Posted on 03/21/2014 3:19:29 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Between the 16th and 17th amendments the feds really got the states by the shorthairs.
The states send money to the feds and they get (some of) it back IF the states behave themselves.
Agreed. Make it a religious ceremony and get the gov’t out completely.
As silly as your statement of hope that America would suddenly vote to end marriage as we know it is, it doesn't make any sense, at any level.
If you want to have relationships that aren't recognized as "legal" marriage, then do it, no one is stopping you, you can have cult marriages, Islamic marriages to many women, gay marriage, gay polygamy, animal marriage, or whatever.
America is not going to end legal marriage, and replace it with nothing (aka, everything that can be thought of under the sun).
You can do that now, and you always could.
Why bother to have elections?
We have judges to make all the decisions for us peons.
I don’t need blessings from jack booted thugs to be married. That’s what a church is for.
So what is your complaint?
Have your religious marriage and leave the government out of it, you could always do that, and you can today.
My complaint is that these jbts are trying to force me as a business owner to recognize homo marriage.
From my rooting around in history it looks like “legal” marriage was something that people tended to do for financial reasons. On the frontier people might be married by a traveling minister but not encounter a government official for years let alone officially recording their marriage.
Now you are switching gears, and what kind of business do you own?
Why did you drop the conversation about ending legal marriage?
Marriage in America has always had to be legal, if you wanted it to be legal.
You could always make your own rules for marriage whether religious or non-religious, always, and you still can today if you desire and don’t care about government recognizing it.
So what is your point?
his JUDGEMENT that the bans was based on animosity is hilarious.
what better way to FOSTER animosity than to take that stance.
the JUDGE fhe holds a grudge
the people won’t budge
You just agreed with me. I have nothing further your honor.
Oh Oh,,,,somebody BELIEVES that “ the Michigan ban was at least partly the result of animosity toward gays and lesbians.”
so the judge has RULED.... on..what he BELIEVES others BELIEVE.
how QUAINT of him
I BELIEVE. he needs to be thrown off the bench
I blame Anthony Kennedy, the Reagan appointee. What a travesty.
Federal judges MUST NOT overrule 5,000 years of history, Biblical precedent AND the will of the people.
Outrageous.
None of your business and I didn’t drop anything.
You don’t think that for most Americans throughout history, that their marriage was also a part of the larger culture, of the society?
Did you want a real marriage, or was just you and your girlfriend knowing that you two considered yourselves married, what kept you from seeking legal recognition?
Nobody is forcing you to seek government recognition of your marriage, just don’t do it.
I doubt it, you won't even tell us what kind of business you own.
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.