Posted on 08/05/2010 8:05:44 AM PDT by SmithL
‘Why does the government have anything whatever to do with marriage? why not just let it be a private or church-related contract?’
The sooner folks quit looking for any modern gubberment to define and protect marriage the better, in my opinion. Trusting the gov’t with such an important task was doomed to fail, eventually.
Govermnent involvement hasn’t been good for the institution, at least in modern times, in my opinion. Most folks seem to see marriage as just another lousy government contract that can be broken and resumed as long as government says so. Also, many seem to be conditioned think that marriage comes from the govenment, to the point they easily accept impossibilities like “gay marriage” as long as the government says it can exist.
Freegards
Whether you like it or not.
Spoken like a true tyrant.
You literally said it's "for the children" in your statement. That is the mantra of the nannystaters. The state has no authority to involve itself in private relationships where no crime is taking place. Expanding the power of the state is certainly not in the interests of "the children."
I do not recognize such a ruling: it destroys the true meaning of marriage.
What is the most cost effective manner to raise future tax paying citizens? A stable home provided by a mother and father who are married.
And that’s why the state is invovled in marriage. Children raised in a two parent, married home and less likely to drain the system through welfare and correctional costs, they are more likely to succeed in school. Children raised with a mother and father, who are married, are much more likely to avoid poverty, and thus drain the system themselves, and are much more likely to become productive taxpaying citizens.
It’s cheaper for the state to encourage and support marriage than try to clean up the mess that occurs without married parents rasing children.
Marriage makes a civilized society. And that is in the state’s vested interest.
Oh so in your mind there should be no laws to protect children then. You just paint anyone calling for a law to protect chidren a nannystater? You are showing idiocy then.
I don't know when these people (government workers) began to think of themselves as royalty, but we need to correct their misconception immediately.
totally agree with your comment - since when should the government be in the business of certifying any marriages?
and tax coddes or other laws designed to manage the behavior of the population are wrong in my opinion also.
No tax breaks (redistribution policies) for buying green, saving for retirement, buying a house...Because it leads to abuse, is unfair in that tax law is not uniformly applied to citizens, and it is not part of the enumerated powers of the federal government (giving monetary incentives to change behavior).
It leads to abuse such as rep Nadler’s Bill - tax break for voting democrat (living in a high cost of living state).
And please explain how marriage laws expands the power of the state? Giving a tax break to families is a scary expansion of government power?
If you have no justification for a law other than blubbering “it’s for the children” then you have no justification, period. It’s just something that makes you feel good. I require a higher standard than that for codifying something as tax-supported public policy.
It’s all about the benefits. This is from a “gaylife” website that I held my nose and visited. After turning on “private browsing” so it couldn’t set a cookie.
Notice how many of these are going to cost the rest of us money?
These benefits were established in an earlier generation that assumed the man was working and the woman was home raising children. That model is now broken even for hetero couples and needs to be revisited.
Here are a few of the state level benefits within the United States:
Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Automatic Inheritance
Automatic Housing Lease Transfer
Bereavement Leave
Burial Determination
Child Custody
Crime Victim’s Recovery Benefits
Divorce Protections
Domestic Violence Protection
Exemption from Property Tax on Partner’s Death
Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
Insurance Breaks
Joint Adoption and Foster Care
Joint Bankruptcy
Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Certain Property Rights
Reduced Rate Memberships
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Visitation of Partner’s Children
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits
The more and more you hear the idiocy that comes from so-called libertarians who want the people to have no representation on issue after issue the more and more you have wonder why they want any government at all. Privatize the military then. Privatize everything. Dissolve the Congress, Privatize the Courts and do away with the Executive branch.
Sodomy used to be considered a crime. Maybe someday we will look back when 'pedophilia used to be a crime.'
Granting a special tax exemption is designed to create dependency and submission. It's exactly the same goal as Obamacare -- make people literally dependent on the government for every facet of their life, and you have successfully made everyone slaves to the state.
So then in your mind we should just eliminate the people’s right to make laws protecting children or promoting their welfare?
Maybe make an anti-child amendment to the Constitution.
Marriage makes a civilized society.
OJ ,Tiger,Larry King and Tito Ortiz all agree.
Tax policy should be related to revenue, not behavior modification.
Final answer-Leave it to the states.
I am neither supporting nor condoning gay marriage, but given that this court has “ruled” then by definition, “same sex partners” should no longer be able to share benefits such as health insurance, access to hospitals, etc unless said benefit sharing are equally accessible to different sex partners. They will have to get married to participate in the benefits of their partner.
Thus the fact that Disney offers medical coverage and other benefits to same sex partners, but NOT heterosexual partners is unequal under the law.
Plus if gays get married then how are the courts going to “stick it to” one of the partners similar to how they stick it to the male partner now? What if two men are in divorce court - how will the court screw them both?
Laws protecting the rights of children (like the rights of all people) are both good & necessary. Marriage licensure does not protect any child.
So this freak homo-judge from San Francisco gets to re-define the word ‘marriage’ to suit his own faggotry, while overturning not just the voters, but thousands of years of tradition? Like, hell!
“And please explain how marriage laws expands the power of the state?
The only way anyone can force me to recognize an impossibility like “gay marriage”,against the teaching of my faith, is if the state is involved in the institution and forces me to do so.
Who is more married, a couple married in their faith but without a piece of paper from the gov’t or two men with a piece of paper from the guvment saying they are married?
Freegards
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.