Posted on 01/21/2006 8:23:11 PM PST by MediaAnalyst
Insanity reigns in the judiciary.
When you let slip your moorings, you may find yourself adrift.
These shows certainly demean the institution of marriage, but they do not diminish it. Regardless, homosexuals can't marry, no matter how long they have been together. Marriage is between a man and a woman, not two men or two women or a person and an animal (which we may as well allow if society ever recognizes homosexual unions as "marriages).
Good night to all my fellow Freepers.
(Future) Senator Steele?
My opinion regarding "No Fault Divorce" is that it has little resemblance of its original intention. It was originally intended as a method to foster less marital breakups by removing confrontational aspects from the legal process. The legal proceedings were intended to be supplemented with counseling etcetera directed at mending and reconciling efforts to be employed prior to terminating the 'contract'.
Now the picture is much different from that which the 'people' intended AND the same culprit is to blame -the legal system and specifically the judiciary.
There is a divorce industry -big money for the legal vultures and government social service entities that participate.
I suspect that our society has seen the heyday of "No Fault Divorce" already pass by and that we will move back towards what was intended rather than what evolved surreptitiously... Legislation e.g. covenant marriages etcetera is already coming forward and as is typical being opposed by the same crowd that loves abortion and homosexual "marriage"...
Do some research on the original intent of no-fault divorce and I am sure you will be surprised by the difference between what was intended and what is really happening...
Nope. You're exactly right. I'm stunned there has been no outcry from Congress.
As I remember it, many years ago the Senate was the legislative body in this country. :(
But now that the Mass. Supreme Court established that it can change the legal and common definitions of words to enact laws, I suspect the court will re-define the meaning of the Second Amendment at some point.
Congress may as well close up shop and go home.
No I am not saying that. I am saying that shows do not define what marriage is or is not and that arguing such is about as nonsensical as suggesting bad marriages merit homosexual 'marriage' to be any less invalid and or illegitimate than it has been is or will ever be.
Nothing this "gay marriage" movement could do could diminish the meaning of marriage more than what "divorse court rulings" have already done.
That's a good question. It makes sense on some level to feel that when an individual marriage is taken lightly, it diminishes the value of marriage as a whole, until one realizes that the standards a society sets benefit that society in general, in spite of particular exceptions to the standards.
This gets into the debate of the fine line between a democracy and a mob rule/rule of the many over the few.
Now I will agree with you that this is the wrong way to go about it, the courts should not be used to make law. But this could be argued under the "pursuit of happiness" part of the "Declarion of Independance".
But I want your input, on this issue, at what point in your mind would it become the 'will of the people'; At the state government? At the ballot box as a referendom? Or do you have another gauge you use to measure the 'will of the people', if so, name the gauge you use?
The historical gauge I would use would be that will of the people is eventually always evidenced by what is actually enacted and or recognized by the people. The methods and locales of how and where the will is established may vary up to and including overthrow "legally" and or "illegally" an illegitimate government and or illegitimate government institution e.g. the American revolution and or civil war are examples.
In a nutshell -the judicial activists can only go so far and impose so much -history shows that push will come to shove IF the issue is one that the people will of great import.
The remedy sought always begins legally and within civil construct BUT ultimately will abridge that which is considered and determined illegitimate obstacle. This determination is again up to the people...
In a nutshell -your question is an old one in that a difference between democracy and mob rule (legitimate and illegitimate discourse) is that of perspective and the legitimate perspective is determined by who wields political power. Anyone familiar with politics understand that consensus is power...
The United States Supreme Court disagrees:
"Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices..."[Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 8 Otto 145, 24 L. Ed. 244 (1878).]
See also: Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States, 136 U.S. 1, 10 S.Ct. 792, 34 L. Ed. 478 (1890). Revised as 140 U.S. 665, 11 S.Ct. 884, 35 L. Ed. 592 (1891).
Marriage is a public act... regulated by statutory license.
Marriage is a religious "rite," not a civil "right;" with a secular standard of human reproductive biology.
Driving, marriage, legal and medical practices are not enumerated rights; they are privileged practices that require statutory license.
Nothing that requires a license is a right.
"Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices..."[Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 8 Otto 145, 24 L. Ed. 244 (1878).]
See also: Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States, 136 U.S. 1, 10 S.Ct. 792, 34 L. Ed. 478 (1890). Revised as 140 U.S. 665, 11 S.Ct. 884, 35 L. Ed. 592 (1891).
Marriage is a public act... regulated by statutory license.
Marriage is a religious "rite," not a civil "right;" with a secular standard of human reproductive biology.
Driving, marriage, legal and medical practices are not enumerated rights; they are privileged practices that require statutory license.
Nothing that requires a license is a right.
FReepmail me and little jeremiah if you want on/off the ping list.
You just don't get it do you Paul? Why on earth do you insist on parroting the canned homo agenda talking points on this forum? FreeRepublic.com is the premier CONSERVATIVE forum on the Internet, the statement by the founder of this website Specifically states we OPPOSE ALL FORMS OF HOMOSEXUALISIM- Period. Yet you keep keep on spewing the same old homo-propaganda talking points.
The most active informed group of active anti-homosexual agenda activists on the web have confronted you about this on several occasions and the majority of the FRepers that have had discourse with you here on this forum overwhelmingly disagree with you, and here you are yet again still advocating same sex marriage A.K.A HOMOSEXUALITY.
Why on earth you haven't been ZOTTED and banned is a puzzling mystery to me.
Part of the issue that is misunderstood is that the law doesn't prevent gay people from getting married. Any gay person has the same right as any straight person to get married: all they have to do is find a person of the opposite sex who will agree to marry them.
Both gays and straights are impacted by this the same way. Similarly, neither gays nor straights can marry someone of the same sex.
It's fair.
You just don't get it do you Paul? Why on earth do you insist on parroting the canned homo agenda talking points on this forum?
Actually no one has pointed that comparison statement in bold except me. I am not parroting anyone.
Go back and re-read my post 51. Start with the courts should not be used to make law. And continue reading from there.
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.