Posted on 07/10/2013 2:55:36 AM PDT by markomalley
I'm with you. This is very troubling to me, coming from Cuccinelli. If he isn't going to offer Virginia a clear alternative to that carpetbagging crook, McAuliffe, then McAuliffe is who we will end up with.
Agreed. Government can issue everyone a “civil union”. Marriage can be performed by the church. It was a mistake to ever integrate government into marriage to begin with.
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 ]
Just read xzin's comments - he says it all.
Anyone wanting on/off any of my ping lists, freepmail me.
The reason this “get the gov out of marriage” is a bogus argument is because marriage has been recognized for thousands of years as a legal status. It’s that simple. It’s not about “getting permission” from the gov, it’s about legal status, which means “gov” of some kind even if local. If the gov does not recognize marriage as a legal state, then anarchy ensues.
Sorry for the brevity earlier but work was unreal. You are dead on as usual!
LLS
There ARE? Like, how many is "many"?
As it should. There really is no need for a 2nd Democratic party.
I’ve read that argument but let’s face facts. The pro-homonazi “marriage” crowd won’t settle for that. They want it enforced with the full force of the state on everyone now.
they should the base.... to the Freedom Party
Your “legal status” view inverts the natural order. God created marriage before government existed and it exists outside of government. We have allowed government to define marriage for its own purposes. It is time to place government in a subservient position: that is to say where the role of government is only to be told of our private marital status and to accept what we tell it.
Where people have a need to record and to protect inheritance, government already does that irrespective of marital status. For example, we don’t concern ourselves about the marital status of 74% of black women who give birth to a child outside of wedlock. Where people need to direct the health care system to accept medical decisions made by another person, we already allow that.
Because people who are hostile to God’s definition of marriage now have gained control of government’s administration of marriage in the legal system, for the sake of protecting the institution of marriage, we must remove from government the ability to define who is married and who is not. Then it will return to being a private issue. People will be free to join that institution as God defines it, or they will be free to live their lives as they otherwise decide.
Anyone who tells me that government must regulate marriage has to tell me why they are not concerned that 74% of black children are bastards.
You are mixing and matching points that for one thing have nothing to do with my POV and second of all, are not connected. You also seem to be assuming (are you one of the “legalize dope” libertarians btw?) that I want government to “regulate” marriage. No freaking way.
The government is the one telling us that two men or two women can get married. That is vile Huge Nanny State Government intervention trying to overturn Natural Law, and it is 100% evil and wrong. Marriage means and has always meant, a man and a woman, with a few times in history of one man and more than one woman, depending on historical and cultural differences. But it has NEVER meant two men or two women, and never will, any more than “night time” can mean “when the sun is up” or “daytime” mean “When the sun is down”., Words have meanings that are intrinsic and no one can change that meaning. Marriage is one of those words. It can never mean “two men” or “two women”, no matter what idiots, fools or sick vipers in government want to try to force down our throats.
Here are several points to consider.
Recognition of marriage as a legal state separate and distinct from any other legal contracts dates back to before what modern historians consider history. Millennia. “Government” recognition could be anything from the headman of the village to the baron of the huge estate to the nobleman in charge of the province or whatever. Marriage has always been given a specific status by whatever term you want to use for government. The recognition and specific status of marriage as a legal entity is a lot more than just money/inheritance, there’s more reasons historically but after reading your comment I doubt you’re interested in the facts. You could prove me wrong if you want to.
I realize libertarians hate this but facts are facts. Everyone is entitled to their own POV, the “right to be wrong”, but people aren’t entitled to their own fake set of facts.
Second, I have no freaking clue why you’re dragging in the vast percentage of unwed black mothers. What does that have to do with this thread? Anyway, it is due to a couple of factors:
1. Welfare - specifically starting with AFDC and food stamps in the 1960s. A program of RUINATION of generations of people. Utter ruination. Paying people to have sex indiscriminately and take no responsibility for resultant children. Abominable.
2. The promotion of vice of all kinds in a systematic way by the progressives/socialist/communists/leftists/dems as a way to destroy the fabric and foundation of society so they could create a stupid and witless population much easier to control and enslave.
The HGOp wants to go full homo. They will loose the next four election cycles to do it.
“Recognition of marriage as a legal state separate and distinct from any other legal contracts dates back to before what modern historians consider history.”
However, the role of government must now be limited to recording what citizens tell it about their marital status rather than allowing government to define it and demanding compliance.
Of course. The definition is already in existence. THe gov is forcing everyone to “recognize” two men or two women as being married.
It is offensive, insane, perverted and unconstitutional tyranny.
BTTT
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.