Posted on 07/31/2011 2:47:45 PM PDT by Steelfish
Edited on 07/31/2011 5:23:27 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
EDITORIAL A Gay-Wedding Crasher A law professor attempts to use a homosexual rights ruling to defend a polygamous family in Utah.
In this file photo, (pic in URL) Kody Brown poses with his wives Janelle, Christine, Meri, and Robyn for TLC's reality TV show, "Sister Wives." The Browns' attorney, Jonathan Turley, filed a lawsuit challenging the Utah bigamy law that makes their lifestyle illegal.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
They’ll get zot on sight or hanged in Ft Smith at Judge Parker’s convenience.
Thank you, sir.
“It never sways squishy softheads.”
Yet, apparently, you keep using it. That speaks more to the hardness of your head than the softness of other heads.
“Has it swayed you?”
You offered nothing that would sway me or any other thinking person.
It was not a plan, merely a thought expressed publically. In my lifetime American morals have completely collapsed. It is not that we did not have immoral behavior; but it was not extensively embraced as a “good thing.” I do not see anyone having effective powers of resistance. So it may be best to adapt to the rot and try to control the acting out.
Experience both here and in Britain shows that the incidence of unmarried motherhood is reduced when the benefits are reduced. Even welfare-class people are not totally irrational. They can follow the money just like smarter and better-educated folks. What takes pure moral fiber is NOT following the money, but choosing to do right even when it costs more.
Have you considered investing in a helmet?
“Exactly right.”
I don't believe it's “exactly right” that it would necessarily “only lead to a further expansion of the welfare state”. They'd just have to develop different laws and rationale for those laws, in order to accomplish the same goals without expansion.
“Kris & Gondring, if you “get govt out of the marriage license biz,” then you've got to simultaneously shut down the entire welfare system.”
1. I don't see why.
2. Do you think that's a bad thing? A lot of Conservatives think Government should be less involved in that kind of thing anyhow, that charity should be private.
“Since the govt is involved in being the “back-up” safety valve system for broken families, it has a vested interested in overseeing the front-end “commitments” & covenants & Points of accountability not be denormalized into an “anything goes” society.”
1. There used to be such a thing as a “Bastardy Bond” by which the father had to ensure that the support of those born out of wedlock did not fall to the government. I don't recall exactly how that worked though.
2. The government is already involved in being the “back-up” safety valve system for broken families, including families in which the father or fathers never really took part. Some say the government facilitates broken families and doesn't recognize or heed the vested interest of which you write.
3. I do not advocate an “anything goes” society. Similar to what I wrote above, they'd have to develop different laws to accomplish the same goals regarding children, property rights, responsibilities, and accountability of those involved (to include deadbeat parents).
All my lib friends told me I was paranoid when I told them this would happen. I’m going to make them all buy me dinner, and bring presents when my wife and I marry our cat, Jesus.
“in Germany, you can have a church wedding without a civil marriage.”
I believe you’ve got that backwards. In Germany you must get the civil marriage BEFORE the church wedding.
No. Fight.
Fight to win. Then win.
Then take no prisoners, exile the survivors, notch their earlobes, and get their passports.
Here’s a concept... let’s get the government out of the marriage business altogether!
- - - — - -
Are you really advocating the dissolution of the legal entity of marriage?
Did the change not go through a couple of years ago?
Which is a major objective of the homosexual movement's attack on marriage.
What they hate is the heteronormative nature of marriage, and government's recognition of same.
They want the churches to "take it all back" and government to "take it all back". How dare anyone say the truth, that homosexuality is a paraphilia, and inherently deviate?
They want so-called "hate-crime" (thought-crime) legislation on the books so that their lawywers like Evan Wolfson and that queer crowd at ACLU and Lambda Legal can march into court to make individual Christians and Jews, and indeed entire congregations, "take it all back" or give up their jobs, houses, savings, and property in retaliation -- exactly, by the way, what the Southern Poverty Law Center did to a rancher who tried to defend his property against Mexican illegal trespassers by calling in, as a last, desperate resort, a private ranch-rescue operation.
Eventually, of course, the official policy must become one of persecution, and of requiring little gestures of ..... good faith ..... along life's road, for everyone in society.
How about those who want Government to quit corrupting the institution of marriage, and reserve it as the holy sacrament as God gave to the Church, who do not want marriage to be confined by what the Government dictates is acceptable or not?
But that isn’t what you said over on this thread, n00b (7-10-2011), where I expressed concern for advocating such a position on a pro-family site:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2756400/posts?page=18#18
To: RecoveringPaulisto
Just more proof that Government should get out of the marriage business altogether. You legitimize things by officially recognizing them - so don’t recognize any of them.
18 posted on Saturday, July 30, 2011 7:32:19 PM by FromTheSidelines (”everything that deceives, also enchants” - Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: RecoveringPaulisto
Most legal systems in history have recognized slavery and polygamy, too...
I’d be interested to hear the negative consequences of not legally recognizing marriage at all. Is it the breakdown of the family? Fatherless households? Out-of-wedlock children? All those things we have now - with our legally recognized marriage?
22 posted on Saturday, July 30, 2011 7:55:06 PM by FromTheSidelines (”everything that deceives, also enchants” - Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
I am a supporter of getting Government out of the marriage business, since we’re at the situation where Government either recognizes - and thus legitimizes - gay marriage, or just drops recognition altogether. 25 posted on Saturday, July 30, 2011 8:16:54 PM by FromTheSidelines (”everything that deceives, also enchants” - Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
I have no problem keeping the gays out of my religion, that does not mean that we should abolish the LEGAL entity of marriage.
The only ones "corrupting the institution of marriage" are the relativists (such as yourself, Gondring, and KrisKringle) who DEFEND AND CHAMPION the redefinition of marriage.
IBTZ, you three pathetic POS's!
So because I believe Government should keep its nose out of the sacrament of marriage (look where Government involvement has gotten us already), then I must support gay marriage and the destruction of marriage?
Do you support Government dictate regarding prayer? If not, then you support destruction of prayer and support for satanic sacrifice.
Wanting Government OUT of something that was set up by God and given as a sacrament is NOT the same thing as wanting to see the opposite flourish and succeed; it is trying to keep Caesar doing what is Caesar’s, and God in charge of what is God’s.
I have been quite explicit in stating I want Government out of marriage; we see what Government involved in marriage has wrought (the breakdown of the family, out-of-wedlock births, gay marriage) and as a result the holiness and respect for the institution as a whole has been lowered. We can try to fight to put the genie back in the bottle, or simply take the bottle away from Government in the first place.
Government has NO RIGHT to tell me that my marriage is only acceptable and real because they issued a piece of paper to me; it was made real and holy when I pledged in a Church to God and those fellow believers gathered. I don’t need a Government to bless and condone what I do with God and the Church.
PLEASE! Can you show me where I say marriage should not be between a man and a woman?
On the contrary, Government is trying to say it can be perverted to be between two men or two women, or many of each. That is evil, heretical, and wrong.
Since Government insists on ignoring the Biblical basis of marriage, then do not allow it any control or power over marriage it all. Reserve it for the Church.
Don’t address what you think I said, don’t address what others claim I said - address my words HERE. The Government has no power or dominion over marriage other than what we choose to give it. I choose to not give it any control, because it has shown it is willing to pervert and destroy that insitution.
Should the Government be used to certify and condone other sacraments of the church? Should Government weigh in on baptisms, and communion, confession and last rites?
No? Then why should it have any say over marriage?
How is giving Government power over a sacrament given to us by God, a good thing? How is it in any way acceptable? If Government is aligned with the will of God, then Government can come along side. The second it is no longer aligned with the will of God, Government should be shunned from any involvement in that aspect of life.
I choose not to lower my faith, my church, and my God below the power and authority of Government.
Isn't government you and I?
Why can't we sanction marriage?
Do you understand Natural Law?
Natural Law has always been applicable in the state-sanctioning of marriage. Why isn't Natural Law applicable here?
Do you realize the Founding Fathers ALL believed in the application of Natural Law?
Have you been zotted/banned before and now rejoined FR under a new name?
Will you answer all these questions honestly?
I am all for keeping the Government out of my religion, in fact the first amendment requires it. However that has nothing to do with the LEGAL ENTITY of marriage.
You seem to be equating to different things. My husband and I got married in a church, we made a covenant before God, however we needed a license and signatures in order to have it legally recognized. Separate things entirely. You do not need the former (ceremony) to have the latter (legal marriage). THEY ARE TWO SEPARATE THINGS.
The dissolution of the legal entity of marriage (which you are advocating) is destructive to civilization. Legal marriage was created to provide protection of women and children and still forms that function which is why we are fighting so hard to keep it. The legal function of marriage dates back to the earliest laws and legal systems.
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.