Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Group Calls for De-Legalization of Marriage
FoxNews.com ^ | October 9, 2003

Posted on 10/09/2003 7:56:46 AM PDT by Sweet_Sunflower29

Edited on 04/22/2004 12:37:21 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

Marriage has its advantages but some think the nation’s laws give married couples too much favorable treatment and the only way to even the playing field is to de-legalize the institution.

A group of legal scholars and gay advocacy groups are calling for marriage to be de-legalized in order to make the distribution of benefits more fair for people who aren’t married, including gay couples.


(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: culturewar; homosexualagenda; houston; marriagelaws; samesexdisorder; samesexmarriage; tempertantrum; uofh
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-123 next last

1 posted on 10/09/2003 7:56:46 AM PDT by Sweet_Sunflower29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sweet_Sunflower29
And in related news, unemployment advocates today requested that all jobs be outlawed in order for there to be equity between the employed and unemployed.
2 posted on 10/09/2003 7:59:57 AM PDT by So Cal Rocket (Psalm 109:8 Let his days be few; and let another take his office. (Recall Davis))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All


God Bless Those
who Protect our Liberty

---

Past, Present
and Future.


Please visit the FR Fundraiser



3 posted on 10/09/2003 8:00:26 AM PDT by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sweet_Sunflower29
"The goal is equality between married and unmarried persons,” said David Blankenhorn at the Institute for American Values

Oh, puke....here we go......the actual DESTRUCTION of MARRIAGE as something of VALUE....how can this group call themselves the "Institute for American Values"....what do they stand for? ME...ME...ME...ME????

4 posted on 10/09/2003 8:01:16 AM PDT by goodnesswins (I'm a Happy Monthly Donor....ARE YOU? It's easy; just do it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sweet_Sunflower29
INTREP - SODOMITE AGENDA
5 posted on 10/09/2003 8:02:46 AM PDT by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sweet_Sunflower29
So if gays can't get married nobody can?
6 posted on 10/09/2003 8:03:05 AM PDT by Semper Paratus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sweet_Sunflower29
They are absolutely right. The law should be neutral on the issue of marriage. It is simply none of the government's business.

If there are to be special priviledges for married people, the government will be unable to avoid making them available to non-traditional couples by expanding the definition of marriage. This is only the latest of an unbroken string of about a thousand examples of how government destroys what it seeks to promote. We should realize that government is destructive to the institution of marriage and keep it as far away from marriage as possible.

Shared property, child custody, power of attorney, and the like can be handled through other legally binding agreements between individuals. There is no need to have government mucking around in the definition of who is and who is not married. Because the government will come down on the side of inclusivity, every single time.

The FMA will never happen.
7 posted on 10/09/2003 8:03:36 AM PDT by gridlock (Remember: PC Kills!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Semper Paratus
ARE THESE IDIOTS ON CRACK!!!!!?
8 posted on 10/09/2003 8:04:25 AM PDT by RiflemanSharpe (An American for a more socially and fiscally conservative America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sweet_Sunflower29
"There's no lengths to which they won't go,” said Sandy Rios of Concerned Women for America. “And of course it undermines traditional marriage and we cannot allow them to do that."

Fine. Too bad she has no intention of working to repaal no fault divorce laws, which is what have weakend traditional marriage to the point where it is actually endangered by the other side. This is like someone decrying the weeds in the front yard while the foundation of the house is caving in.

9 posted on 10/09/2003 8:05:15 AM PDT by Orangedog (Soccer-Moms are the biggest threat to your freedoms and the republic !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gridlock
Shared property, child custody, power of attorney, and the like can be handled through other legally binding agreements between individuals.

Out of curiosity, where would these "legally binding agreements" be enforced if one party violates them?

10 posted on 10/09/2003 8:07:29 AM PDT by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Sweet_Sunflower29
"A group of legal scholars and gay advocacy groups are calling for marriage to be de-legalized in order to make the distribution of benefits more fair for people who aren’t married, including gay couples."

The whole idea of a government "distributing benefits" is counter to the American tradition of individual freedom.

Bearing in mind that marriage is the foundation of society.

11 posted on 10/09/2003 8:08:04 AM PDT by Sam Cree (Democrats are herd animals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sweet_Sunflower29

"Victor Flatt is an advisor to several environmental organizations. He is on the National Board of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, is an officer in the legal education section of the AALS, and serves on the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered sub-committee of the Law School Admissions Council."

12 posted on 10/09/2003 8:11:55 AM PDT by dighton (Nasty Little Clique™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RiflemanSharpe
The same kind of crack that killed Rock Hudson...
13 posted on 10/09/2003 8:18:09 AM PDT by sheik yerbouty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Catspaw
Out of curiosity, where would these "legally binding agreements" be enforced if one party violates them?

In court, just like divorces are handled today, every day of the week.

14 posted on 10/09/2003 8:24:22 AM PDT by gridlock (Remember: PC Kills!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Sweet_Sunflower29
Just from a pragmatic standpoint, this suggestion flies in the face of all human history.
15 posted on 10/09/2003 8:30:50 AM PDT by Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gridlock
Would a widow who has never worked be able to draw off her late husband's social security?
16 posted on 10/09/2003 8:33:38 AM PDT by oyez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Sweet_Sunflower29
always part of the homosexual agenda. Now that some states have civil unions, eliminate marriage and ONLY recognize civil unions.

Most people do not realize that states only recognize your executed marriage license not your religious ceremony.

That marriage amendment is looking better and better.
17 posted on 10/09/2003 8:38:49 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sweet_Sunflower29
"The goal is equality between married and unmarried persons,”

Defining deviancy downwards. Bring everyone DOWN to the same level.

If "de-criminalizing" means "to legalize", does "de-legalizing" mean "to criminalize"???

18 posted on 10/09/2003 8:44:01 AM PDT by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sweet_Sunflower29
Oh brother.
19 posted on 10/09/2003 8:45:39 AM PDT by fml
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RiflemanSharpe
ARE THESE IDIOTS ON CRACK!!!!!?

Just wait around few years and this will be a hot item. There are laws and court decisions on the books now that sounded just as outrageous fifty years ago,

20 posted on 10/09/2003 8:46:07 AM PDT by oyez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Catspaw
ths is an effor to de-institutionalize marriage.

homosexual marriage can't existe because marriage is not a mere contract its an instution. If the homosexuals abolish the institution. (and you have to ignore all children forever in order to do this) Then living together becomes a "cohabitation contract" something that exists today. Such contracts are enforced under court contract laws.

This actually fits with the wack massachusetts supreme court judge who wants to turn children into accessories and not part of marriage. They are STILL sittig on their opinion. (Rumor has it out of fear of backlash)

In otherwords, same way cohabitation agreements are enforced today, contract law.

(Divorce law in interesting because the rules change over the years regardless of when you were married. That is part of the institution thing. )

If anything, I say this should accelerate the elimination of the marriage penalty on taxes.

21 posted on 10/09/2003 8:53:26 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: gridlock
In court, just like divorces are handled today, every day of the week.

And these courts are run by whom? Wouldn't that be the government?

22 posted on 10/09/2003 8:53:48 AM PDT by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: gridlock
The law should be neutral on the issue of marriage. It is simply none of the government's business.

Not true - it is in the government's best interest to promote the institution of marriage. The heterosexual family is the foundational unit of society. Stable families produce productive citizens which benefits everyone. Of course the government should support and encourage this!

Shared property, child custody, power of attorney, and the like can be handled through other legally binding agreements between individuals.

Now you're just talking about more money for lawyers. Who else would want to generate more legal documents and contracts? Not me!

The FMA will never happen.

If your're talking about a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a heterosexual institution, you are wrong. It will pass with ease, and it destroys all your above arguments.

23 posted on 10/09/2003 8:56:33 AM PDT by vrwc1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Orangedog
Absolutely! We didn't arrive at this situation by Star Trek transporter, but through a long series of legal decisions and social adjustments reflecting the fact that people don't wish to be bound by traditional moral requirements. Anyone who objects to the acceptance of homosexual couples is inconsistent unless he also objects to fornication, heterosexual cohabitation, divorce and remarriage, and the whole range of issues where heterosexuals have given themselves a pass for two generations.
24 posted on 10/09/2003 8:59:24 AM PDT by Tax-chick (No refunds, no exchanges.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Sweet_Sunflower29
Why does, or doesn't one wash their hands before they eat?
25 posted on 10/09/2003 9:01:10 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
What needs to happen is the elimination of a few law schools. It seems that every wack job law professor is able to avoid employement in the real world.

Perhaps if they had to work for a living they would not trouble society at large with their communist goals of destroying the family.

Part of the changes that have come about are from the social "revolutions" , feminists (lesbians) who wanted to equal access to employment (other women), elimination of neighbors and the ability to choose where you lived, collective vs individual property, rewriting the 2nd amendment, thought crimes.

BTW we have always had cohabitation, it was called common law marriage. It was slowly eliminated in the late 60's and 70's. Some states still allow it but its days are numbered.
26 posted on 10/09/2003 9:06:31 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: oyez
Would a widow who has never worked be able to draw off her late husband's social security?

In order to transform the way our society regulates marriage, there would necessarily have to be some transitional regulations.

For the purposes of Social Security survivor's benefits, a non-working spouse should be considered to have contributed because the tax withholdings came out of the shared pay-check. So, in answer to your questions, in as much as the non-working widow had a shared property relationship with her deceased husband, she should collect on his Social Security survivor's benefit.

Under the non-marital regulation, if people wanted to have community property, they could make such a binding agreement, and it could work the same way. This is a detail that would have to be worked out, but there is no reason it could not be worked out that way.

27 posted on 10/09/2003 9:12:03 AM PDT by gridlock (Remember: PC Kills!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Catspaw
And these courts are run by whom? Wouldn't that be the government?

Of course. But if marriage were removed from the law, the government would be dealing with contractual issues under the civil law. Nothing wrong with that. It's what they are doing today anyway, in the half of marriages that end in divorce.

But government should be in the business of dissolving shared property arrangements and the like under civil and contracts law, not dissolving marriage, which is none of their business.

28 posted on 10/09/2003 9:15:41 AM PDT by gridlock (Remember: PC Kills!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: sheik yerbouty
The same kind of crack that killed Rock Hudson...

Thanks a lot......got a spare keyboard I can have?...BWAHAHAHAHAHAspewHAHA!

FMCDH

29 posted on 10/09/2003 9:22:06 AM PDT by nothingnew (The pendulum is swinging and the Rats are in the pit!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: vrwc1
Please the republicans have to fight to get a conservative Judge and you think thell get the supermajority needed to amend the constitution..
30 posted on 10/09/2003 9:25:37 AM PDT by N3WBI3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: nothingnew
got a spare keyboard I can have

This happened to me last week. If you take a paper napkin or tissue, and use an index card to push it around between the keys, you can sop up the liquid; concentrate on the "downhill" side if your keyboard isn't perfectly level. You'll want to do it quickly if your beverage contained milk or sugar ... sticky, ants ...

31 posted on 10/09/2003 9:25:56 AM PDT by Tax-chick (No refunds, no exchanges.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: vrwc1
...(I)t is in the government's best interest to promote the institution of marriage.

But the government is incapable of promoting the institution of marriage. It is only capable of destroying it. Since the government will inevitably expand the definition of marriage to the point of destruction, shouldn't it get out of the business of defining marriage altogether?

The heterosexual family is the foundational unit of society. Stable families produce productive citizens which benefits everyone. Of course the government should support and encourage this!

Of course the government should, but of course the government can't. If there is a benefit, it will be given to any who want it.

Now you're just talking about more money for lawyers (by having legal relationships rather than marital relationships). Who else would want to generate more legal documents and contracts? Not me!

The lawyers who are making money now on matrimonial law would be the same ones making money on contractual law. Breaking up any legal relationship is messy, and lawyers always seem to get their cut...

It (FMA) will pass with ease, and it destroys all your above arguments.

Do you think 70% of the population can be mustered to support the FMA? Because at the end of the day, that's what it will take. Absent the FMA, the government will destroy marriage through a slow erosion of the institution. But trying to keep the government promotion machine running hoping that the FMA will bail the whole mess out is a false dream. It will not happen. Keeping the government involved hoping for the FMA will guarantee the destruction of the very institution you seek to promote.

32 posted on 10/09/2003 9:26:00 AM PDT by gridlock (Remember: PC Kills!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: gridlock
This is only the latest of an unbroken string of about a thousand examples of how government destroys what it seeks to promote.

Sighs. Rolls eyes. Marriage has been a concern of government for literally thousands of years. Marriage has seen its ups and downs during that time, but the difficulties are rarely (if ever) caused by the government favoring marriage; rather, it comes when government denigrates its value.

33 posted on 10/09/2003 9:29:24 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
...(I)t comes when government denigrates its value.

So, how do you keep this particular government from denigrating it's value? And don't answer the FMA, because that will not happen.

How is this government going to manage to distribute all sorts of goodies to one segment of the population and deny it to another segment of the population? It just can't happen. Eventually government will define marriage down to the point where the institution of marriage is destroyed.

Social institutions like marriage should be preseved by social institutions like families, churches, and communities. Government can only destroy.

34 posted on 10/09/2003 9:34:08 AM PDT by gridlock (Remember: PC Kills!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: All
Gridlock's words:

But if marriage were removed from the law, the government would be dealing with contractual issues under the civil law.

In order to transform the way our society regulates marriage, there would necessarily have to be some transitional regulations.

Under the non-marital regulation, if people wanted to have community property, they could make such a binding agreement

Gridlock must be a lawyer, because he wants everyone in his any-kind-of-marriage-is-ok world to have a lawyer to draw up contracts and create binding agreements between two people who want to be "married". What a hassle - who wants to deal with that? Lawyers, that's who! More money for them!

A constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between a man and a woman is the best way to combat the creeping deviancy, not more laws, regulations and contracts. Don't be fooled by those who support the homosexual agenda!

35 posted on 10/09/2003 9:35:31 AM PDT by vrwc1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: vrwc1
A constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between a man and a woman is the best way to combat the creeping deviancy, not more laws, regulations and contracts.

And turning lead into gold is the best way to make tons and tons of money.

Absent a constitutional amendment, how do you propose to stop this government from destroying the institution of marriage?

Or do you actually think the FMA is possible?

36 posted on 10/09/2003 9:38:37 AM PDT by gridlock (Remember: PC Kills!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: gridlock
Since the government will inevitably expand the definition of marriage to the point of destruction

This will only happen if society allows it, and it has been strongly fought whenever government attempts to do so. I predict that the recent law Gray Davis signed in California will be overturned within 3 months.

The lawyers who are making money now on matrimonial law would be the same ones making money on contractual law. Breaking up any legal relationship is messy, and lawyers always seem to get their cut.

Except those lawyers only make money now on divorces. Your way is going to have them making money off of every marriage, and then off of every divorce!

Do you think 70% of the population can be mustered to support the FMA?

Unquestionably! As I said before, it will pass with ease, and destroys all your arguments!

37 posted on 10/09/2003 9:43:28 AM PDT by vrwc1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: nothingnew
Afraid I don't have an extra keyboard...the cure for those crack addicts is the miracle drug Trinoasitol.
38 posted on 10/09/2003 9:45:12 AM PDT by sheik yerbouty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: gridlock; Pete
The lawyers who are making money now on matrimonial law would be the same ones making money on contractual law. Breaking up any legal relationship is messy, and lawyers always seem to get their cut...

Respectfully, you're probably mistaken. Divorce Lawyers make as much as they do, largely because they are the only class of laborers who spend much of their time keeping abreast and informed of all the changes in law, regulation, precedent, and interpretation by which the shifting sands of legislative and judicial whim alter the definition of "marriage" during the span of a typical marriage.

By contrast -- were the legitimate causes for marital dissolution, and the the legal responsibilities of each party in case of dissolution, spelled out in a private "Partnership Contract" (which, if sanctified by the blessing of a religious official, could be considered a "marriage" within that couple's church, without any need for State control over the Institution), those clauses would be the same 20 years later as the day the Contract was adopted. The validity of the Contract could be contested, of course, but assuming that a court upheld the validity of the Contract the terms of dissolution would already be spelled out in black and white -- thus reducing substantially the typical wrangling over "state family law and precedent" (irrelevant; the private contract says what it says) and therefore the billable hours for Divorce Lawyers.

As usual, State domination of an institution benefits Lawyers far more than Private establishment thereof. But I'm sure that Divorce Lawyers can afford the pay-cut; and if not -- who cares?

As to the individual who suggested that this "flies in the face of all human history" -- quite the opposite. Both Abraham and Sarah, and Moses and Zipporah, were married by Religion and Clan -- not the State, which had nothing whatsoever to do with the definition and establishment of their marriage. Were their marriages "illegitimate", because they were Private arrangements rather than State-licensed ones?? If one believes the Bible, the normative practice throughout most of Human History is the Private establishment of Marriage, with the Courts of Government only becoming involved in case of dissolution of contract. The monopolistic Establishment and Definition of Marriage by the State is a phenomenom of recent origin.

And a dangerous phenomenom at that -- for what the State has the power to Define, the State has the power to Destroy (by definition).

If Privatized Marriage is good enough for the Patriarchs of the Faith, perhaps it is good enough for us.

39 posted on 10/09/2003 9:45:34 AM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are unworthy Servants; We have only done Our Duty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
You make one addition flaw in your lawyer analysis. Divorce lawyers do not make money from marriages with no children. The most contested and profitable cases are those with children. They generally demand time, attention, and effort.

The bottom line in all of this is: Is marriage an institution or just a mere contract.

I submit that legally it IS an institution. Remove the institutional status and all divorce case law goes away and children are OUT of the marriage institution.
40 posted on 10/09/2003 9:57:06 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Sweet_Sunflower29
A group of legal scholars and gay advocacy groups are calling for marriage to be de-legalized in order to make the distribution of benefits more fair for people who aren’t married, including gay couples.

In the ongoing gay marriage debate between Andrew Sullivan and Stanley Kurtz, score one for Mr. Kurtz, who has been arguing that the gay marriage movement poses a direct threat to the existing institution of marriage, while Mr. Sullivan argues the contrary.

41 posted on 10/09/2003 10:03:05 AM PDT by Snuffington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
Yeah, ever since I signed up at FR in early 99, I've had to do it frequently...heh heh heh.

FMCDH

42 posted on 10/09/2003 10:08:07 AM PDT by nothingnew (The pendulum is swinging and the Rats are in the pit!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: sheik yerbouty
Trinoasitol.

Dammit!...I just finished cleaning my keyboard, and now this!...I hate you!...BWAHAHAHAHA!

FMCDH

43 posted on 10/09/2003 10:10:48 AM PDT by nothingnew (The pendulum is swinging and the Rats are in the pit!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory; gridlock
You make one addition flaw in your lawyer analysis. Divorce lawyers do not make money from marriages with no children. The most contested and profitable cases are those with children. They generally demand time, attention, and effort.

I find it strange that you think standardized "marital partner contracts" would not include provisions for the legal responsibilities for child custody and support in case of dissolution.

Of course they would. To think that they would not is quite an odd naivete... as odd as thinking that the standardized Private Wills found at any OfficeMax for under $100 bucks would not include provisions for children!! Most couples expect to have children, so the inclusion of clauses regarding child custody and support in case of dissolution would be a standard feature of private contracts. And where responsibilities are contractually established in advance, the amount of wrangling over the outcome is substantially reduced (because the clauses of the contract already specify the terms)... thus you've managed to further reinforce my argument, for which I must thank you.

The bottom line in all of this is: Is marriage an institution or just a mere contract. I submit that legally it IS an institution. Remove the institutional status and all divorce case law goes away and children are OUT of the marriage institution.

Legally, Marriage is currently a State Institution -- thus delivering to Caesar a power to Define (and potentially to Destroy) a Religious Institution over which he has no Scriptural mandate whatsoever (rather, State-worshippers have merely ceded this Power to Caesar).

Biblically speaking, the normative mode for Marriage is as a Religious Institution, over which the State has only the authority to administer the Contractual Terms. Return of the Institution of Marriage to the (Biblically normative) sphere of Private Contract would allow Churches, for example, to include harsh contractual penalties on breaches of Contract which violated that Church's canonical laws for Marriage -- and the State would have to respect such contracts, as binding as any legal business agreement. By contrast, there is currently NO WAY for a Church to enjoy Civil Enforcement of their canonical standards, hence the radical watering-down of Legitimate Reasons for Divorce we see at the hands of the State.

Unless you want that, and believe that it is a "good thing", it is preferable to return Marriage to the (Biblically normative) sphere of Private Contract -- in which Churches could include their own canon-law provisions within Marriage Contracts recommended to their parishioners, which the State, not being involved in the definition of the contract, would not be in a position to devalue and water down.

44 posted on 10/09/2003 10:17:43 AM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are unworthy Servants; We have only done Our Duty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
And a dangerous phenomenom at that -- for what the State has the power to Define, the State has the power to Destroy (by definition).

If Privatized Marriage is good enough for the Patriarchs of the Faith, perhaps it is good enough for us.

Don't you see, OrthodoxPresbyterian, that you're argument leads to the creation of homosexual marriages?

The best defense of heterosexual marriage is a good offense - passing a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as only a heterosexual institution.

45 posted on 10/09/2003 10:23:25 AM PDT by vrwc1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: nothingnew
Better get onr designed for marine use!
46 posted on 10/09/2003 10:23:47 AM PDT by sheik yerbouty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
I find it strange that you think standardized "marital partner contracts" would not include provisions for the legal responsibilities for child custody and support in case of dissolution.

Contracts drawn up at the beginning of a marriage cannot possibly forsee every possible eventuality of a marriage. For instance, if a contract had been drawn up to share custody of children in case of a divorce, but years later one of the parties becomes a chain-smoking, hard-drinking opposite-sex-chasing individual, then of course the other party won't want to share custody and the case will wind up in court. That's what happens with a lot of pre-nups anyhow, so your solution doesn't make things much different than they are now, other than everyone needing lawyers before they get married.

Besides, your proposed solution opens the door to homosexual marriages anyhow, which is what we're trying to avoid!

47 posted on 10/09/2003 10:29:32 AM PDT by vrwc1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Sweet_Sunflower29
I have stated before, and I still stand by it, that the gov't should not be involved in the marriage business unless a couple who do not belong to any faith wish to have some sort of union. Other than that, it's between the couple and their faith.

Some sort of official documentation would be needed for things like social security, name change, divorce, etc and that could be supplied by the church (official seal, notorized by an authorised individual, etc) or the gov't agency if the couple so choose not to go the way of the church.

Taxes--everyone should pay the same whether they are married or not.
48 posted on 10/09/2003 10:32:48 AM PDT by zx2dragon (I could never again be an angel... Innocence, once lost, can never be regained.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BSunday
Pssst...


Ping!
49 posted on 10/09/2003 10:33:32 AM PDT by Sweet_Sunflower29 (If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bull$hit!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vrwc1; gridlock
Don't you see, OrthodoxPresbyterian, that you're argument leads to the creation of homosexual marriages?

Quite the opposite. My argument is simply to return Marriage to the same institutional status as under the Biblical Patriarchs of the Faith.

It would allow homosexuals to form "partnership contracts" if they really wanted to (and there is nothing stopping them from doing that now), but it would be impossible to have such contracts defined as "Marriages" in Law because the State would not be involved in the definition of Marriage at all, and so could not mandate that any such contract be legally considered a "marriage". "Partnership contracts" would be recognized as "Marriages" only by, and within, such Churches as conferred that blessing on the contractors -- just as, given our First Amendment, anyone who wants to can walk down the street calling themselves a "Communicant Member" of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, but unless the Church says so, they are not anything of the sort in Fact. And because "partnership contracts" would only be binding on the parties themselves, there would be no grounds for "discrimination lawsuits" against organizations which refused to respect the partnership (whereas, under the State definition of Marriage, churches and religious organizations have a legal obligation to treat as "Married" anyone of whom the State says to do so).

The best defense of heterosexual marriage is a good offense - passing a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as only a heterosexual institution.

By the same token, is the best defense of the Institution of the Church a Constitutional Amendment defining as "Christian" only those individuals who qualify by the standards of the Church? After all, we have a lot of wackos running around claiming to be Christian now... should we get the State involved, so that Jesse Jackson could no longer make this spurious claim of himself? "The best defense is a good offense"?

On the contrary... if the State defines Marriage as a heterosexual institution in Constitutional Law, it has permanently destroyed the power of the Church to enjoy Civil Enforcement of canonical standards for heterosexual marriages -- such as the canon law against the Marriage of Believer and UnBeliever. Right now, the Church is unable to strictly enforce this canonical standard because the Church has a legal obligation to treat such "unions" as being actual "marriages" because the State says that they are. You would make this devaluation of canon law -- and all the State's other devaluations of Church canon law for heterosexual marriages -- the exclusive and permanent province of Caesar, by Constitutional Amendment.

Private contractual partnership, OTOH, would allow Churches to recommend only "partnership contracts" which conformed to their own canon laws -- and the State would not be in a position to water down such canon laws, being external to the definition of the contract in the first place.

50 posted on 10/09/2003 10:39:36 AM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are unworthy Servants; We have only done Our Duty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-123 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson