Posted on 01/21/2009 8:33:32 AM PST by Pyro7480
Marriage has been the backbone of society for eons as displayed during the beginnings of western civ. Churches were part of government/controlled policy in many towns and settlements and if you can't understand how civilization needed marriage/government as a organizing mechanism which led to stability than you can't grasp the historical significance. (I guess the necessary evil flew right over your head).
Brave new world I guess in your mind. Enjoy the instability and experimentation because like government, society needs marriage unless you want chaos with the court system, children's mental health, and a breakdown of civilization.
Has anything been said anywhere about that Signator guy? The one that was his body man, then his driver and now the guy it seems he can’t go a day without seeing at least once? The one no one can interview, the one that there is only one small bad picture of. That is another huge mystery running around in Obama’s shadows.
He also wants to oppose a constitutional ban on same sex marriage
I agree with you on that.
Growing up we never heard about it, never knew about it and was never about in public
no probs
it is their agenda which is now driving me. I am just fed up of them going on about it.
we all know it is not marriage like it wasn’t adoption when they went to catholic charities or them joining the military.
it is an agenda to destroy the traditional family, to make everyone accept their agenda and a screw you to conservatives and those who are Christian’s.
(those people who they love to mock but never mock Jews or Muslims even though Muslims want their heads chopping off)
Oh, I know. I just think promoting mass killing of unborn babies is worse than promoting gay ‘marriage’—although I know God finds both equally repugnant. *sigh*
If you are Catholic, you should be very worried. Giving federal protection to homosexuals means hate crimes prosecution of the Catholic Church for opposing same sex marriage. The lawyers are lining up.
Thank you.
Yeah, the one whose apartment he used to go to everyone morning for at least an hour to “work out”.
“A party line voter in January 2009 has helped the USA how?”
I kept Texas safe from the ravages of the Democrats and re-elected one of the few worthy US Senators on Capitol Hill, a good conservative Republican, Senator John Cornyn. And I added to the numbers that made Obama’s win less of a blowout than it otherwise would have been.
What conservative leaders did YOU get into the Congress? hmmm.
I suspect it will fly over his head.
We can dispense with marriage even as a (bad) idea only because we have a rich, prosperous, stable civilization. It would be unthinkable were we closer to conditions of need of families. Once we dispense with it, we shall be a generation or two from barbarism and/or demographic suicide (for Europe and Japan they are headed for the latter), but in the mean time "no harm no foul" to such fallacious ideas - apres moi, le deluge.
That’s a great question! Voting the party line in PA gets us the infamous RINO Spector, the pay-and-pay-more-to-play Dem Rendell and the milquetoast Dem Casey. I did not vote for any of them, proud to say.
No, that was just part of the Alinsky methodology he used at times in the campaign..Tell them what they want to hear....ie. Saddleback.
However, his record and his actions say...pro homosexual agenda
It won't matter that gays can have a civil ceremony down at the Justice of the Peace, they want to have them in the Catholic Church.
It doesn't matter that we can't afford to support any more folks on the unemployment line. They want us to take illegal immigrants anyway because why? Immigrants fine — it's the illegal part I object to. This is all Nutz — Gitmo detainees will have more rights than we do.
This is NUTZ. It's sickening. Do what you want, but leave me the heck out of it. The Catholic Church will be Out of Business shortly — all in the name of choice -— for whom?
Voters and expensive ballot measures do not count anymore. California twice now has voted to ban gay marriage.
Botox Pelosi must repeal DOMA because her constituents in San Francisco are the only ones who can stomach her.
The openly gay in the military will either work, put them in harm's way or stop men and women from signing up.
“Get on it, friend, get on it!”
I’m trying to, but the 3 feet of snow is tough to trudge through to hand targets. And I can’t load the ammo fast enough or afford the a lot.
I think it would be easier finding Bigfoot than a new piece of .308 brass.
I believe you're right - 52% or 53%, somewhere in there.
Thanks to Sarah Palin. Without her it would have probably been 60%.<>p
Obama to Lift Ban on Funding for Groups Providing Abortions Overseas
(Mexico City Policy/Alan Keyes]
Fox News | Wednesday, January 21, 2009 | Major Garrett
Posted on 01/21/2009 3:35:28 PM PST by EternalVigilance
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2169123/posts
Obama Excludes Life in Declaration Cite in Inaugural Speech
LifeNews.com | 1/20/2008 | Steven Ertelt
Posted on 01/21/2009 9:13:58 AM PST by julieee
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2168852/posts
Jurist (R. Bork) predicts ‘terrible conflict’
will endanger U.S. Catholics’ religious freedom
CNA
Posted on 01/21/2009 4:46:45 AM PST by fabrizio
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2168688/posts
If....one of your parents died and left no will, how can the court judge whether or not you or your surviving parent would get said inheritance if the court is "out of the marriage" business?
The same way a court would do so now if my parents were not married.
Marriage is so woven into human civilization that any attempt to strip it, or construe its definition in such a way as to be foreign to the vast majority of the populous, will end up in the utter destruction of that society.
I wrote:
"Government intervention in marriage is the problem. Get the government entirely out of marriage. No laws regarding marriage, no benefits, etc.
After that, if a basic public interest substantiating the necessity of government intervention in marriage is proved to exist, let that interest be the foundation and limitation of any government intervention."
I proposed getting the government entirely out of marriage. That's not a proposal to construe the definition of marriage in such a way as to be foreign to the vast majority of the populous unless the vast majority of the populous (incorrectly) believes government involvement is intrinsic to the definition of marriage, which would be a related but somewhat different problem.
Also, if the government doesn't recognize marriage, it cannot recognize families.
“Family. Most commonly refers to group of persons consorting of parents and children; father, mother and their children; immediate kindred, constituting fundamental social unit in civilized society. People v Hasse, 57 Misc.2d 59, 291 N.Y.S.2d 53,56” (One of several definitions taken from Black’s Law Dictionary, most of which don’t mention marriage.
If the government doesn't recognize marriage, it cannot adjudicate insurance payout questions.
I don’t see why not.
If the government doesn't recognize marriage, it cannot recognize surviving spouse benefits.
True enough. I wrote “No laws regarding marriage, no benefits, etc.”
If the government doesn't recognize marriage, it doesn't participate in the real world …
I don’t recall that the Federal Government at its beginning and in its founding documents had anything to say in recognition of marriage. I don’t see that meaning it didn’t participate in the real world till it got involved with marriage.
No government has ever existed that has not recognized the special bond of marriage…
I believe the special bond of marriage has existed without government and therefore has existed without depending on government for its existence. Besides, the government could recognize marriage without getting involved. Kind of like religion. That might be the beginning of proving the existence of a basic public interest substantiating the necessity of government intervention in marriage and letting that interest be the foundation and limitation of any government intervention..
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.