Hope this helps.
Posted on 08/08/2012 7:15:08 AM PDT by sickoflibs
I’m not sure at all why the government has to have any say in two people relationship. But the again, I fail to see the need for them to rummage through our pay stubs and bank accounts every year.
It would be literally impossible to outlaw marriage.
Thanks,
I get these crazy ideas from time to time usually on a machine at the gym with MSNBC on, Sharpton was on yesterday.
I continued the thought here: #19
As those of us on the right, continue to let the wordsmiths on the left destroy the meaning of everything, I have begun to use the terms Real Marriage, or Traditional Real Marriage in my conversations to delineate them from the bastardization the left has accomplished to the term Marriage.
The SSAD activists can call a turd gold bullion all they want but it does not change the turd into something of worth.
They can go to the states where deviancy has been declared normal all they want, and have their little fake union ceremonies but that does not make it a Real Traditional Marriage and all the wordsmiths in the world cannot change it.
Stop letting the leftwing wordsmiths define our language.
Choice is killing babies not choice.
Gay is perversion and serves no useful purpose. They are SSAD (same sex attraction disorder).
Same Sex Marriage is cohabitation to falsely obtain benefits reserved for Real Traditional Marriage.
If equal means equal then there is no need for diversity as we are all equal.
Government is generally not the best solution.
In this case, the best alternative would be to start with an ecumenical agreement among conservative and orthodox churches and synagogues to “take back” marriage as a religious activity, outside of the realm of government involvement or control.
This agreement would be very clear as to who could be married, and how. Individual faiths could “add” requirements, but the agreement would be for the minimum.
Likewise, the agreement would also be clear when marriages end, as that would also be under religious control, as would any division of assets or child care agreements.
If individuals rejected this agreement, they would be seen as in variance to the beliefs of their faith, to face whatever sanction that faith permitted.
This would involve some discipline on their part, as they would not only recognize “sacred” marriage done by any of them, but they would have to *not* recognize secular marriage. That is, people married outside of these conservative or orthodox faiths would be considered as “living together” with no religious blessing.
If people with a secular marriage wished to join one of these faiths, they would have to be remarried under its rules, at least administratively.
Importantly, people with a “sacred” marriage could choose to have a secular marriage license as well, or not. Many would choose not if just to avoid the marriage penalty in taxation.
Government would not appreciate having this ability taken from them, and would probably try dirty tricks to force people back into secular marriage by the government’s rules. But far fewer would fall for this, seeing the perfidy of the Obama administration in its treatment of religious beliefs.
But these religions would now have a powerful tool at their disposal:
Under the Federal Fair Housing Acts, marital status is not one of the protected categories under federal law. Thus if they did not recognize secular marriage as marriage, religions, and the people who belong to those religions, could legally discriminate against those they deemed as “unmarried”.
It wouldn’t matter if they were straight or gay, as long as they saw them as “unmarried”, they could be scorned for that reason. The majority of states don’t have any legal provisions protecting people from discrimination based on marital status, either.
??? The SCOTUS can do anything they want as they are like Kings.
They outlawed abortion laws in all 50 states based on a single abortion law in one state.
They could reference a foreign country's constitution to support the decision.
<SATIRE>
I can see you are going to be difficult :) I believe inclusive name is ‘marriage equality’. We all want equality right?
I know two liberals here in Maryland who went ballistic when I used the term “Obama-care’, which is the name (nick-name) that most people know. In fact the WH cut those two off at the knees by selling those “I love obama-care” T-shirts.
SHHH,
In fact I am kind of disappointed. I had a couple of these where a few freepers didnt pick up on it and got very angry and told me I was crazy (and a few names I cant repeat.) So I continued the argument in comments.
That makes it more fun.
The concept of “marriage” is largely a religious one; it only became government’s business when they started creating tax rules around it. Though the tax rules probably created an incentive to marriage, they will now use those same rules to say, “sorry, we can’t be in the marriage business unless ALL can be married.”
Eliminate governmental recognition of marriage. Allow churches to perform marriages however they see fit. They’re meaningful in the eyes of whoever cares. I’m sick of this whole fight, and the bastardisation of a beloved institution. Get it over with already.
I know couples here in Maryland who pay a marriage penalty in the AMT for getting married, go figure.
Here 100K++ is normal for a salary so double that for the married.
Sharpton and lactic acid build up will do that to you. Dangerous combination. Clouds the mind. Sort of like alcohol and barbiturates.
Gold Medal winner Aly Raisman is not responding to my marriage proposals. It’s like she can’t hear me through the TV.
I’m sorry but your proposal doesn’t address the thorny issue of the woman not consenting or even knowing of the existence of the man that wants her. How is that any fairer than traditional marriage?
And it’s super discriminatory by still being limited to 2 people. I’ve also proposed to several women’s volleyball teams.
Hope this helps.
A truly “fair” system would get rid of him for me!
LOL, been there done that...
Ditties. I am sick and tired of attention whores thinking they are wits. Satire should be labeled clearly in the headline so the “humorless” (or maybe those with good taste) can avoid wasted time.
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.