently available only to married couples, if I remember correctly.

Which goes to show the status of marriage may affect a lot of laws.

[JSDude1]

Maybe, but that’s easily remedied.

[ansel12]

Back to 1800?

THOMAS JEFFERSON
Bond for Marriage License [23 December 1771] Know all men by these presents that we Thomas Jefferson and Francis Eppes are held and firmly bound to our sovereign lord the king his heirs and successors in the sum of fifty pounds current money of Virginia, to the paiment of which, well and truly to be made we bind ourselves jointly and severally, our joint and several heirs executors and administrators in witness whereof we have hereto set our hands and seals this twenty third day of December in the year of our lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy one.
The condition of the above obligation is such that if there be no lawful cause to obstruct a marriage intended to be had and solemnized between the abovebound Thomas Jefferson and Martha Skelton of the county of Charles city, Widow,1 for which a license is desired, then this obligation is to be null and void; otherwise to remain in full force.
th: jefferson
francis eppes

GEORGE WASHINGTON

[Beowulf9]

by 5-4 majority vote by Supreme Court judges..... who were appointed by a Senate majority ...... which was elected by majority vote......after a Presidential nomination by a president elected by a majority of state electoral votes........illegally amended the United States Constitution to impose its own queer morality on “We, the People”.......to protect a newly created group, ie a “minority” from the tyranny of a majority...thereby illegally amending the Constitution according to the morality of a minority by slim majority vote....not great enough to pass a real Constitutional amendment

[JParris]

All of this can be “fixed” by the congress. However, if we can not get moral men of character elected having courage of conviction to defeat evil all else is mute.

And it is evident we can not get it done........

[ansel12]

Back to 1800?

The Continental Congress passed the first federal law regarding our married GIs, in 1780, they upgraded the federal legislation regarding our married GIs, in 1794, then 1798, 1802, and so on.

[Safrguns]

most of these solutions require action by those who are the source of the problem.

How about this one?... All pastors opposed to gay marriage should just resign their state appointed licenses to marry.
Since marriage is now defined to have new meaning which is in opposition to God’s laws, God fearing pastors should relinquish their government licenses to do so.

This would not mean pastors cannot conduct marriages how they wish... it just means that they would not be officially recognized by “the State”.... and since civil unions are so easily obtained for “whatever” reason, why not treat it separately... once again giving new meaning to the principle of “separation of church and state”.

A legitimate couple after being married by the pastor can file separately for civil union documents from the government for tax purposes. Also let us not forget laws which recognize a couple as married after they have been simply living together for so many years.

The Church does not “NEED” the state to conduct marriage ceremonies....

And....

The “State” does not “Need” the church to bind couples in legal arrangements.

[Tired of Taxes]

What about an idea similar to the bill Oklahoma tried to pass (but failed to).

Instead of marriage licenses, there could be contracts.

Only now there could be different kinds of contracts (or forms) that couples fill out. And one could be for a man and woman - a contract that addresses provisions for any biological children who may be born into the marriage.

[kingu]

There is one answer and only one answer: No civil regulation of marriage. It is a religious ceremony, and it was in the state's interest to recognize this unique religious ceremony as many of the goals of such a relationship tied in tightly with goals of the state. Since the state has placed undue burdens on this religious expression, it needs to stop recognizing and regulating this ceremony.

It is the same answer for when Massachusetts State Supreme Court bent the law thirteen ways to Sunday with their decision, effectively declaring all marriages to be unconstitutional (unless it was fixed...) Good; they're no longer recognized. Whatcha gonna do now, state supreme court?

However, Romney couldn't bring himself to do the obvious.

[ConstantSkeptic]

The expressions “overkill” and “don’t throw the baby out with the bath water” come to mind.

Inevitably when one of these articles is posted, some poster comments that only 2% of the population is gay and that only some of them will get married. So it seems a little over the top to think that the federal government and all 50 states will throw out centuries of laws in reaction to a fraction of the gays now being able to get married.

[Cowboy Bob]

A Supreme Court decision can be overturned by a future court. It is done by replacing current liberal justices with conservative. Conservative justices can only be nominated by conservative presidents.

It it important to rally around and support a conservative for president in 2016. The rulings by the Supreme Court should help to rally many of those who sat out the last few elections. If they sit out the 2016 elections, they have no one to blame except themselves.

[ansel12]

Are you guys thinking at all about how you are going to sell this Hungarian goulash of chaos and confusion to the American voters?

[Tired of Taxes]

Marriage law needed reform, anyway. Now we have an opportunity to set marriage law straight (no pun intended).

If people could choose from a series of contracts, instead of a one-size-fits-all marriage agreement, then, for example, one couple might prefer a contract agreeing to share all financial debt, whereas another might want a contract agreeing that each spouse shouldn’t be held responsible for the other spouse’s debt. Sort of like prenuptial agreements for everyone.

[kalee]

Common law marriages are only recognized in nine states and DC. One of those states, Utah, places restrictions on them and requires they be registered. Common law is not recognized in the other states.

[Tired of Taxes]

Amen.

[mountainbunny]

Where do you need a license to marry couples? Is one required anywhere in the United States?

In Colorado, you don’t need a minister or anyone else. You just need a license (around $20.00), and to agree. You can pay the money, tell the clerk you’re married, and hand the paper back signed without losing your place in line.

My husband recently presided at the marriage of our daughter’s best friend. He is ordained (not in our faith), and did it for them.

I can’t imagine anywhere that ministers are licensed.

[mountainbunny]

I was wrong. Some states require ministers to be licensed by their faith, and then register with the states. But what it means to qualify for that license is up to the denomination.

So, even if every minister who didn’t want to marry gays in every state that required it, gave up their license, licenses aren’t hard to get. Anyone could get one, and it would have no effect on gays being able to marry at all.

[mountainbunny]

by 5-4 majority vote by Supreme Court judges..... who were appointed by a Senate majority ...... which was elected by majority vote......after a Presidential nomination by a president elected by a majority of state electoral votes........illegally amended the United States Constitution to impose its own queer morality on “We, the People”.......to protect a newly created group, ie a “minority” from the tyranny of a majority...thereby illegally amending the Constitution according to the morality of a minority by slim majority vote....not great enough to pass a real Constitutional amendment

In Colorado (where we live), gay marriage was decided in the courts last year. I was helping with a charity event several weeks later, in a group of maybe 20 church-going evangelicals. I think I was the only Catholic present. The subject came up, and only two of us knew that gay marriage was already legal. No one was shocked. It was more like, "Really? Are you sure?"

I don't know how you are going to get anything done when people have no idea what is going on in their own state. Totally not slamming evangelicals, either. Many Catholics wouldn't have known either.