Posted on 12/10/2012 5:39:44 PM PST by Olog-hai
Syndicated columnist George Will, appearing Sunday on ABCs This Week, said opposition to same-sex marriage is quite literally dying, because opponents tend to be older Americans.
There is something like an emerging consensus. Quite literally, the opposition to gay marriage is dying. Its old people, Will said.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
with age comes wisdom. except when it comes to pundits.
Good judgement comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgement.
Nothing more true in life.
Marriage licensing is a relative modern concept.
The only reason the state steps in is because for every dollar of child support exthorted from the non custodial parent they get a matching dollar from the feds.
I say that they should only mediate and make sure that some type of payment is made but not to the child support enforcement who then gets their matching dollar and gives it to the non custodial parent.
Remove the financial rewards and you will see more women trying harder to make things work.
Check out what deviant marriage has done to Scandanavia.
beltway disease.
with a serious NYC stupidity infection.
George Will should stick to writing insignificant books about about baseball.
Marriage has rarely been a self-defined situation, even in Roman times there were laws related to marriage, and the Catholic church used to be a form of law.
“Marriage licensing is a relative modern concept.”
Perhaps the word “licensing” is?
But laws throughout cultures and history acknowledge the marriage relationship, as one man and one woman, and impact inheritance, bigamy, taxation, adultery, adoption, legal testimony, rape and sexual assault, power of attorney whether it is called that or not, visitation rights even as to prison and so forth, child provision responsibilities, etc.
It is a HUGE civil partnership that is unique. It is not spiritual only.
That's utter nonsense.
The Catholic Church began requiring banns of marriage in the early 13th century, it was done in many areas even before this. Banns were explicitly kept as a requirement by Protestants during the reformation.
So, I would hardly call eight hundred years "relatively modern" as it predates nearly all other forms of English Common Law on which American laws were based.
Moreover, prior to VERY RECENTLY, NOBODY would have ever thought to define marriage as anything other than between a man and woman. Even cultures that practiced polygamy never defined marriage as between two members of the same gender.
The whole "government shouldn't be involved in marriage licensing" is simply the latest libertarian attempt to support the left's agenda while pretending not to.
Ok, the Catholic church was the government.
I have no problem with churches defining marriage, I have a problem with governments defining marriage.
If the government can define it as between one man and one woman, they are then permitted to define it as anything they want.
The civil union part needs to be separated from the spiritual part called marriage.
I have no problem with churches defining marriage, I have a problem with governments defining marriage.
If the government can define it as between one man and one woman, they are then permitted to define it as anything they want.
The civil union part needs to be separated from the spiritual part called marriage.
I have no problem with churches defining marriage, I have a problem with governments defining marriage.
If the government can define it as between one man and one woman, they are then permitted to define it as anything they want.
The civil union part needs to be separated from the spiritual part called marriage.
***********************
Exactly right.
The point is that the government does have the power to regularize and solemnize marriage. Has, at least under the Common law (which the US is a part of), the state has had this authority for at least 500 years.
Hence the references to Habeaus Corpus and to trial by jury. Marriage is included among this. This is why the state should retain this power to protect the definition of marriage. Given that marriage predates the common law, the common law cannot change marriage, it can only protect the definition of one man and one woman.
The second concern is immigration. Insofar as the state issues spousal visas, the state has the power to regulate marriage. Removing state control of marriage is in effect, unrestricted immigration into the US or elimination of spousal visas. Is that really what you want?
Maine, Maryland, and Washington all legalized agay marriage by popular referenda this past November.
Cake lovers
Yep.
George Will: The Ellsworth Toohey of the Chardonnay Conservation crowd.
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.