Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

When preaching small government, stay out of marriage
Daily Iowan ^ | 11/1/11

Posted on 12/01/2011 11:18:07 AM PST by Retro Llama

If the Republican presidential contenders wish to remain truthful to their rhetoric of decentralization of power in Washington, they should take a break from wooing social conservatives and stand for states' rights in regard to gay marriage.

Because many likely Iowa caucus-goers describe themselves as very conservative on social issues such as gay marriage and abortion, many candidates feel they need to reach out to the far-right if they plan to get the presidential nod. However, a staunch, conservative position on social issues will likely hurt them in the long run, because it undermines their more-appealing small-government policies....

The three Republican candidates who seem to understand the states' rights concept are U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, and, surprisingly, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. At the Family Leader Forum, Paul said to the large crowd, "The family dealt with marriages... We have deferred to the federal government. We have too much government. We should go in the other direction."....

...In 2004, [Paul] said to then-Speaker of the House Denny Hastert, "Mr. Speaker, while I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman, I do not believe a Constitutional amendment is either a necessary or proper way to defend marriage."

He has the decency to oppose same-sex marriage personally for religious purposes and support it politically for legal reasons.

Johnson and Romney, while not in attendance at the forum, opposed the Marriage Vow Pact that was developed by the Iowa Family Forum in July. Johnson called the pledge "offensive and un-Republican," while Romney's campaign has said, "Mitt Romney strongly supports traditional marriage. But he felt this pledge contained references and provisions that were undignified and inappropriate for a presidential campaign."...

(Excerpt) Read more at dailyiowan.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Politics/Elections; US: Iowa
KEYWORDS: bestiality; federalism; homonaziagenda; homonazism; homosexualagenda; incest; incestuousmarriage; limitedgovernment; paultards; pederastagenda; pedophileagenda; polygamy; smallgovernment; statesrights; troll; zots4romneybots
It's rather sad that the only candidates who actually take the small government position are the ones at the rear of the pack (and Mittens, who will probably just flip-flop on it the way he does on everything else).
1 posted on 12/01/2011 11:18:12 AM PST by Retro Llama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Retro Llama

The redefining of the two sexes from male and female to omni-gendered beings is no small thing. When a male is also a female and a female is also a male, confusion reigns.

Under Trotsky/Lenin, the Soviet Union trod the fast-track to hell with gender-bending, destruction of the family, forced fornication-education (gender bending, if it feels good do it), free abortions, etc. America is falling into the same abyss.


2 posted on 12/01/2011 11:31:13 AM PST by spirited irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Retro Llama

A really small government position would hold that the government shouldn’t interfere with you when you are robbing a convenience store.

There are limits to the validity of the small government position. It isn’t a moral absolute.

Speaking of moral absolutes...


3 posted on 12/01/2011 11:31:42 AM PST by Engraved-on-His-hands
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Engraved-on-His-hands
It isn’t a moral absolute.

Very unlike the belief that kids deserve and need two married parents of different genders. That is a moral absolute.

4 posted on 12/01/2011 11:37:24 AM PST by madprof98 ("moritur et ridet" - salvianus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Engraved-on-His-hands; Retro Llama

At its’ inception, our now-dead Constitutional Republic was founded on the idea of small government, a concept made possible by a people who were morally-constrained, that is, self-controlled. Today, increasing numbers of Americans, from inside-the-beltway to the street level are amoral and out-of-control. To them, small government means no rules whatsoever.


5 posted on 12/01/2011 11:43:59 AM PST by spirited irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Retro Llama

I never see the argument that government should stay out of divorce.


6 posted on 12/01/2011 11:44:19 AM PST by lazypadawan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lazypadawan

It is not just a states rights issue.

When one state legalizes “same sex marriage”, it has an effect on all the other states, business, etc.

What happens when a gay couple claim they were married in one state, but it is not recognized by other states when they try to file state income taxes as “married”, or the cost to businesses by claiming “health benefits” as “married spouses” .... I can go on and on....


7 posted on 12/01/2011 11:53:06 AM PST by neverbluffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Retro Llama
It's rather sad that the only candidates who actually take the small government position are the ones at the rear of the pack

Is this the best that your Log Cabin Friends can dream up?

8 posted on 12/01/2011 11:54:56 AM PST by aimhigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Retro Llama

Government should get out of marriage, period. It’s religious institution.

However,the problem even with state’s rights on this is that one state will be forced to recognize gay marriage in another state with Full Faith and Credit provision of the constitution. DOMA is in a precarious situation both from a judicial and legislative point of view.

This will lead to government sanctioned and enforced gay marriage.


9 posted on 12/01/2011 11:58:59 AM PST by Darren McCarty (Anybody but Romney or Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Retro Llama

Actually, what is needed is for small-government conservatives to explain why opposition to “gay marriage” is a small government position. Specifically, government’s legitimate interest in marriage derives from supporting socially beneficial, natural, non-state institutions, to wit, marriage and the family. It is an expansion of government power for the government to arrogate to itself the purported authority to redefine the nature of a non-state institution simply by virtue of the fact that it had for socially beneficial reasons registered marriages and established laws regulating them (age of consent, laws governing divorce settlements and the like).

In the case of abortion, one can be consistently small-government, by supporting the return of the question of which instances of abortion are justifiable homicide (none, saving the life of the mother, saving the mother from severe disability, not obliging the mother to continue enduring the effects of violation by rape or incest, . . .) to the several states as the matter was before Roe v. Wade.


10 posted on 12/01/2011 12:01:29 PM PST by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Retro Llama

Good topic. Marriage is a state issue, not a federal issue. Thus, if Massachusetts wants gay marriage, let them have it. The federal government should not define marriage, but should put laws in place to prevent a gay couple from getting married in one state and then forcing another state to recognize the marriage.


11 posted on 12/01/2011 12:03:07 PM PST by Opinionated Blowhard ("When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darren McCarty
Government should get out of marriage, period. It’s religious institution.

No, actually marriage is a natural social institution, which exists independent of any religion. It is not, however, a state institution, simply because the various states and the Federal government have adopted laws for the registration of marriages, placing limits on the natural institution (for instance establishing minimum ages for the parties entering marriages, forbidding consanguinous marriages of various degrees and the like), supporting the institution with favorable tax treatement, and regulating the dissolution of marriages. Rather marriage, like the family, is part of the non-state civil society. Which is, of course, why the left wants to arrogate to the state the power to redefine it, thereby shrinking the non-state civil society and expanding the state.

12 posted on 12/01/2011 12:10:18 PM PST by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish

Falling? —Being led by the Gay Democratic Party “progressives”? —or being Pushed by the social engineers the result is the same.Marriage is the foundation to our society
and the enemy knows if they can destroy “marriage” they can drive a wedge between the Moral and religious people and the Useful idiots and we will be another step closer to perdition.


13 posted on 12/01/2011 12:12:06 PM PST by StonyBurk (ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Retro Llama

really pathetic.

90% of the federal government is unconstitutional and these people want promote gay marriage as a conservative thing.

Simply pathetic.

To some perv libertarians the answer to everything is drugs and sex without restraint. They are not worth listening to as serious people.


14 posted on 12/01/2011 12:15:44 PM PST by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Retro Llama

I can live with states making their own rules, so long as I can have a constitutional amendment at the federal level denying “full faith and credit” for these marriages in other states where the citizens want to prohibit them.

Otherwise, a single state can in fact dictate to all states what Marriage is, circumventing the rights of over states through the federal constitutional full faith and credit clause.

Also, clearly it should be prohibited for the federal government to grant any recognition of gay marriage. That’s not against limited government, but is in fact FOR limited government, in this case limiting the government from recognizing something most people still find undesirable.


15 posted on 12/01/2011 12:20:00 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish

Americans must live through all time a nation of freemen ,or die by suicide.”as Mr.Lincoln said in 1837,Religion,Morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind,schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”twice passed Fundamental LAW Northwest Ordinance Article III.Reflected a sermon by Elizur Goodrich
Preached in Hartford Conn. May 10,1787—Political sermons of the American founding era 1730-1805 Ellis Sandoz ed.vol I
The Principles of Civil Union and the Happiness of mankind Considered and recommended.”We have forgotten from when we came.


16 posted on 12/01/2011 12:21:44 PM PST by StonyBurk (ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: All

a federal marriage amendment IS smaller government.

homosexual based marriage is a government created construct.

the same as adoption is a government created construct.

by eliminating the construct of anything goes marriage, government is smaller.


17 posted on 12/01/2011 12:32:42 PM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Retro Llama

Marriage had been a state issue up until the time that the left-wing sought to undermine it as such and to use the court system in order to do so. Marriage, the age of consent, public decency laws, and all laws relating to sexuality in the public sphere have been handled at the state level.

The premise of limited government in American life has always included the ‘right to representation’ whereas these issues would be handled directly between the people and the representatives thus limiting the power of some unappointed judge from another state ordering you to accept some perversion such as homosexuality in your state without having any say on the matter.

It is the libertarians who have sided with the all out fascist left-wing in trying to force everyone to accept their perverted morality through use of the courts and an all out campaign of smearing anyone who disagrees with them.

The true limited government position is to support the people’s right to representation on the issue of marriage and to do whatever it takes to oppose the leftist fascist agenda of removing our right to representation through the courts. Even a federal marriage amendment is a small limited government position if it is being done to stop a fascist agenda that removes our right to representation on the issue.


18 posted on 12/01/2011 12:38:37 PM PST by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StonyBurk

Back when clear thinking and speaking was the norm, ‘gay’ democrats and social engineers were called pleasure-seeking hedonists and god-men.

It is the case, as Pascal observed, that when men reject their transcendent Creator they become subject to megalomania in varying degrees.


19 posted on 12/01/2011 1:33:59 PM PST by spirited irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Opinionated Blowhard

The federal government HAS put in place a law so as not to force other states to recognize homosexual marriage. This is the Defense of Marriage Act, which even as we speak, has gay activists in court trying to overturn.

Massachusetts never got to vote on gay marriage. It was forced on them by court order.

I hear what you are saying, but the fact is, the gay activists are NOT content to just have same-sex marriage allowed in some liberal states. Their eventual goal is 50 state same-sex marriage through court order, not through any legislative process.


20 posted on 12/01/2011 1:39:08 PM PST by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: StonyBurk

Within the orthodox Christian tradition, freemen are men who are not enslaved by their base passions, impulses, and compulsions. It is when man is the slave of his base passions that he commits suicide so to speak.

As Augustine observed of the natural men of his time, every man, from king to slave has as many masters as he has vices.


21 posted on 12/01/2011 1:40:01 PM PST by spirited irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Retro Llama

The homosexual lobby swings both ways when it comes to states rights and limited government. If they win with federal law, they go that way. If they win with state law they go that way. Ignore their self-serving arguments, and do what is necessary to stop the gay agenda.


22 posted on 12/01/2011 1:44:58 PM PST by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darren McCarty

religion has nothing to do with the law of marriage.

you have to have legal issues dealt with particularly marriage because of inheritance, property, paternity, children, and the continuation of society.

For all intents and purposes homosexual conduct is a dead end for society. it offers and provides nothing.

even a childless normal married couple promotes society by reaffirming the norm and even by the legal creation of adoption promote society. (a child of adoption need never know the parents did not produce them, with homoseuxals it is a single parent who denies a mother or father in exchange for a recreational sex partner.)

religion is a red herring in this legal debate.


23 posted on 12/01/2011 2:32:25 PM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego
I hear what you are saying, but the fact is, the gay activists are NOT content to just have same-sex marriage allowed in some liberal states. Their eventual goal is 50 state same-sex marriage through court order, not through any legislative process.

I agree. It shows who the real extremists are. Most conservatives I know, even ones who oppose same sex marriage (myself included), are not looking to turn marriage into a federal issue. They (and I) just want to stop the Libs from forcing it on every state by un-democratic means. If Libs in Rhode Island want to be a gay haven and have gay marriage, let them if they can get the votes. But don't force it on other states.

24 posted on 12/01/2011 3:19:33 PM PST by Opinionated Blowhard ("When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Opinionated Blowhard

I’d love to see how many of those who want ‘small government’ gay marriage would also be for eliminating all government grants for AIDs research, etc.


25 posted on 12/01/2011 5:06:31 PM PST by aimhigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Retro Llama
 
"I KNOW BUT ONE CODE OF MORALITY FOR MEN WHETHER ACTING SINGLY OR COLLECTIVELY"
--Thomas Jefferson
 
Got Natural Law?
 
 
Sex, Evolution and Behavior
By Martin Daly and Margo Wilson
 
 
Got Socio-Biological Fitness?

"Gay" penguins don't - not even in the San Francisco zoo
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=San+Francisco+gay+penguins
 

26 posted on 12/01/2011 8:39:24 PM PST by LomanBill (Animals! The DemocRats blew up the windmill with an Acorn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Retro Llama; 185JHP; 230FMJ; AFA-Michigan; AKA Elena; Abathar; Absolutely Nobama; Albion Wilde; ...
Homosexual Agenda and Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

There would be no need for a Constitutional Amendment if sick perverts and their leftist/RINO/Libertarian assistants had stopped the homo-agenda years ago. The "heroes" opposing the Constitutional Amendment are all either Libertarian nutcases or socially liberal RINOs.

27 posted on 12/01/2011 8:54:42 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #28 Removed by Moderator

To: Retro Llama
Marriage isn't a state's rights issue because gay activist would never let it be. Look at just a few of the questions state-rights positions will hand over to our real masters, the ersatz kritocrats, aka Judiciary: Married homos move to another state. Does Virgina have to recognize a New York marriage.
Does a Arkansas corporation like Walmart have to recognize gay marriages in NY?
What about adoptions?

And then there is the issue of education. Your children's public school textbooks are written for CA, TX, FL and NY by liberals, if not leftists. They will learn gay marriage is better than straight marriage.

If you decide to stop fighting this issue, we will be talking about pets as spouses in a generation.

29 posted on 12/01/2011 9:03:46 PM PST by rmlew ("Mosques are our barracks, minarets our bayonets, domes our helmets, the believers our soldiers.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish
As Augustine observed of the natural men of his time, every man, from king to slave has as many masters as he has vices.

Someone posted this yesterday, very beautifully written by Saint John the Solitary. People have forgotten the simple truth (or turned their backs to it, or never heard it) that we're not our mind's desires, and that we should fight against evil thoughts and desires. Now so many people identify with every mental desire, no matter how degraded, perverse or cruel, and become literally insane. And anyone saying differently are considered evil!

Be attentive to the thoughts of the mind. If some evil thought passes through you, do not get upset, for it is not the transient thoughts of your mind that the knowledge of the Lord of all observes, rather He looks at the depths of the mind to see if you take pleasure in that evil thought which resides there; for hateful thoughts float over the surface of the mind, but it is the senses that are lower down which can chase away hateful thoughts, which the Lord of all examines. He does not judge what just passes over the mind, but rather the thoughts that are lower down than those hateful ones, namely those which appear in the depths of the mind, which can drive them away with its hidden hand. For He does not pardon the thoughts which spring up from the depth of the mind, for it is they which should be chasing away those which pass over the surface of the mind; He judges those thoughts which have a passage into the heart.-

30 posted on 12/01/2011 9:20:45 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: rmlew

If you decide to stop fighting this issue, we will be talking about pets as spouses in a generation.


In a generation? Sooner than that - read this and throw up:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2814961/posts

Senate Poised to Legalize Sodomy and Bestiality in U.S. Military
Cybercast News Service ^ | 12/1/11 | Pete Winn

Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2011 6:39:58 PM by Nachum

The Senate this evening is poised to vote on a defense authorization bill that includes a provision which not only repeals the military law on sodomy, but also repeals the military ban on sex with animals—or bestiality. On Nov. 15, the Senate Armed Services Committee unanimously approved S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act, which includes a provision to repeal Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Article 125 of the UCMJ makes it illegal to engage in both sodomy with humans and sex with animals.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/senate-poised-legalize-sodomy-and-bestiality-us-military


31 posted on 12/01/2011 9:23:53 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
To think people called me a hysterical neanderthal when I brought up gay marriage and adoption in 1993.

We are going to Gommorah and conservatives lack the intelligence, values, or intellectual beliefs to challange the "rights based" arguments.

32 posted on 12/01/2011 9:29:06 PM PST by rmlew ("Mosques are our barracks, minarets our bayonets, domes our helmets, the believers our soldiers.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: rmlew

We’re on the brink of the precipice. And a lot of people did see this coming years ago, and but too few people had either an intact and functioning moral compass or guts. I saw it in the late 80s but who am I? Just a nobody.

I pinged this out today, from almost 10 years ago, too bad more Republicans (of course Dems are part of the aggressors pushing the fag agenda) didn’t pay attention. Or any Rs.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2814931/posts

WND ExclusiveReport: Pedophilia more common among ‘gays’
World Net Daily ^ | April 29, 2002 | By Jon Dougherty

Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2011 5:16:50 PM by little jeremiah

WND Exclusive Report: Pedophilia more common among ‘gays’ Research purports to reveal ‘dark side’ of homosexual culture Posted: April 29, 2002 1:00 am Eastern

By Jon Dougherty © 2011 WND

Child molestation and pedophilia occur far more commonly among homosexuals than among heterosexuals on a per capita basis, according to a new study.

“Overwhelming evidence supports the belief that homosexuality is a sexual deviancy often accompanied by disorders that have dire consequences for our culture,” wrote Steve Baldwin....

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=13722


33 posted on 12/01/2011 9:33:38 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Retro Llama
Yawn. Sodomarriage has been imposed by big government types without any say from the people.

You're barking up the wrong tree here, noob.
34 posted on 12/01/2011 9:54:19 PM PST by Antoninus (Take the pledge: I will not vote for Mitt Romney under any circumstances. EVER.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish

Excellent and learned reply—T’anks


35 posted on 12/02/2011 4:06:07 AM PST by StonyBurk (ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David

So how do you reconcile the historic fact that from 1774—recent redefinition of “marriage “ by the state of Mass. the
national government was smaller (especially so 1774-1905 as compared to post WWII America) Yet “marriage” was defined in all States reflective of the Christian Moral ethic (at least until we tolerated that damned divisive Wall be erected in 1947 to divide the nation.The size of our national Govt.seems tied to the “marriage” issue only with respect to the fact when we had smaller Govt. we also had greater respect for Christianity and for Christian Morals.


36 posted on 12/02/2011 4:14:52 AM PST by StonyBurk (ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Opinionated Blowhard

essentialy what was attempted with DOMA-the Law our Reprobate
anti-American Pretend President wants to repeal.


37 posted on 12/02/2011 4:17:42 AM PST by StonyBurk (ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: StonyBurk

Laws reflect the morals of society. A Christian society will have laws reflecting Christian morality, in this case monogamy, with difficult divorce. The laws did not define marriage, but reflected what it is. Certainly there is no direct tie between the state’s approach to marriage and the size of government measured in number of employees or size of expenditures. There is, however, a tie between marriage and the size of government measured in its pervasiveness: precisely the one I pointed to in my post.

Prior to the Massachusetts decision, government did not presume to define marriage, but promulgated laws for its support and regulation. Now various government bodies presume that the state is competent to define the nature of pre-existing non-state social institutions. That is an expansion of state-power and contrary to small government ideals.

If we are no longer a Christian society, the small government approach to the desire of sodomites to marry each other (which has actually been around since Roman pagan times — I think it was Virgil who lampooned the desire of homosexual men to “play the blushing bride”), is not to redefine marriage by judicial fiat, but for the legislatures of the several states to decide that the state no longer has an interest in supporting and regulating marriage, to stop registering or officiating marriages, and to oblige those seeking the common-property rights, rights of inheritance, and the like now associated with marriage to enter into contracts to establish them.


38 posted on 12/02/2011 9:45:04 AM PST by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David

I suppose you are right. In 1878 the US supreme Court decided Reynolds v. the United States 98 U.S. 145-165 (1878 —see
America’s God and country :Encyclopedia of Quotations ,Wm.Federer editor,pp596-97 note 5 (where later Courts found justification for citing Jeffersons private letter to the Danbury Baptists) the note that the state legislature in VA “substantially enacted the ... death penalty ...[for polygamy] 1885 Murphy v. Ramsey & Others,144 U.S.15,45 (1885) p.597 note 7 1889 Davis v. Beason 133 U.S> 333,341-343,348 (1890 )ibid pp597-599 note8 “Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries.They are crimes by the laws of the United States ,and they are crimes by the laws of Idaho...
....such freedom shall not be construed to excuse acts of licentiousness...” 1890 The church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v. the United States 136 U.S. 1 (1890) forbade
the practice of polygamy in the US stating “It is contrary to the spirit of Christianity and civilizations which Christianity has produced in the Western world.” ibid note 9 p.599.I seem to recall legal opine involving No fault
divorce. And I think in the 70’s the Court defined “marriage “ as a union that could receive benefits including property rights. (I seem to recollect the same year the Gay Activist Steve Warren was published in the Advocate demanding the “surrender” of Orthodox Jews and
Christians . Or they would find themselves the target of the
most sustained program of Hatred and vilification in recent memory.— Warning to the Homophobes The Advocate p.29
Sept.1974) None of these legal opinions defined “marriage”
per se—but it seems in my lifetime the National Government has acted to declare interracial marriage an item the states could not prohibit. and closely followed by the legal opine concerning no fault divorce. Then calling
“marriage a “union” that could receive benefits including property rights, to the demands for every State to recognize
same sex marriage. And through it all the Government has grown not only in numbers of Federal employees -but in terms of power.I surmise the lust for power to control our lives will never abate until “We the people insist our Government once again recognize Governments are instituted among men to secure our God given rights.And ought be small
and bound by the enumerated powers declared in our Constitution.Any thing else is “unconstitutional”


39 posted on 12/02/2011 10:37:31 AM PST by StonyBurk (ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Retro Llama

This is just a backdoor attempt by the perverted homosexuals. To force America to accept the perversion of homosexual marriage.


40 posted on 12/04/2011 6:35:44 PM PST by DMG2FUN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Retro Llama
The actual "less government" position is to get government out of licensing marriage completely.

Each couple should be able to write and sign their own marital contract, binding on only the two of them.

41 posted on 12/09/2011 10:27:44 PM PST by DNA.2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson