Posted on 06/04/2014 10:19:50 AM PDT by Iced Tea Party
“If someone wants to form a church that conforms to what they personally believe and conduct marriages, how does that affect anyone outside of whatever congregation they may have?”
If the government is not able to control marriage, then any church that advocates the homosexual agenda can and will conduct gay weddings and we will all have gay married couples in our communities.
BINGO!
Tearing down a pillar and foundation of Western Civilization to appease immorality doesn't make a lick of sense.
You should know that calling for the government to exit the marriage business AND calling for civil unions is right out of the Queer Rights Playbook.
What other liberal agendas do you also endorse?
Yes, funny because it’s true for the most part. Thanks autocorrect!
Bingo.
But they will fight against that idea tooth-and-nail because it cuts out a lot of their power (esp. that which can be arbitrarily applied) and forces actual transparency.
But if they are only married in the eyes of their church, how will that make any difference vs. simply shacking up?
The people do control marriage. Obviously, one of the proper functions of government is to prevent people from being forced or tricked into marriages involuntarily.
Getting rid of the ridiculous complexities of the tax code would solve a lot of problems, including this one.
Then you’d have a government that only grants civil unions, and the homo-unions would be the equal to the man-and-wife unions?
That’s not a government I’d support.
That’s not a country I’d support.
You don’t get it do you? It’s the government that will ultimately FORCE your preacher to marry Danny and Frank to keep HIS job. Grow a brain. If a preacher starts marrying gays he won’t have much of a congregation left, and you are ALWAYS free to move to the next church. You want government in YOUR church? Really?
Good thing we put it into the hands of an unfailingly honest and conscientious organization like the government, huh?
In many places, VT for example, gays already had civil unions. They weren’t satisfied with that. I think at one point MA offered civil unions, but the gay activist groups weren’t satisfied with that. “The Playbook” has always been legal marriage, so their relationships were not a different category from gov-sanctioned marriage.
“But if they are only married in the eyes of their church, how will that make any difference vs. simply shacking up?”
Because then they can present themselves all over town as being married and they will be in our schools, neighborhoods, parks and workplaces and before you know it, gay marriage will be normalized and traditional marriage will marginalized.
A: The homosexuals and their supporters have gained a great deal of power in the last 15 years.
Yeah. The government wouldn’t be marrying anyone. Churches and social groups would provide that.
Yet that's what they libertarians try to do with everything. They claim to oppose the left's agenda, but at the same time they say it's not the government's place to be involved. This is the libertarian method for promoting drugs, prostitution, abortion and homosexuality.
And yes, I am well aware that libertarians will be along momentarily to tell me that I'm a "statist," while they declare that the STATES have the "right" to make these laws. They will also argue that government shouldn't regulate "morality," while they fail to recognize that ALL LAWS boil down to moral issues.
Since the days of Bill Buckley.
I’m a conservative. See tagline. I’ve no use for libertarians who want to destroy marriage.
I know a couple that got married in Belgium. Their big day consisted of two ceremonies. The first ceremony was in front of a judge, and that satisfied the legal requirements for the state to consider them bound by law. Then, they had the Church wedding with a priest and this is where they were spiritually bound. Had they only had the Church / priest ceremony, it would not have been legally recognized by the state.
Bullsh!t.
Governments have a vested interest in encouraging from both a legal rights and financial perspective, marriage between a man and a woman, the only coupling that can truly form a family. The family is then the bedrock unit of a strong society that the government should be, and in fact should only be, interested in helping to development.
This perspective is ludicrous.
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.