Defence of marriage strategy debate (vanity)

26 March 2013 | impimp

[impimp]

Which approach is better: 1) politicians fight by passing legislation protecting marriage so that it will be defined as between one man and one woman 2) try and remove all references to marriage from Federal laws (I liken this to what the Russians did to their farmland so as to starve and freeze Napolean's army as he marched to Moscow) 3) other

[Alberta's Child]

1. I'm not sure exactly why the military needs to "handle" anything related to marriage at all.

2. Immigration cases can be treated on a case-by-case basis without any regard for "marriage" under the law. Whether two people are immigrating as a "married couple" or as two individual adults doesn't necessarily make much of a difference, does it?

[Alberta's Child]

I hate to break this to you, but I would make the case that the battle was lost to the evil among us the moment the legal code was allowed to take root in an institution where the state has no business at all. That's the basis of the previous comments on this thread related to Pope Leo XIII and his document related to the sanctity of marriage.

In a secular social order, nothing that comes under the purview of the state can ever have any "sanctity" -- by definition. It's an abomination to suggest that a sacramental relationship such as marriage can ever be subject to the whims of a legal process involving a "license" of some kind.

I think it's no coincidence that the people I know with the strongest religious inclinations are also the ones who seem to be the least concerned about this whole "gay marriage" issue. It's not that they've surrendered in any way on the issue, either. It's just that -- like me -- they never gave a damn about what any government says about the institution of marriage.

[Northern Yankee]

Amen Mark!

I think if more people approached Marriage as a Sacrament we'd be much better off as a society. You are absolutley right, once the govt. gets involved it muddies the waters and anything is possible in regards to marriage.

[mnehring]

.. but today on facebook i found out that almost every single one of them support the gay marriage crap.

Heck, I saw a lot of people from here I'm connected w/ on FB posting the red equal sign yesterday. People want to be accepted and go along with the crowd.

[stevio]

I agree. Our earthly bodies want to engage in the physical fight, but this is a spiritual battle. We must continue with prayer. God bless.

[ansel12]

1. I'm not sure exactly why the military needs to "handle" anything related to marriage at all. 2. Immigration cases can be treated on a case-by-case basis without any regard for "marriage" under the law. Whether two people are immigrating as a "married couple" or as two individual adults doesn't necessarily make much of a difference, does it?

Goofy and silly, you don't think that the military has to deal with marriage and families?

You think that immigration doesn't need to deal with married people and families?

[ansel12]

That Pope had nothing to say about marriage in America in the 1880s, for one thing the federal government had already taken a stand against a Pope’s position on marriage when it moved against the Prophet and Pope of the Mormons and took a stand against polygamy in the 1860s.

[taterjay]

The Bible says it will be like the days of Noah. Noah kept preparing, all the while he had to watch the world as it kept on sinning worse and worse. He watched all this and kept preparing as God said to do. Those times come in life, yes we can still preach or give guidance, but if people do not want to listen, what else can you do? Romans also says God gives people over to their desires; He gives them what they want. How can we stop that?

[Alberta's Child]

The military only has to deal with families because we have a large standing military that has no place in the U.S. Constitution. There would be no need for any military involvement in families with true "citizen-soldiers" serving as the backbone of our military.

And for immigrants, the only question relates to preferential treatment of married couples under immigration law. Eliminate that provision -- along with all the "anchor baby" nonsense -- and the whole issue goes away.

[ansel12]

"The military only has to deal with families because we have a large standing military that has no place in the U.S. Constitution."
"And for immigrants, the only question relates to preferential treatment of married couples under immigration law."

Both are ridiculous, wives and families have always had to be dealt with in the military, what do you think a military career consists of, waiting until you retire to marry? No pensions or considerations for your spouse if you die? No housing for you and your wife no matter where you live, no pay considerations for your spouse when you are stationed in various places on the globe?

Immigrants are just individuals? Not married or unmarried?

[Alberta's Child]

Like I said ... The U.S. Constitution was written at a time when the term "military career" was pretty much an oxymoron. Under the Constitution, Congress has the authority to raise an army during a time of war by calling on the states to raise their own militias and turn them over to Federal control.

Immigrants are just individuals? Not married or unmarried?

Of course they're married or unmarried. But there doesn't need to be a distinction between married and unmarried immigrants under Federal law ... any more than there needs to be a distinction between a 26 year-old immigrant and a 27 year-old immigrant.

The word "marriage" is not found anywhere in the U.S. Constitution, which is itself a compelling argument against any distinction between married and unmarried persons under any Federal statute.

[ansel12]

You think that the military is just something that you wait for a war, and then you go make some people Admirals and ship captains, and build some ships and jets, and submarines, and then start training Aircraft carrier drivers and submarine crews and building radar stations and so on?

Do you know that the America’s government was defining marriage for it’s troops by at least 1780?