Posted on 06/04/2014 10:19:50 AM PDT by Iced Tea Party
:)
This is childish and silly, we have a real political battle on our hands and these closet end of marriage people want to pretend that we can just convince the voters to end marriage as we know it since our creation as a nation.
In other words suddenly marriage and divorce law and benefits ends, and polygamy and gay marriage become normal anyway.
Marriage has always been legal or illegal, whether it was Roman law, or Greek law, English law or law imposed by the Catholic church, or Islam, or the tribe.
IF YOU DON’T CARE IF YOUR MARRIAGE IS LEGAL, THEN REMEMBER, NO ONE ELSE DOES EITHER, AND NEVER DID, SO JUST DO WHAT YOU WANT IF YOU DON’T CARE IF THE REST OF US RECOGNIZE IT.
If you had a private gay marriage 30 years ago, or a 100 years ago, so you did, it just wasn’t recognized by law.
Muslims and Mormons have clergy, so do gay churches, and since when do we tell atheists and non-church/mosque members they can't marry?
You make some great points. Glenn Beck has been behind this libertarian idea of getting the gov’t out of marriage. I instinctively disliked it. You have made a great case against it. This is one area state gov’t should be involved in as they are now.
***********************
Agreed.
In your situation, yes, getting marital status out of the tax code would increase your household taxes. For an increasing number of us (two-earner households with both making substantial incomes), however, there is still a marriage penalty in the federal tax code, not a subsidy. So, the tax argument for keeping government in the marriage business doesn't really work for me.
The 14th is a terrible amendment:
Section 4.And besides that little gem, there is the very dubious circumstances of its
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
passage— THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE 14th AMENDMENT.
I left out marriage disputes and divorce, when a married Muslim woman becomes a catholic and then the marriage breaks up, which church decides the law for the couple, estate, and the kids?
The political aspect is small potatoes compared with the "fabric of society" or "civilization" aspect.
One thing that isn't working right, in this social upheaval, is that judges are empowering a radical minority to impose a fundamental social change against the will of the majority.
The judges are also undercutting the legitimacy of their own institution, and one day will find that a substantial fraction of the population views the courts as nothing more than glorified clowns.
in violent agreementfor the most part. ;)
I wouldn't say the first Ten Amendments are not a "bill of rights" but an expressed sampling of God-given rights already there
but something more like The Bill of Rights is reaffirmation of preexisting rights and the codification thereof
because some of them certainly aren't God-given (Amd 7 is about common law suits; 6 is about criminal trials; but 2 is about the Right to protect oneself and others, and a militia is simply the people as a whole armed to protect one another's property/freedom/lives.)
I agree, my parents agreed, and everyone I know agrees that government being in the “marriage” business is not a good thing-it is too open to coercion-after all, look how well big brother manages everything else-not-they’ve done such a fine job so far, right?
Government shouldn’t even be licensing cars or bars, never mind anything like a partnership, business or otherwise-I can hire a lawyer for that and get a better deal anyway-and probably from a lawyer right here on FR...
MrT5 and I bought a civil license-and that is all it was, a document for a partnership-because it was required by the military for benefits. But we were married a week later, when the PRIEST performed the ceremony, and we participated in the SACRAMENT of marriage before GOD and witnesses. Marriage is before God, one man, one woman, and not anything else, I don’t care how much someone says every new circus act is “marriage”, it is not.
That is my opinion, but I will respect anyone else’s, we don’t have to agree, and I don’t call those whose opinions differ nasty names-that is what liberty means to me-liberty for everyone-not just those who agree with me.
I was surprised to see this from a poster, though-”we keep order and protect the population by mandating that people...” and you can fill in the rest of that sentence with pretty much anything, it still sounds like something from the old soviet bloc to me.
And I mean no offense, Waggle, I agree with you more often than not...
Who told you the government, including the federal government wasn’t involved in marriage? It sure wasn’t the founding fathers and the founding Congress.
So. You’ve gone from being critical of conservatives to defending LBJ.
Nice.
Any more libertarian talking points against us conservatives you wanna come up with?
Saving civilization is the reason for the political battle, pretending that marriage will suddenly be voted on by Americans to be disappeared from our society and law, and become a totally private practice by those who belong to religions and cults and Mosques, is beyond silly.
In the meantime, the democrats and rinos/libertarians will be allowing gay marriage, with polygamy next if we don’t get our political campaigns in order.
Reread my post -- the 14th denies the ability to question the validity of any debt assumed.
So, if the Congress decides to assume another trillion in debt to build themselves a giant private amusement-park [for themselves] there is nothing (precisely because its validity cannot be called into question) that we can do once the debt is assumed according to the 14th.
Calling LBJ a son of a bitch is defending him? Okay...he was a baby eating son of a bitch. I suppose that’s bestowing sainthood on him by your standards.
Evidently the Founding Fathers, the Constitition and our laws were wrong. All wrong for 200 years.
LBJ proved them wrong.
/liberal talking points.
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.