Posted on 01/24/2014 4:44:08 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist
My dog IS my dependent. Dog food and vet bills are no longer low cost items. I need a deduction for Income Tax. Marrying my dog may be the only way....
Govt has no business being involved with marriage in any way.
What benefits attend to the State recognizing and defining marriage, as well as other relationships that are not marriage? Ideally the State should be an agent to promote prosperity and good order. The State defines a multitude of relationships and commitments. It honors faithfulness, truth, and other virtues the left would like to define or legislate out of existence. There is an inherent interest for the State to distinguish between virtue and vice, using its authority to punish evildoers and reward those who do good - just as it is in a good, solid home with God-fearing children and parents.
This might be a good idea. The state does not marry people, churches do. People could still marry in their church. What’s the advantage of registering it with the state? It isn’t taxes... There is a marriage penalty with taxes.
Hadn’t considered this angle. Wonder how it would play out.
IMO, it's the only solution, and it's the right solution. The only business the State has in marriage is to recognize its validity under the 1st Amendment - religion alone. But the State should have zero authority in actually validating its existence.
That's why liberals scream over this idea - without the State, what do they have?
Unless you want a simple legal status that ties a man to his children and their mother.
BTW, no matter how much “love and commitment” may be present before, during, or after the act, there is no virtue in depositing one’s own DNA into an excretory orifice. There is most certainly an ill effect and mendacity against the Creator and nature in defining “marriage” as equal to such a practice. The left cannot handle truths of this nature, as it elevates an imagined “inclusiveness” over the exclusiveness of virtue.
Unless you want a simple legal status that ties a man to his children and their mother.
Private Marriage contract between two people, they decide to split, they have to go to a regular court like any other contract dispute
Marriage is between a man and a woman and God so how did the state get in the mix of all of this?
What about enforcement of laws relating to estates, trusts and wills, etc.?
Yes! What a cool idea!
Yes! What a cool idea!
Might be a better move to prevent all divorce.
I’m all for this...
Because if marriage is what the STATE or FED defines it as, instead of what GOD established it to be, then it means nothing.
This country has rejected God, and thus it’s freedom.
I applaud my state of OK for this
Marriage has always had to be legal, or it didn’t count outside of the people who were rooming with each other.
You can do what ever you want in private, and call it whatever you want, but if you want it to be legal, then it has to be legal.
No one forces people to “marry” according to law.
Just wondering - Could a church perform marriages that it considered strictly spiritual commitments without the state considering it a LEGAL marriage for tax purposes, property rights, etc.? Such marriages would be registered in church records but not forwarded to the state for official recognition as state-sanctioned, legally-binding marriages.
The reasons the statists scream over this idea is that they wouldn’t have a way to punish and to keep punishing those who they know will never accept whatever impossibility the state is calling marriage at the time.
Freegards
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.