Skip to comments.NOW THAT MARRIAGE MEANS NOTHING
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.
Im not saying that men and women wont 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 anothers 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 dont 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?
If marriage doesnt have to be marriage, then same-sex marriage doesnt 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?
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 doesnt matter who your plus one is.
It doesnt matter the gender, it doesnt matter the motivation, it only matters that youve 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. Dont 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.
“Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license.”
“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.”
“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
“All right, all right. Next.”
“Hello, I’d like a marriage license.”
“In what names?”
“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.
We are sadly are a very badly divided country.
Rights from the government and not from God always will cause problems. Look at what the Civil Right laws did for blacks since the 1960’s. It has killed their families. This will do the same for all families.
We need to shore up federal and state laws protecting religious freedom. I would not rely on the 1st Amendment free exercise guaranty, as we all know any leftist judge will water it down and manipulate it to mean whatever he wants it to mean (i.e., nothing).
Start preparing now for the next focus of the communists — destroying those churches which don’t sign onto the gay agenda. And at the same time try and keep real marriage alive in the 37 states that don’t yet have fake marriage.
Weird. I’m still married to my Wife and that still means something to me.
I never wanted the government involved in that equation to begin with.
If it destroys the family, or reduces the Christian influence in society,
he’ll be championing it.
Since drawing the line at one man, one woman, was deemed discriminatory and bigoted,
drawing the line at two people is no less so.
You cannot change the definition of something that God defines.
An organization however formed by man, which adheres to certain principles and beliefs CAN be redefined.... such as the BSA.
Let us make that distinction.
Its OK to steal if you only do it to a few people. And if you are stealing, it is most advantageous to steal from those who have the stuff to make it worthwhile. Duh!
Have you ever noticed that much, or most of what government does is things which would be considered criminal if you did it yourself, or with a group of cooperating friends (call it a gang)? Much of what was considered vice is either taken over by the government (the biggest, toughest gang in the neighborhood), or legalized to please their supporters (if there is no real cash profit involved). Almost all the old rackets are now in government hands: gambling, liquor, counterfeiting, and (coming soon) prostitution. The latter has long been controlled by the police in México. It is licensed in Nevada and many European countries: government as the pimp.
We are in effect being ruled by a large, very complicated, criminal gang.
Now anyone who studies sociology of gangs, knows that there must be some unifying bonds among the members of a gang, so that they know on whom to prey, and whom to trust. In many gangs ethnicity is a unifying factor. This is probably our future, as the country breaks into ethnic and linguistic factions. That is the way it works in Russia.
The rule of law is disintegrating, and only a thin veil of democracy remains: but it is meaningless, without constitutional restraints, which are being swept aside in succession almost daily.
That’s true. But it wouldn’t be the first time God’s faithful were outnumbered.
It’s time to re-read the Bible’s instructions to the “diaspora” (the “dispersed”) and stop trying to fit into society. Others around us will be blessed by our faithfulness to God. (”Ye are the salt of the earth”, “Let your light so shine among men”, etc.)
And what about animal rights?
Excellent post, you took the words right out of my mouth. The Godless didn’t steal marriage — how can they steal the things of God? No, they erected a golden calf and are worshiping it. True marriage is still what it always has been — a blessing from God, not from the State. Anything else is an imitation.
We could very well see increase missionary activity coming from the Christian communites in what is now the “global south natiions” to get the Gospel of Jesus out to America and the west rather.
I see breakup of the USA down the road.l
I await the court case over whether a wealthy person may marry their son/daughter (the man and woman combinations really don't matter). Of course they'd be marrying so that the offspring could inherit their parent's estate tax-free, but that wouldn't matter. I'm eager to hear the twisted logic from the homosexuals as to why that shouldn't be allowed.
"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"
-George Orwell, 1984
This country will break up into seperate nations.
See tag line.
Hey! Sofas need lovin too! Don’t be a hater!
(heavy doses of /sarc)
It may be time for churches to stop acting as agents of the state with respect to registering civil unions as a subtext of performing religious marriages.
I see increased missionary activity from the Christians of the global south nations who will bring the Gospel of Jesus to America.
Yes and they will be killed in greater numbers. God Bless their work.
Gov’t employee? Share the LURATIVE benefits with whomever and how may you want. NICE
.....Or start new communities of Christian faith.
Not to play devil's advocate here, but do you really believe that heterosexual marriage, today, involves any if the things that you list? Puhleassse!!!! Over 50% end in divorce with children caught in the crossfire - they may as well be born out of wedlock.
Homosexual marriage is not something that I, personally, can support. But, I'll be damned if I think that my moral purity is sufficient to tell people right from wrong. I do my thing, they can do theirs. I'm over the social issues - we've got bigger fish to fry. Put me on the Libertarian bandwagon.
So Marriage "meant" excluding gays all along, and was never about lifetime commitments and an oath before the Almighty to build a decent home and family?
Or was it that the government's treatment of married folks was always about excluding gays, and was never really about encouraging the positive social structure of dedicated families?
In reality, all that has changed is that government (unwisely, IMHO) has changed how it will treat same-sex couples who make long-term commitments to each other. They (stupidly, IMHO) used the same term for it as the traditional relationship, but maybe that was just to thumb their noses at religious folk (as our current immature crop of Liberals seem to enjoy doing). All that has to be done to reverse this damage is what should have been done in the first place: get government out of the business of treating married and single folk differently. Then gender-preference in committed relationships becomes meaningless. It is government's refusal to give up this tiny aspect of social engineering that is at the pivot point of the entire argument. Once we are taxed the same, can freely choose who is and is not in our insurance policies (and insurers are freely able to pass those costs on to the insureds), and can have our system to allow medical decisions (like DNR) to be made by anyone we choose, then EVERY difference that the gay lobby is fighting for immediately disappears, and we as a people all gain more Freedom in our lives... sadly, nobody seems interested in more freedom and less government intrusion into our lives these days.
Beyond what we are told, the Christian faith is growing fast around the world. New Christians are counted by individuals while Muslims are counted by country. The numbers for them are way over counted.
I kind of feel sorry for Mrs. Lonsberry.