Posted on 07/01/2013 5:26:10 AM PDT by shortstop
Now that marriage means nothing, we should think of new ways to define it.
The Supreme Court last week threw out marriage as understood by most peoples since sometime before Christ was born. In what the president called “a victory for democracy,” a vote of the people and an act of their representatives were nullified by judicial arrogance.
The fundamental unit of society has been changed, not by the wishes or practice of the people, or of their elected representatives, but by the cobbled-together opinion of five unaccountable political appointees in Washington, D.C.
Government for the people, by the people, of the people is not how we play the game today.
And so, marriage has been retired.
The government has claimed it and changed it and, there being no recourse short of armed rebellion, the people will simply abandon it. Legal marriage is no longer in any substantive way what millennia of humankind has understood it to be.
By redefining what it means, the government has made sure that it means nothing.
I’m not saying that men and women won’t pledge their lives to one another, but they will no longer put particular stock in the sanction of the state. Slaves denied access to marriage formulated their own ritual and covenant – they jumped the stick. The American people, now denied marriage as their faith has taught it since the Isrealites left Egypt, will likewise formulate their own ritual and covenant.
Churches will hold ceremonies, individuals will make promises, but the government sanction of marriage is henceforth a cheap and adulterated imitation.
The slate has been wiped clean.
Which means it is free to be written upon.
Now that government-sanctioned marriage is a sacrilege offering nothing more than the filthy lucre of government and employee benefits, new ways to use it will be found.
If the government makes marriage a joke, then resourceful people will make what they can out of the scrap.
For example, if marriage can now be contracted between two men, and those two men can have access to one another’s employment and government benefits, nothing says those two men have to be gay.
Nothing says that marriage has to be sexual. Nothing says it has to include love, of any kind.
If you have benefits and we are friends – or I pay you enough – nothing stops us from marrying so that I may receive your benefits. If I am about to die, and you are my friend, why don’t we marry so that you can get my Social Security survivor benefits?
What is to stop two young roommates, who happen to be the same gender, from entering into a marriage of convenience for financial benefit?
Nothing.
If marriage doesn’t have to be marriage, then same-sex marriage doesn’t have to be gay marriage.
It is merely a contract, an odd status under law in which one person opens the door of benefit to another. Is this a fraud?
Absolutely not.
The Supreme Court has said that all people have a right to marry. Why they marry is their business. There is a traditional purpose to marriage, certainly. But if the court says the traditional definition of marriage is gone, then no one can be surprised by the end of the traditional purpose of marriage.
Nor can anyone protest new uses for marriage.
In the new era, marriage is your plus one. It simply means that, as you claim benefits from your employer or the government, you can check off the “spouse” box, your plus one.
It doesn’t matter who your plus one is.
It doesn’t matter the gender, it doesn’t matter the motivation, it only matters that you’ve got your rights.
And I suggest you use your rights to stick it to them. If marriage means nothing, treat it like nothing, treat them like nothing. Don’t let a dollar go uncollected.
Anything that involves decency, morals and God are his target.
My brother and I have joked about this for years. If we ever find ourselves both single, we say that we’re going to marry to share our benefits.
we are already there, it is the the three parent family
No joke. It's a war against our entire culture, and reality itself.
When you create a new society, you have to break a few eggs, while you live like a king.
>>Now that gay marriage is acceptable, I can’t wait to see what Obama’s next crusade to destroy America and her traditions will be.
This isn’t his only oar in the water. He will continue with his crusade to remove our work ethic and sense of individualism. He will continue with his crusade to replace the true God with his Marxist/Muslim vision of Natural Man as god. He will continue his crusade to bankrupt the country and to lower the living standard of the people to what he deems to be “enough”.
Marriage means exactly what it always meant. The State didn’t define it before now, and they don’t define it now.
Let me give you an analogy. The right to bear arms was correctly defined by our Founders to be a natural right of man. The 2A doesn’t give us that right; it only acknowledges it. If the left successfully nullifies the 2A as a function of law, it doesn’t change the fact that we have a natural right to bear arms; a right that transcends the law.
The same is true of Marriage. Marriage is not ordained by the State. To the extent that the State has codified legal provisions to provide the civil benefits implied by Marriage and calls that Marriage, all is well and good. To the extent the State perverts those provisions, it only affects the civil nature that the State automatically assigns to a Civil (and therefore under the State’s control) Ceremony.
For most of us, Marriage is a Religious Ceremony first, and a Civil Ceremony second. The State’s “ordination” of Marriage only applies to the legal status associated with Marriage that it controls.
I mislike the title of this thread. The definition of Marriage hasn’t changed. The State doesn’t have that power. We do well to remember that.
So, when does polygamy become legal? After they scream & shout loud & long enough about being 2nd class citizens?
Who cares what the SCOTUS says on homosexual marriage? I don’t. It won’t change my view one iota. And if that’s a crime, too F’n bad. The Yankee government can try to shove it down my throat, but my mind won’t accept it.
And for the NSA trolls, FU.
When I heard that from obama I retched. How a decision handed down from on high by five solons who are above being answerable to any electorate, and whose decision not only overturned a straightforward electoral decision but told that electorate that they have no standing to defend the voted-on law, is a vitory for democracy is beyond me.
>>Marriage — the true sense of union between man and woman — is still very much alive..
Marriage began to die when the No-Fault divorce was created several decades ago. The celebration of the “single” mother was another stake in its heart. Today’s culture of freely making babies without any consideration for marriage was the final blow. Gay marriage just takes it and makes it into a joke.
The number of individuals and methods of marital association is now limited only by mathematical permutation.
Imagine the possibilities: Facebook and Linkedin marriages among thousands of people who have never met! Of course, I assume that discarded sofas would still be ruled out.
....Government should get its fat nose out of it.
HA! Riiiiiight. Good luck with that.
If marriage brings "benefits," why are so many heterosexuals shunning it?
The number and percentage of unwed co-habitating couples is at an all time high.
Marriage ceased to mean anything when it became commonplace for people to live together, have sex, and procreate without its blessing.
The decision actually may go beyond Marriage. It could well redefine the family unit. I for one am exploring adopting my dogs, getting them Social Security numbers, voting registration and applying not only for tax credits, but for numerous social grants.
If Americans will just get behind this kind of thinking, they just might be forced to look at the door they opened.
In the Old Testament Isaiah prophesied of a time when standards and behavioral attitudes would be reversed, and Jesus said in the end-times many people would be deceived:-
Isa 5:20 “ Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”
Scene: Marriage License counter, City Clerk’s office.
“Next.”
“Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license.”
“Names?”
“Tim and Jim Jones.”
“Jones?? Are you related?? I see a resemblance.”
“Yes, we’re brothers.”
“Brothers?? You can’t get married.”
“Why not?? Aren’t you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?”
“Yes, thousands. But we haven’t had any siblings. That’s incest!”
“Incest?” We are not gay.”
“Not gay?? Then why do you want to get married?”
“For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other.
Besides, we don’t have any other prospects.”
“But we’re issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who’ve
been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you
can get married to a woman.”
“Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I
have. But just because I’m straight doesn’t mean I want to marry a
woman. I want to marry Jim.”
“And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us
just because we are not gay?”
“All right, all right. I’ll give you your license. Next.”
“Hi. We are here to get married.”
“Names?”
“John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson.”
“Who wants to marry whom?”
“We all want to marry each other.”
“But there are four of you!”
“That’s right. You see, we’re all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert,
Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves
June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that
we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship.”
“But we’ve only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples.”
“So you’re discriminating against bisexuals!”
“No, it’s just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that
it’s just for couples.”
“Since when are you standing on tradition?”
“Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere.”
“Who says?? There’s no logical reason to limit marriage to couples.
The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the
constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a
marriage license!”
“All right, all right. Next.”
“Hello, I’d like a marriage license.”
“In what names?”
“David Deets.”
“And the other man?”
“That’s all. I want to marry myself.”
“Marry yourself?? What do you mean?”
“Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to
marry the other me. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return.”
“That does it!? I quit!!? You people are making a mockery of marriage!!”
AMEN to that.
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.