Posted on 07/07/2015 8:28:42 AM PDT by Reddy
What do you mean “returning marriage to the private sphere”?
What American history are you talking about?
I believe it is time for the church to stop acting as an agent of the state. If a man and a woman want to make their vows to one another in the context of their faith, they should do so in the church. If 2 people (or soon more...) want to make their vows to each other in the context of a government recognized “contract”, then they can do that in the form of a civil union/contract/marriage or whatever you want to call it. No reason why a couple couldn’t do both a public wedding in a church and then take the steps to certify that to the government as well.
This does not depend on a change in law as this author implies. It depends on a change in the church.
Those were fixed by democratic means. The Supreme Court short-circuited democracy in the SS marriage case so that will have to be fixed by democracy (e.g. Article V) as well.
my error do not post to my comments as it directs to the wrong original comment.
The solution is to get the church out of the government marriage business. Churches perform Holy Matrimony, a ritual of the faith. This need have nothing to do with state licensure.
Holy Matrimony is a joining of a man and a woman in a marriage blessed by God and faithful to the body of Christ. The preponderance of couples living together without licenses from the state demonstrates the bankruptcy of that system. These same couple make serious commitments to each other that the church has the unique ability to bring into the body of faith, thereby sanctifying that marriage.
Unless the church wants to marry Bob and Brad they had best sever all ties with the government marriage licensing system.
Right now government marriage mostly assures that the man will be utterly plundered and ruined financially if the marriage ends. He can be husband of the year, but if she wakes up and decides to leave for ANY reason she dreams up, he is utterly raped by the courts.
Government leaving marriage might help restore that balance. It also might help people refocus onto the idea of Marriage as a religious sacrament rather than as a government event.
Right now government marriage mostly assures that the man will be utterly plundered and ruined financially if the marriage ends. He can be husband of the year, but if she wakes up and decides to leave for ANY reason she dreams up, he is utterly raped by the courts.
Government leaving marriage might help restore that balance. It also might help people refocus onto the idea of Marriage as a religious sacrament rather than as a government event.
Yeah, that’s exactly my response to 4)...as if they have a clue?
Family Court, I like to call bankrupt men court.
I don’t see that ruling begin undone. Sorry, but the courts have failed us in this debate...and no one took the threat seriously until it was too late. We have to salvage what we can. The government does not need to define marriage, only legal rights for property. At some point in our history, we allowed government to steal the term marriage from the religious bond and make it a status with the state. That has not turned out well.
We didn’t let the government steal marriage, this is America, Thomas Jefferson bought a marriage license for his marriage, so did Washington buy one for his favorite nephew.
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.”
Prohibition was imposed on the country by Constitutional Amendment, not the courts. And then it was codified by Congress. It’s an example of how the people and states can also be terribly wrong.
>> It’s about criminalizing Christianity, and they’ll find another “issue” if this one doesn’t work.
Exactly.
In essence, SCOTUS affirmed that marriage (which IS Holy Matrimony) must now be afforded to same sex couples.
Churches will be forced to perform same sex ceremonies, or they will be punished.
Mark my words.
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.