Posted on 06/29/2015 10:42:55 PM PDT by JSDude1
Ok so here's my take on ways that conservatives can take on gay marriage legally and reverse this aweful decision.
#1. We can through the legislative process radically simplify the tax code so that it doesn't deal with marriage and is much simpler, also make it so that anyone can easily gain the power of atty, inheritance from anyone else. Marriage where it intersects with government would be separated, the government wouldn't have the motivation or the power to regulate marriage. Any kind of "marriage certificate issued by the govt. would be moot and void. We'd basically be back to the 1800's with marriage any anyone could be in any kind of relationship they want, but I as a Christian wouldn't have to recognize it.
#2. We could elect a conservative Republican President, then they appoint three new originalist justices to the Supreme Court, someone challenges this ruling and we have the court re-adjudicate the issue of the constitutionality of gay marriage. Or
#3. We have a constutuonal amendment passed that either outright defines marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman or an amendment which passes the right to define marriages back to the states. Of course we'd need MANY more Republicans in both houses of Congress to get this one accomplished, as well as in the states.
I'd say that he first would be easiest to achieve, just my 2 c. I'
caesar does as caesar wishes. If these folks were focused on their families and faith as opposed to the latest political saga, then they’re probably on the right path.
Too much government benefits at stake. Just think of the Social Security costs alone, this new Supreme Court Legislation brings. You didn’t really thing they did it for the hospital visitation rights, did you?
Interesting to even see myself type the words Supreme Court Legislation.. Talk about Unconstitutional.
My DH sent me Colonel West’s response.. Why can’t we have the Good Colonel running for Prez?
So let’s take this precedent and use it for 2A. NOW.
Anyone who thinks they can rely on a political or legal process to deal with diabolical cultural trends and influences like this is delusional. The way to "defeat" homosexuality (or any other social pathology) is to make yourself the kind of person who others will envy for your integrity and virtue.
#1 and #2 would work, assuming we elect a real conservative and not someone “severely conservative” but only on the campaign trail. #3 would fail. We already saw state supreme courts rule that state constitutional amendments defining “marriage” to mean marriage were unconstitutional.
#1 is the most reliable.
So it seems a little over the top to think that the federal government and all 50 states will throw out centuries of laws
Seems like the SCOTUS did just that.
I think it would be interesting to see other ideas of the unintended consequences this ruling could cause. Maybe that could be way #4. Beat the political class at their own game, redefining redefining to the point that nobody cares what they say anymore.
“......we’d need MANY more Republicans in both houses of Congress to get this one accomplished, as well as in the states.”........
If this approach is used, every damn one of the candidates MUST be well vetted and screened before even being considered. Just having an “R” after their name doesn’t cut it these days.
or just accept more illegals or Muslims. Ironically, they do not agree with gay marriage and will fight it.
Marriage has been deemed a "right".
"They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law," Kennedy wrote of same-sex couples in the case. "The Constitution grants them that right."
Documentation is for "privileges" (driving, fishing, hunting, etc.). Why do you need a license or a contract or any documents whatsoever to exercise a "right"? No other rights in the Bill of Rights require documentation of this type. When you fill out any forms which ask you about your married status, just claim you're married. Period. End of story.
They opened this can of worms. Now let them negotiate around all the twists and turns.
SCOTUS has deemed marriage a "right". You don't need a contract, a license or any other sort of documentation to exercise a "right" (refer to the Bill of Rights). Those types of vehicles are used for "privileges".
I look forward to seeing how the courts rule on cases of couples saying they are exercising their right to be married, documentation be d**med.
Sure: the SCOTUS has decreed there is a right to marry. Therefore you cannot legally prevent anyone from doing so. Polygamy? On what grounds do you stop it?
Can a group of people form a marriage co-op? Do not see why not.
It doesn’t have to be based on sex. It could be monetary. A father could marry his son so as to avoid inheritance taxes. The son gets spousal benefits.
Marriage has no meaning. It was destroyed by the few words of heathens.
Thanks.
What worries me though is that those who are trying to folllow the path toward holiness are being distracted by this ongoing noise. And that’s what it is: noise. We really do need the easy resources to help folks get around the noise and get back to their lives.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I heard that, in the states that passed “same-sex marriage,” you could not marry unless there was an intimate relationship of some kind involved. IOW, two straight friends “marrying” for financial reasons, for example, might be investigated.
It sounded similar to the way people are investigated for “green card marriages” - marrying so one person can stay in the country and then divorcing soon afterward.
In that case, things are about to become even more interesting.
We did DOMA already. Did everyone forget about that?
I think #2 and 3 are like tryng to shove toothpaste back into the tube.
#1 is possible but doesn’t take human nature into account. Take the subject of marriage away for a second. Call it pet licenses. Say that everyone needs to license their cat or dog. Then suddenly a bunch of people come up wanting to license their frogs and weasels. So a new law is passed to allow anyone to license any animal. Some cat and dog owners don’t enjoy it. But the majority of people don’t really care. The cat and dog owners want to get rid of pet licenses altogether, just have people owning animals without needing a license. Yes, it would work. But there just isn’t enough pressure for a fight.
Hnnn hnnn, you said three ways and gay marriage in the same sentence, hnnn hnnn hnnn.
This is the most sensible answer. Just treat the civil act and the religious ceremony as separate things. A religious ceremony isn't necessary for those that don't want it, and it is essential for those that believe.
Disagree, since a pet license isn’t really comparable to the sacred institution of marriage (for most religious people including Christians, and even for a sizable minority of secular individuals).
This IS a fight that isn’t going away, and it would be considerably easier to attack all the ways that government has control over “marriage”.
The hardest for conservatives to fight would obviously be the issue of ‘Who gets to raise’ children.
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.