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

Skip to comments.

End Government Recognition of Marriage
16 July 2004 | Me

Posted on 07/16/2004 8:09:37 AM PDT by Voice in your head

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-191 next last
To: Batrachian

" I guess we can't enforce any morality "


Nope. It's America, supposedly the land of freedom. That means the freedom to do whatever you choose, as long as it's not illegal and doesn't impede life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.


101 posted on 07/16/2004 2:27:10 PM PDT by Blzbba (Hillary Clinton - Dawn of a New Error.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: conserv13
The Libertarians should also read Love and Economics: Why the Laissez-Faire Family Doesn't Work by Jennifer Roback Morse. She makes the case that in order to have a world where people are trusted to keep their word, and thus require a minimalist state, children have to be brought up to accept traditional values.

So all you folks willing to sacrifice our culture's most important institution for your "just do it" philosophy, the nanny statists might have the last laugh when they bring in the government to pick up the pieces.
102 posted on 07/16/2004 3:12:18 PM PDT by asmith92008 (If we buy into the nonsense that we always have to vote for RINOs, we'll just end up taking the horn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
The key word here is produce. When you adopt, yout take custody of the result of sexual contact between a male sperm and female egg. In a homosexual relationship, you must go outside the relationship to come up with both of these items.

I guess I see women as the "producers", since getting a sperm donor takes only a matter of a bit of money, sometimes it can happen for free. And, yes, one can go outside the relationship to get the needed gamete, but the children are raised within the relationship that the parent(s) provide.

In times when test-tube babies, surrogate mothers, and artificial insemination were not possible, and sperm donation through actual intercourse was the only (deeply frowned on) way, family law was set up. Today, with effective means of conception control, and the forms of offspring creation outside of traditional marriage being considered legal, marriage and family can indeed be considered separate and distinct in the lives of at least some people.

Does this destroy "the family"? The vast majority of our fellow citizens are going to reproduce the old fashioned way, by finding a partner of the opposite sex, marrying and mating (I suppose not necessarily always in that order), and about half of them staying together at least through the period of time necessary to raise the children to their own reproductive age.

I guess being an adopted child gives me a perspective on "family" that might be different from others here.

103 posted on 07/16/2004 3:58:15 PM PDT by hunter112
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Blzbba
The Founders would be surprised at your statement. Homosexuality and obscenity were illegal at America's founding. Are you trying to say America wasn't free until some judges discovered "rights" that had never been recognized in our nation's history?

And your own definition of what's not part of "freedom to do whatever you choose" is illegality. Until Goodridge, it was illegal for gays to marry.

America was never intended to be a libertarian nation. The Fonders recognized that it had to be a nation of moral people in order for the Republic to work.
104 posted on 07/16/2004 3:59:08 PM PDT by asmith92008 (If we buy into the nonsense that we always have to vote for RINOs, we'll just end up taking the horn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: conserv13
homosexuality is a filthy and evil perversion

It is exactly that.

105 posted on 07/16/2004 4:02:18 PM PDT by Conservativegreatgrandma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: conserv13

WHAT?! Speak for yourself.


106 posted on 07/16/2004 4:05:32 PM PDT by I got the rope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head

Absolutely. In the early days of this nation, a young feller and his girl thinking about getting marriage would NEVER have thought about asking their government for permission. The church was the source of marriage. Government should be out of the marrying business altogether.


107 posted on 07/16/2004 4:05:45 PM PDT by gitmo (Thanks, Mel. I needed that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
Parallel argument: Some kids live in homes where two divorced women who do not have sex, help each other with the kids. Why deny benefits to them?

I'm all for it. I use my wife's situation as an example. Her mother lives with us, and her daughter is going off to college, out of state, this fall. If I (or any other man) had not come along, my wife and her mother would be the sole members of the household. Why shouldn't they be able to inherit from each other, tax-free? Why shouldn't they be able to make medical decisions for each other in case of disability? Why shouldn't the survivor have the right to make burial arrangements for the other?

But if we are obligated to equate everything, then you are essentially saying that marriage cannot exist under the constitution.

Marriage is not a Constitutional institution. Civil marriage is a state-sanctioned institution, with state rules. Even the IRS follows state rules on marriage, with regard to who is married, and what property is separate and what is community property for tax purposes.

It is perfectly logical and just for gov't to recognize and define a family according to how nature defines a family.

I guess the difference between some of us in dealing with the question of "who is a family?" involves whether or not we want to examine people's genitals first.

108 posted on 07/16/2004 4:11:55 PM PDT by hunter112
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: asmith92008

That sounds like a statistical approach. More marriages not resulting in divorce is not necessarily a preservation of strong families.

You wrote: "If folks trying to get married were not men and women, no marriage." I proposed leaving that responsibility to the churches. Can we trust the government to uphold that standard, more than we can trust the churches? I think not.


109 posted on 07/16/2004 4:45:28 PM PDT by Voice in your head ("The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." - Thucydides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
How so?

I'll try and answer that one.

The reason is to protect the family. Historically and Biblically the family is the central institution in law and in society. Although we do not think of the family normally as a law-making body, the family is nonetheless the basic law-making body in all of history. Every point of power and authority is also a point of law, and historically, family law has been the basic law of mankind. In any society or institution, there are basic rules of conduct, and these rules of conduct constitute its law structure. The family is man's basic law-making body because of a variety of reasons, but certainly one of the first of these is the fact that its is the first place man, as a child, encounters law, rules of conduct, and his idea of law is shaped and defined to a great degree by the family. Life is seen through a law-structure which the family gives to the child, and this law structure defines life for the child. But this is not all. The child's attitude towards every other institution and its laws is largely shaped by the family. How the child approaches and reacts to church, school, state, and society depends greatly on his source of law, parental authority. He can face these other law making bodies rebelliously, or he can face them obediently. His attitude can be constructive, destructive, or indifferent, depending on his family background to a large degree. Every parent daily is a law-making person, a focal point of law-enforcement, and the delinquency of parents in this respect is the delinquency before God, their Lord and sovereign.

The family is man's first and basic school, and it is the first government in the life of a child. It is the father that is ordained by God as head of the household and his government is under God is the child's basic government. The child is not the only one governed by the family. The mother is governed by her activities by the requirements of her husband and children. The father is governed by the necessities of providing for the family, protecting them, and giving them the example and leadership they need. Where the family is not self-supporting, there is neither power nor authority in the person of the father. Welfare families, from the days of the Roman Empire to the present, have been notorious for their undisciplined, immoral, and delinquent characters, and welfare families have always been marked by a general lack of male authority. A man who will not provide for his family, accumalate respect, and cherish private property, will have neither the authority nor the ability to govern with wisdom and honor. Lacking self-government, he cannot govern others.

This brings me to another function of the family...it's economic function. The father provides for his family, not for strangers. Welfare agencies provide somewhat for millions of Americans, but the family system provides far more support for hundreds of MILLIONS! Under the family system, children are not only intellectually motivated for the best educational results, but they are economically financed through grade and high school, college, and sometimes graduate school. In terms of sheer economic effienciency, nothing in all of history has ever equalled the family. Compare this to the Communist failures. The family brings social stability and order to society.

This is one of the TRUE reasons for marriage. If the government chooses to redefine marriage, they will most certainly destroy the family and destroy our civilization.

110 posted on 07/16/2004 5:24:27 PM PDT by I got the rope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head

Statistics have shown that children in "weak" marriages, that is parents who feel personally unfulfilled, still ending up having less social pathologies than those who grow up without a mother and father. A mother and father act as a support system and guard dogs from the outside world. There's a reason that predator's target children in broken homes. secondly, we can trust the government to uphold that standard because no people has ever voted for homosexual marriage. Even now, it is being imposed by courts. In a democratic republic, the people can, and must be, trusted to guard their social institutions. The trouble we have had has not come from the exercise of democratic will. It seems to me that libertarian minded people have some paranoid fear that their fellow citizens cannot be trusted with guarding society's traditions.


111 posted on 07/16/2004 5:25:54 PM PDT by asmith92008 (If we buy into the nonsense that we always have to vote for RINOs, we'll just end up taking the horn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah; scripter

Ping!


112 posted on 07/16/2004 5:35:50 PM PDT by I got the rope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: *Homosexual Agenda; EdReform; scripter; GrandMoM; backhoe; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; saradippity; ...

Homosexual Agenda Ping - a vanity on how to preserve marriage (by getting the government to not recognize any marriages... hmmmm.)

I don't agree with the assertion of the article. There is much discussion, pro and con, in the thread. Check it out.

Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.


113 posted on 07/16/2004 5:45:46 PM PDT by little jeremiah ("You're possibly the most ignorant, belligerent, and loathesome poster on FR currently." - tdadams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Read the thread, and here's one comment.

Voice in my head is saying: the patient is sick so therefore should be killed.

I say cure the disease, don't kill the patient.


114 posted on 07/16/2004 5:51:19 PM PDT by little jeremiah ("You're possibly the most ignorant, belligerent, and loathesome poster on FR currently." - tdadams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
"Voice in my head is saying: the patient is sick so therefore should be killed."

Why not just let them read the article, rather than giving them a dishonest summary?

115 posted on 07/16/2004 5:58:52 PM PDT by Voice in your head ("The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." - Thucydides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: I got the rope
"I'll try and answer that one.

The reason is to protect the family."

I was asking how the government has protected marriage, not why it should.

"If the government chooses to redefine marriage, they will most certainly destroy the family and destroy our civilization."

Redefining marriage is not an issue that I raised.

116 posted on 07/16/2004 6:02:16 PM PDT by Voice in your head ("The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." - Thucydides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head

Geez, you're being a little thin skinned. I run the Homosexual Agenda Pinglist, and I usually (almost always unless I'm dropping with exhaustion) give a little commentary about the articles I ping the list to. I don't discourage the people on the list from reading the articles and threads; on the contrary, I encourage them to read, and join in the discussion.

You're getting off easy because I'm tired. If it was morning, you'd get a lot more commentary. Not all negative, mind you. Just more.


117 posted on 07/16/2004 6:03:12 PM PDT by little jeremiah ("You're possibly the most ignorant, belligerent, and loathesome poster on FR currently." - tdadams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: asmith92008
"Statistics have shown that children in 'weak' marriages, that is parents who feel personally unfulfilled, still ending up having less social pathologies than those who grow up without a mother and father."

The shortcoming of statistics is that, when all is said and done, they are just numbers. What about divorces that result in one or both of the people getting happily re-married, rather than remaining in a miserable marriage? I know of several (my mother) such cases. Which kids have fewer social pathologies - those who grow up in a household where parents have "strong" marriages or those who grow up in a household where the parents have "weak" marriages?

"we can trust the government to uphold that standard because no people has ever voted for homosexual marriage. Even now, it is being imposed by courts."

Are the courts not part of the government?

"In a democratic republic, the people can, and must be, trusted to guard their social institutions."

Why the insistence that they use government in this endeavor?

118 posted on 07/16/2004 6:10:03 PM PDT by Voice in your head ("The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." - Thucydides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head

Government must be involved in marriage.

At the start of this nation, marriage was only recorded in a non-uniform means. church records were not reliable and inconsistent. Additionally people went to the courts to disolve a marriage with only a church record to prove a marriage.

Thus the governement has to have the central role of record keeper. A license is just a recording and a means on making sure those that marry are legally able.

Laws such as inheritance, incompetency, medical surrogacy are all dependent on a consitent and uniform rule of marriage.

Additionally as a society we reward the insitution not the individual. Marriage is about promoting the insititution which proliferates the society for future generations. Homosexuality only proliferates recreational sex.


119 posted on 07/16/2004 6:24:19 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
Children that grow up with two parents have less social pathologies. That has been a fact known since the early 70's. If you have a problem with statistics, then your anecdotal tale is worse than worthless in policy discussions.

And while courts are part of the government, they are not the entire government. So if the other branches, executive and legislative, would get off their duffs and do their jobs to rein in there out of control colleagues, we would not have a problem.

As to why the government, why does the government control borders (theoretically) or police the streets? Because government's job is to protect our people and out cultural institutions.
120 posted on 07/16/2004 6:54:25 PM PDT by asmith92008 (If we buy into the nonsense that we always have to vote for RINOs, we'll just end up taking the horn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
"At the start of this nation, marriage was only recorded in a non-uniform means. church records were not reliable and inconsistent. Additionally people went to the courts to disolve a marriage with only a church record to prove a marriage.

Thus the governement has to have the central role of record keeper."

If we make a distinction between "marriage" and "legal contracts" then we do not need government to annull a marriage. If we let churches handle the marriages, then records are of little to no importance.

"Laws such as inheritance, incompetency, medical surrogacy are all dependent on a consitent and uniform rule of marriage."

I wrote that "[e]ach couple should have its own contract for its specific circumstances. Some couples already do this via pre-nuptial agreements." I wrote this to address the point that you raise. The purpose of the contract is to legally "form a union for the purpose of shared benefits and legal protections" such as those you cited.

"Additionally as a society we reward the insitution not the individual."

I'm a fan of limited government, rather than a state that engages in social engineering, no matter how well intentioned.

121 posted on 07/16/2004 7:00:02 PM PDT by Voice in your head ("The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." - Thucydides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
So the gist of your argument is, leave it up to the individual religions to decide who they will or will not marry.

I have infinitely greater trust in the ability of religious institutions to make moral and ethical decisions than I do in the government.

Do you? What about Gene Robinson, the gay Bishop in the Episcopalian church? What about the pedophile-shuffling within the Catholic church? Pedo-priest commits a sexual crime - he is shuffled off to a different parish. These are the first two that come to mind. I'm sure we can add to the list of "moral and ethical decisions".

122 posted on 07/16/2004 7:03:53 PM PDT by my_pointy_head_is_sharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head

agree mostly


123 posted on 07/16/2004 7:05:31 PM PDT by Triple (All forms of socialism deny individuals the right to the fruits of their labor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
Your argument would only work if religious institutions were the paragons of moral and ethical virtues that they should be, but, sadly, are not.
124 posted on 07/16/2004 7:07:36 PM PDT by my_pointy_head_is_sharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: asmith92008
"Children that grow up with two parents have less social pathologies. That has been a fact known since the early 70's. If you have a problem with statistics, then your anecdotal tale is worse than worthless in policy discussions."

The first sentence does not answer my question, nor does it contradict my point. So, I don't understand your frustration. What we wrote is in agreement, but you apparently misread what I wrote.

"And while courts are part of the government, they are not the entire government. So if the other branches, executive and legislative, would get off their duffs and do their jobs to rein in there out of control colleagues, we would not have a problem."

So are you retracting your earlier assertion? "we can trust the government to uphold that standard because no people has ever voted for homosexual marriage."

"Because government's job is to protect our people and out cultural institutions."

I disagree. Government's purpose is to serve as a body in which we vest our rights to self defense from force, fraud or coercion and we vest our rights to determine rules regarding use of public property.

125 posted on 07/16/2004 7:08:13 PM PDT by Voice in your head ("The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." - Thucydides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: my_pointy_head_is_sharp
"So the gist of your argument is, leave it up to the individual religions to decide who they will or will not marry."

That is half of it, yes.

I have infinitely greater trust in the ability of religious institutions to make moral and ethical decisions than I do in the government.
"Do you?"

Yes.

"What about Gene Robinson, the gay Bishop in the Episcopalian church? What about the pedophile-shuffling within the Catholic church? Pedo-priest commits a sexual crime - he is shuffled off to a different parish. These are the first two that come to mind. I'm sure we can add to the list of "moral and ethical decisions".

We can "what-if" this issue to death on both sides. Bill Klinton, Gary Hart, Barney Frank, Gary Condit. Do you think that fewer scum inhabit Washington DC and our state capitals than inhabit our churches and synagogues? I have greater faith in the religious institutions to handle marriage.

"Your argument would only work if religious institutions were the paragons of moral and ethical virtues that they should be, but, sadly, are not."

I disagree. So long as the vast majority are moral and ethical, then it works.

126 posted on 07/16/2004 7:18:54 PM PDT by Voice in your head ("The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." - Thucydides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
1. The question is not simply two parents but a mother and father. You can't just take two individuals and call them parents. A mother and father offer different, and complementing, features to raising a child.

2. Government can be the best protector of marriage. All it it takes is the people exerting their will on the elected branches to rein in the judiciary.

3. A nation is not simply an economic entity. The government does more than simply enforce contracts and control public property. If the government allows the culture to dissolve, we will become isolated islands of atomistic hedonism. That way leads to the death of our nation.
127 posted on 07/16/2004 7:28:49 PM PDT by asmith92008 (If we buy into the nonsense that we always have to vote for RINOs, we'll just end up taking the horn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head

You are refereing to cohabitation agreements which already exist. You can just educate people to enter into those "mere contracts" rather than getting married.

As an institution rather than just a contract Marriage is afforded certain priorities that are not available in mere contracts.

For example, despite what a will has, many states have mandatory widow's/widower's shares.

For example, child supoprt would be fixed under a mere contract concept rather than as the cost of living adjusted system now.

Those the want only contracts have been free to do so for decades. cohabitation contracts are readily available from various form companies.

However as a institution marriage as a means of producing and raising children is paramount to the continuation of a society. This is not to be left to the haphazard contracts any more than one would want to privatize the US navy to france.


128 posted on 07/16/2004 7:48:57 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: asmith92008

Have you notice how the PC police no longer say "mother" or "father" only "parent"

This is to newter the genders in order to make it two whatevers. I would like to see the next course after FMA to be making homosexual adoptions illegal. A child should have one mother and one father. A homosexual recreational sex partner does not equal a mother/father.


129 posted on 07/16/2004 7:58:03 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
We're witnessing the destruction of our society. I think this is a good example of why we cannot truly consider libertarians allies of conservatism. They take the worst instincts of both parties; the greed that can sometimes be seen in the Wall Street wing of the Republican party and the unrestrained hedonism of the Democratic Party. It's time for conservatives to start educating the nation in conservative values again.
130 posted on 07/16/2004 8:26:11 PM PDT by asmith92008 (If we buy into the nonsense that we always have to vote for RINOs, we'll just end up taking the horn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: asmith92008

We better start soon because the courts have become a Kafka-esque joke.

(this is from a lawyer)


131 posted on 07/16/2004 8:31:27 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
I'm sitting for the bar out here California on the 27th. You wouldn't happen to know anyone who's hiring, would you?
132 posted on 07/16/2004 8:33:51 PM PDT by asmith92008 (If we buy into the nonsense that we always have to vote for RINOs, we'll just end up taking the horn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
Question: Do you think that animal cruelty should be a criminal act? I'm not talking about for food or medical research, but just kicking your dog because you feel like kicking your dog.
133 posted on 07/16/2004 8:52:53 PM PDT by asmith92008 (If we buy into the nonsense that we always have to vote for RINOs, we'll just end up taking the horn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: asmith92008
I agree with all three of your comments. I would add to #2 that although government can be the best protector of marriage, it is not. And, I see it as neither essential nor preferable that it play this role, rather than the church. To #3 I would add that I do not think that allowing churches to honcho marriage issues will allow the culture to dissolve.
134 posted on 07/16/2004 9:01:32 PM PDT by Voice in your head ("The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." - Thucydides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
What about my question on the animal cruelty laws?
135 posted on 07/16/2004 9:09:00 PM PDT by asmith92008 (If we buy into the nonsense that we always have to vote for RINOs, we'll just end up taking the horn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
I was asking how the government has protected marriage, not why it should.

I was trying to explain to you that "government" as it was orginally defined did not mean the state. The word government meant self-government of the Christian man, and it it very closely and almost inseparably linked with this, government meant the family. Every family is a government. Every church is a government. Every school is a government, and yes every the state is a "form" of government, but it was orginally defined as civil government. It's purpose is to pass laws that restrain man in a system of morality. If it does not do this it is only because we have been subverted. This can only happen when the "ministers of justice" are spiritually and morally delinquent. In order to have "free" civil government you are going to have to have free men whose greatest desire is self-government under God.

Redefining marriage is not an issue that I raised.

Sure it is...you want to take the institution of marriage away from the state so that they don't define it. What you are saying is that you want to seperate from civil government, but in essence you would be telling civil government that you no longer wish to have "self-government" and then they win (politicians). They could impose their rule over us. On the flip-side of this what will really happen is that sodomites will create their own churches to define it any way they see fit.

136 posted on 07/16/2004 9:31:18 PM PDT by I got the rope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: asmith92008

"Homosexuality and obscenity were illegal at America's founding."

Yeah, and slavery was legal, blacks were 4/5ths of a person, and women couldn't vote. Things and times change.


"The Fonders recognized that it had to be a nation of moral people in order for the Republic to work."


If that's true, we're in big trouble, as morality is impossible to force or enforce. Stopping gay marriage will not stop immorality.


137 posted on 07/16/2004 11:10:05 PM PDT by Blzbba (Hillary Clinton - Dawn of a New Error.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
"As an institution rather than just a contract Marriage is afforded certain priorities that are not available in mere contracts."

If the government no longer defines marriage, then does it not follow that mandatory widow/widower laws and the like will be void and thus able to be replaced by contract?

138 posted on 07/17/2004 8:13:42 AM PDT by Voice in your head ("The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." - Thucydides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: asmith92008
"Question: Do you think that animal cruelty should be a criminal act? I'm not talking about for food or medical research, but just kicking your dog because you feel like kicking your dog."

On public property, it would prefer that it be illegal.

"What about my question on the animal cruelty laws?"

I do need to occasionally pull myself away from the computer and get some sleep.

139 posted on 07/17/2004 8:16:34 AM PDT by Voice in your head ("The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." - Thucydides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: I got the rope
"I was trying to explain to you that "government" as it was orginally defined did not mean the state."

Throughout this thread, "government" has referred to the state. Thus, when I asked how government has protected marriage, I was asking how the state has protected marriage. Sorry for the confusion.

"you want to take the institution of marriage away from the state so that they don't define it. What you are saying is that you want to seperate from civil government, but in essence you would be telling civil government that you no longer wish to have 'self-government' and then they win (politicians). They could impose their rule over us."

I do not understand your point. If the state no longer defines marriage, then it can impose upon us its rules regarding marriage?

140 posted on 07/17/2004 8:21:48 AM PDT by Voice in your head ("The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." - Thucydides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: hunter112
Marriage is not a Constitutional institution.

Unless the Supreme Court says it is, which is likely to happen. That's why we are having this discussion in the first place.

141 posted on 07/17/2004 8:25:52 AM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Legislatures are so outdated. If you want real political victory, take your issue to court.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: hunter112

By the way, doesn't it just STEAM you that Utah was forced to ban polygamy before they were allowed to join the Union. I mean to say...what an outrage! Too bad the gov't back then wasn't as "smart" as we are about what the Constitution really means.


142 posted on 07/17/2004 8:27:32 AM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Legislatures are so outdated. If you want real political victory, take your issue to court.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: asmith92008

In colonial America, homosexuality was a crime. Were the Founders "Hitler, Taliban, Stalin?" I believe the Founders did stand for a Constitution and could quite likely be described as conservative.

Good point, and needs to be repeated.

143 posted on 07/17/2004 8:30:52 AM PDT by Hacksaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Blzbba
Yeah, and slavery was legal, blacks were 4/5ths of a person, and women couldn't vote. Things and times change.

LOL!!!! The social liberals always say that when pointed out that the founders would never have agreed with them.

144 posted on 07/17/2004 8:34:31 AM PDT by Hacksaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
Here are some others who agree with you.

Here's another:


145 posted on 07/17/2004 9:08:16 AM PDT by Hacksaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
Marriage is not a Constitutional institution.

Unless the Supreme Court says it is, which is likely to happen. That's why we are having this discussion in the first place.

Did the SCOTUS make marriage a Constitutional institution in 1967, when it struck down bans on interracial marriage? Striking down bans on gay marriage would not explicitly put marriage into the Constitution, but an FMA definitely would.

146 posted on 07/17/2004 10:55:26 AM PDT by hunter112
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
By the way, doesn't it just STEAM you that Utah was forced to ban polygamy before they were allowed to join the Union. I mean to say...what an outrage! Too bad the gov't back then wasn't as "smart" as we are about what the Constitution really means.

From my reading of Utah history, Utahans chose to get rid of polygamy, so they could elect their own government, rather than have the US gov't send them leaders that they did not like. They also had to disband a religious party, called the Mormon People's Party, and move toward the Democrat-Republican two-party system to achieve statehood. A plurality of the Utahans chose the Republican Party, and when the Republicans started gaining strength in Congress, they were able to usher Utah in to the Union. It was more than just a struggle over a definition of marriage.

Besides, you should be glad they accomplished it at that point in time. What if Utah had retained territorial status well into the 20th Century, then had made an attempt at statehood in, say, the late 1960's/early 1970's? Would the society of the sexual revolution have allowed them to enter with polygamy having been an established religious principle for over a hundred years? My guess is that it could have been possible. You'd have a nation with two distinctly different notions of what marriage entailed. It wouldn't have been that hard to envision a third. We'd probably have legal gay marriage by this point in time, if things had gone different with Utah.

As for government being "smart" about how it treats marriage, it was the prohibition against selling contraceptives to even MARRIED couples that gave us the Griswold vs. Connecticut SCOTUS ruling in 1965. You might recall that in that decision, the SCOTUS first started playing around with the shadowy notion of "penumbras" "emanating" to create the privacy right that was not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. If the Roman Catholic Church had not been so forceful in including married couples from obtaining the right to control their fertility, we might not have had this ruling, which spawned Roe vs. Wade a mere eight years later.

Expect the words from Griswold vs. Connecticut: "We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights - older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions," to find their way into a future decision involving gay marriage.

147 posted on 07/17/2004 11:24:39 AM PDT by hunter112
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
So let me clarify. Kicking dog in park, illegal, not in park okay?

Yet if your idea of government is no regulation so long as I'm not interfering with your rights, how could kicking my dog ever be illegal?
148 posted on 07/17/2004 11:35:01 AM PDT by asmith92008 (If we buy into the nonsense that we always have to vote for RINOs, we'll just end up taking the horn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Blzbba
1. If you are going to quote the Constitution out of context, quote it correctly. Slaves were counted as 3/5 for purposes of apportioning representation. This was a compromise to dilute slave holder power. Had they been allowed to count slaves as 1 person 1 rep (even though slaves couldn't vote) then the slave holders in the south would have been given enormous leverage in the House as a result of their large slave populations. Perhaps you should spend more time reading the Constitution instead of Julian Bond or Kweise Mfume's latest screeds.

Secondly, the expansion in rights from the Constituting was an exercise in democratic governance. They were not the results of courts imposing a dictat upon the people.

So if times have truly changed, let me see one state in America where the people have voted to allow homosexual marriage. Oh yeah, none have. Even Hawaii, quite a liberal state amended its constitution when the judges tried imposing it there. Massachusetts is in the process but has quite an unwieldy process for amending so it takes years.

Times have not changed. Hedonists and libertines have simply infiltrated the courts and wish to impose their views on an unwilling majority.

2. All laws enforce morality. We deem murder immoral and enforce that through our laws. It does not stop all murders but it allows us to punish transgressors and deter future transgressions. This holds true for all laws.

Until the 1960s (maybe earlier on some things, later on others) we did quite a good job of enforcing morality. Obscenity was outlawed and distribution through interstate commerce a crime. Acts like adultery were actually allowed to be civil torts against the person who helped break up the marriage and the law punished the married party in the property split. These are jst two examples of how the law helped enforce, and reinforce, the traditional morality

3, You are correct that stopping gay marriage will not, on its own, stop immorality. It will, however help us stop our ongoing cultural slide.

Your argument is akin to saying that a house is on fire, so we should throw gasoline on it.
149 posted on 07/17/2004 11:50:35 AM PDT by asmith92008 (If we buy into the nonsense that we always have to vote for RINOs, we'll just end up taking the horn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: asmith92008
"So let me clarify. Kicking dog in park, illegal, not in park okay?

Yet if your idea of government is no regulation so long as I'm not interfering with your rights, how could kicking my dog ever be illegal?"

I expained my "idea of government" in post #125. "Government's purpose is to serve as a body in which we vest our rights to self defense from force, fraud or coercion and we vest our rights to determine rules regarding use of public property."

In response to your question regarding animal cruelty, I said "On public property, it would prefer that it be illegal." If you view this in light of my position, as stated by me, then this is consistent. I think that animal cruelty is morally wrong and I think that the government is justified in making it illegal on public property. Therefore, I would prefer that animal cruelty be illegal on public property.

What does any of this have to do with the thread?

150 posted on 07/17/2004 1:59:42 PM PDT by Voice in your head ("The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." - Thucydides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-191 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