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

Skip to comments.

A Rational Basis for Marriage between One Man and One Woman
Catholic World Report ^ | November 28, 2012 | Bill Maguire

Posted on 11/29/2012 3:43:30 PM PST by NYer

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

1 posted on 11/29/2012 3:43:34 PM PST by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom; thefrankbaum; Tax-chick; GregB; saradippity; Berlin_Freeper; Litany; SumProVita; ...
Related

Couple Celebrates 80th Wedding Anniversary, Shares Secrets to Lasting Marriage

Catholic Ping
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list

 

2 posted on 11/29/2012 3:45:32 PM PST by NYer ("Before I formed you in the womb I knew you." --Jeremiah 1:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Look at that photo!

He provably had just about no money (but gainfully employed or she wouldn’t have married him, and he managed to purchase white tie & tails (or otherwise come up with them - no drama). ditto her dress.

That picture is dignity itself.

It pays off, no?


3 posted on 11/29/2012 3:58:59 PM PST by stanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Long before the government got involved in registering marriage, churches did so, and before that, no one registered them yet religious authorities all the way back to the depths of the Ice Age have officiated, or blessed marriage.

We may presume that at some level of whatever human community there was that marriage was noted and approved of all the way back to the time men first began to think as men.

Marriage has its roots in biology.

Gay marriage has its roots in an interest in obtaining benefits that pertain to family life.

Seems to me we might look into modifying the way we extend any tax, insurance or inheritance benefits to families so that we disestablish the gay interest in such things ~ yet, we keep the benefits.

As an example, let's take the 3 generation family ~ the kids, the parents, the now partially dependent grandparents. Why should these folks be restricted from filing joint income tax filings, and simply dividing the income up among all members for that purpose ~ seems to me you could easily take a family with 3 income earners, 10 kids, and turn that into 13 units for purpose of equal taxation ~ at a very low level. Insurance and other elements of life with benefit differentials could be dealt with similarly.

4 posted on 11/29/2012 4:00:53 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

The inmates are running the asylum. There is no rational basis for anything anymore.


5 posted on 11/29/2012 4:02:14 PM PST by immadashell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I think that Christian Holy Matrimony seekers need to open up a Holy Matrimony Office, and with notary seals, offer marriage licenses to those who apply. ONCE THE COURT HOUSES STOP GETTING APPLICATIONS TO DO THESE PSEUDO MARRIAGES, THE GIMMICK WILL BE OFF, and we´ll get back to Original Design Weddings, A man who takes a bride as his wife. I say STOP paying taxes, to get a piece of paper that ain´t worth CRAP. Once they start giving licenses to anything, and everyone, their value plummeting, and we need to go OUTSIDE our civil governments, kind of like the Home Schoolers Associations.


6 posted on 11/29/2012 4:06:26 PM PST by rovenstinez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: immadashell

Not even the Bible?


7 posted on 11/29/2012 4:32:53 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rovenstinez

Not a bad idea at all.


8 posted on 11/29/2012 4:34:22 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NYer

That picture resembles the one of my folks. My dad will be 100 years old in March, so if my mom had lived, they would be celebrating their 75th wedding anniversary.


9 posted on 11/29/2012 4:37:06 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer

DOMA is unconstitutional. I expect it to go down in flames. Why?

The Federal Government doesn’t have the Constitutional authority, the power, to regulate “marriage”. It isn’t even mentioned.

I discovered the following and believe this to be a good suggestion. Maybe it is too liberating for some, but to me it makes sense.

“The colloquy on same-sex marriage ignores the most compelling alternative: abolish civil marriage. The classic way for a diverse polity to resolve contentious issues with minimum strife is to decentralize and privatize those issues. A world without civil marriage would be a world in which everyone can pursue his or her own vision of marriage without imposing those views on others.”

“Abolishing civil marriage would ultimately be good for marriage by ending the government’s legal monopoly defining the family. The resulting competition among alternative forms of marriage would strengthen the institution, just as competition among religions has made America a more religious society than societies with established churches.”

“Though not without its complications (including the problems of transition), abolishing civil marriage is the best alternative for our diverse society.”

Edward A. Zelinsky
Benjamin N. Cardozo
School of Law
Yeshiva University
New York


10 posted on 11/29/2012 4:50:07 PM PST by SatinDoll (NATURAL BORN CITZEN: BORN IN THE USA OF CITIZEN PARENTS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
However, an argument grounded in right reason—without explicit recourse to revelation—is in principle comprehensible to all persons of good will.

That works, when you're dealing with rational people. You can't use reason to argue someone out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place. Most folks who support homosexual marriage do so on the basis of what they believe as 'fairness'. It's an emotional position, not based on anything but feelings. THEY think they're logical, that they're basing their position on 'human rights', and that anyone who disagrees is a racist homophobe. There is simply no reasoning with them.

11 posted on 11/29/2012 6:01:36 PM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All


Help FR Continue the Conservative Fight!
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!


12 posted on 11/29/2012 6:05:04 PM PST by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Not even the Bible?

Evidently, the Bible, like the Constitution, is either subject to interpretation or is completely ignored by the inmates.

13 posted on 11/29/2012 6:38:44 PM PST by immadashell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: immadashell

I don’t do YOPIOS.

Your
Own
Interpretation
Of
Scripture

LOL!


14 posted on 11/29/2012 6:56:57 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

>> The force of law, then, will impose a fundamentally different understanding of those relationships

And the force of law will persecute those that prefer not to service homosexual behavior.

The govt does not belong in the marriage business.


15 posted on 11/29/2012 7:00:04 PM PST by Gene Eric (Demoralization is a weapon of the enemy. Don't get it, don't spread it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

Actually, biology defines the family ~ attempts to arbitrarily restructure families according to some sort of ideology invariably fail.


16 posted on 11/29/2012 7:01:22 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: NYer
A Rational Basis for Marriage between One Man and One Woman

BIOLOGY

17 posted on 11/29/2012 7:18:26 PM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood ("Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
Reynolds v. United States in 1878 already defined marriage as one woman and one man.
18 posted on 11/29/2012 7:21:40 PM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood ("Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood

So, forget getting rid of Roe v. Wade? Is that correct?

The U.S.Constitution lacks the authority to define marriage. It’s not in the Constitution as a delegated federal power. Period.

The history of civil marriage law in this country existed explicity to outlaw interracial marriage. Gun control, too, was established to prevent “those people” from having guns. Our society doesn’t need such laws and, in fact, they are outside the authority of the U.S.Constitution’s authority, as is Roe v. Wade.

You cannot find in the Constitution authority for the Federal Government to “define” marriage or enforce any provision related to it. Such a power was never delegated. The 10th Amendment makes clear that whatever is not explicitly delegated to the Federal Government is not under Federal purview; it belongs to the states or the people individually.

It is the outrageious and judicial extreme-reach of Progressive activists, through our courts, which has put us in this predicament. Duplicating their behavior will not correct the situation but ultimately make it more difficult to correct. Defining marriage and restricting abortion belong at the state level.


19 posted on 11/29/2012 9:36:26 PM PST by SatinDoll (NATURAL BORN CITZEN: BORN IN THE USA OF CITIZEN PARENTS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Sure. I agree. And that is what I’m saying; it will survive - marriage between one man and one woman - because it has proven throughout time to be the finest and most effective marital arrangement of all.


20 posted on 11/29/2012 9:43:29 PM PST by SatinDoll (NATURAL BORN CITZEN: BORN IN THE USA OF CITIZEN PARENTS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

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