In fact, State involvement in marriage goes all the way back to the 1600s in colonial America.
Posted on 10/23/2009 8:02:19 AM PDT by Grunthor
The U.S. government should abolish its sanctioning of marriage, argued Cass Sunstein, President Obama's regulatory czar.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Sounds like Denmark.
Perhaps we should all live in hippy communes, gather around the campfire and sing kumbaya and hymms of praises to the Dear Leader like they already do in public school.
You did fine. Fun, huh?
If these people would just leave everybody alone and quit worrying about what others do, this country would be a hell of a lot better off.
The divorce lawyers will never approve.
First the libs say anybody should be allowed to marry anybody. Now they are starting up with nobody should be allowed to marry anyone. Confusing.
Well marriage would still be a religious comittment between two adults in love. This would still be a ceremony performed by clergy. Also if you are going to get givernment completely out of the marriage business, then no longer could ANY givernment official perform the ceremony. They could not perform that ceremony any more than they could baptize people.
I think it is a good thing.
Yes it is fun, thank you.
People who clamor for “Separation of Church and State” in most cases what they really want is “Separation of Values and State.”
This fool sounds like he’s be on his way to good cade of super aids.
Marriage is a right of man/woman couples and it should stay that way. Any deviation from this leads to the welfare plantation.
What a kook. He wants the government invoved in everything else!
“Marriage is a right of man/woman couples and it should stay that way.”
Yes, but why does the givernment need to be involved?
Marriage is between two people and God, and any children from the union.
I understand the desire for some structure (and hence government involvement), but as the “gay marriage” nonsense shows us -— ANY government involvement is a bad idea.
Make it a private issue.
If liberals can't shove gay marriage on us - they'll destroy what we have? Pigs. Liberals are such envious pigs.
So if the State steps out then Judges and Lawyers would have no say in a Divorce and its settlement. That would be defferred to the joining authority to sort out...the church...right? /s
This is nothing more than gay anger than they can’t have something. Don’t buy into their jealousy.
Until the government makes good on this separation of marriage and state, I believe that anybody who takes marriage seriously should go ahead with the religious or “true marriage” and dispense with the “Government Marriage” part.
“Government marriages” have become meaningless, so why bother.
Sure, but we can get what we want by agreeing with them.
One less government record and agency.
Parental rights stem from the marriage contract in common law. If there is no marriage, it would be very easy for the state to claim wardship of all children.
This is nothing more than a leftist ploy for total control of children from birth.
Reliance on gubberment to define marriage has conditioned folks to think “gay marriage” is possible simply because gubberment says it can exist. It also has conditioned folks to think that marriage is just another lousy contract that comes from the gubberment that can be ended and restarted at will. I could care less if gubberment dropped out and quit poisoning folks minds, my Church ain’t ever gonna accept “gay marriage” no matter what the gubberment says.
Freegards
I think you are lost — perhaps you meant to log onto Daily Kos.
Don’t you see that this is a way of promoting rampant homosexuality — once you remove the entire underlying strucutre of our society, the whole society will cave in — which is what Ero wants.
Tough call, between the idea that government should stay out of personal business and the idea that our society benefits from the traditional marriage. Both good ideas, but traditional marriage is on the skids as far as the way government handles it.
If anything, it should be up to the states, not the feds.
Not as long as the parents or family members are around.
If none survive, the state would have the wardship of the kids in either case.
Great - now I can marry my dog! But sadly, it will never happen because the 'gubmint' will not give up the revenues that the gubmint license brings in.
You are absolutely right. Thanks for posting. I was surprised and disappointed by some of the nutty posting approving of this abolition of marriage (but the state can take your organs).
People who clamor for “Separation of Church and State” in most cases what they really want is “Separation of Values and State.”
You shouldn’t need a government license to get married. The government should butt out.
Simple.
The giverment is bunch of marxists with a muslim leader wanting to further attack the great pillar of our society..... Christianity and the family.
All part of the death to America family in the White House.
Simple.
The giverment is bunch of marxists with a muslim leader wanting to further attack the great pillar of our society..... Christianity and the family.
All part of the death to America family in the White House.
THANK YOU — an important wake up call to some of the people posting this morning who seem not to get what is behind all this.
Parental rights stem from the marriage contract in common law. If there is no marriage, it would be very easy for the state to claim wardship of all children.
This is nothing more than a leftist ploy for total control of children from birth.
Good point! Now that was some lofty reason for the government to get involved in marriage wasn’t it?
African Americans have tried that, and the success is unparalleled .... children with no stable parenting demonstrate the successes of such policy.
Pure unadulterated road apples!
I don’t think you can count on the government to protect the marriage from homosexual unions, the government will ultimately approve marriage between anybody and anything. That is something the churches should be doing.
I want no part of some of these people’s “Libertarian Paradise.”
“We are in the world ... not of the world. IE.
John 17:14-21 (New King James Version)
“14 I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world.
15 I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one.
16 They are not of the world, just as I am not
18 As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.
19 And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth.
Jesus Prays for All Believers
20 “I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will[a] believe in Me through their word; 21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.”
The concept of family was thought up thousands of years ago. It was a well thought out idea based on practical living. The family continued on with Christianity and demonstrated its success, inclusive of the birth of the greatest nation on earth.
Now we have fools WHICH WE VOTED IN who want to pull it down.
FOOLS, (parrots) who also know more than thousands of years of marriage.
Its just another attack on America by the destroyer Obama.
You don’t get it. Marriage is a common law contract. Parental rights come from that and are based on that legal tradition.
If you do away with that tradition and there is no marriage, then there are no parental rights left. The state will make new laws regarding children and they won’t be parent friendly. Ever read the UN Rights of Children?
Don’t think for a minute they will base rights on blood kinship, they won’t, they’ve been denying men their biological parental rights for years now, it’s only a short step to denying women’s also and predicating it all on the “best interests of the child” and “public policy interests”.
In fact, State involvement in marriage goes all the way back to the 1600s in colonial America.
“the state owns the rights to body parts of people who are dead or in certain hopeless conditions, and it can remove their organs without asking anyone’s permission.”
Well, that does it for ME. I hereby plan on drinking, smoking, taking every health risk I can enjoy.......when they finally get to me, MY organs won’t be worth their trouble.
Heh.
Because marriage has significant legal ramifications. Always has, always will.
Well, what liberals really mean is that they don’t want anybody to get married unless homosexual marriage is allowed.
The irony is that very few homosexual couples actually go ahead and get married when it’s legally allowed.
Liberals have attacked marriage as a patriarchal, archaic institution for years. Even before the “gay” marriage issue came up, they have denigrated marriage. So in general, they are against marriage. They only type of marriage they are all in favor of is “homosexual” marriage, so that they can brag about how liberal they are by being in favor of same.
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.