Posted on 03/27/2013 7:44:30 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Sen. Ted Cruz said Tuesday that he was against same sex marriage and hoped the U.S. Supreme Court would continue to let individual states grapple with the issue. “I support traditional marriage between one man and one woman,” Cruz said after speaking to the Richardson Chamber of Commerce. “The Constitution leaves it to the states to decide upon marriage and I hope the Supreme Court respects centuries of tradition and doesn’t step into the process of setting aside state laws that make the definition of marriage.”
Currently federal law defines marriage and the union of a man and a woman. But the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments today on California’s ban on same-sex marriage. And on Wednesday the high court will take up the federal Defense of Marriage Act, the Bill Clinton-era law that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.
Polls show that over the decades more Americans, including Republicans, are beginning to support the concept of same-sex marriage.
Cruz, a Republican from Houston, has captivated conservative and tea party followers with his aggressive support of principles involving state’s rights, smaller government and the Constitutional rights of individual Americans.
At the Richardson Chamber luncheon, he said he was against efforts in Congress to mandate additional background checks on gun buyers.
“We will oppose moving to proceed on any bill that strips Second Amendment rights for law abiding citizens,” Cruz said.
(Excerpt) Read more at trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com ...
You bring the problem to the fore.
Gov’t should not be taxing for anything above paying the bills (A1S8). Instead, they’ve nosed under the tent into areas of social engineering (charity, marriage, etc.)
Reduce Fedzilla where it should be and leave the rest, as this, to the States.
That’s the way it should be.
Roberts proved that in the Obamacare fiasco.
And your priest ordaining your marriage is great, and the heart of the matter, but that DOES NOT record the act officially for purposes of public action.
Priests solemnize marriages that are already registered by the state. Without state registration in most states, you don't get to be treated as married by employers, governments, law enforcement, etc.
That is NOT saying that the government is "in the marriage business," far from it. The government becomes an officiant for the fact, in the case that the existence of the relationship is contested by an outside party.
In other words, someone can contest the fact that you are married (in the case of inheritance disputes, trials that demand testimony against your spouse, etc.), and the most durable proof you have is the certified document maintained by a government.
Here’s the only thing to mention on why homosexual marriage is not ‘normal’.
Which one survives? a planet with only heterosexuals? or a planet with only homosexuals?
>>Marriage is a religious practice
It is also a Socio-Biological practice.
Cultures who declare God dead, themselves gods, and worship human craftsmanship in defiance of the 1st commandment historically tend to suffer natural consequences leading to their own self-destruction:
“Because of this, God gave them over...”
—Romans 1
Why not just let them kill each other off with AIDS?
Forgive me. I guess I haven't been caught up in this huge ground-swell of nation support for homosexual marriage the media's been trying to convince me I belong to. I suppose I'm a bit thick headed when it comes to being brain-washed. I dunno?!
You realize that two people can have a legal, presentable, and binding document without having a “Government” stamp/signature on it... don’t you?
You seem to believe that without a government stamp tax then nothing is legal or lawful or provable in a court of law?
I suggest you do some basic research on contract law and binding agreements.
Then read up on how marriage contracts (heck, even Wills) were drawn up in pioneer America, pre-1750.
And to (Again) make my original point: The marriage license collected the tax that “permitted” my marriage to occur because the State has written that it is a legal requirement, but I was not MARRIED until my Priest did the ceremony.
You understand the difference - and my point - I hope.
Did your Priest perform the marriage without you having to first get a license from your county clerk? I’m asking this out of curiosity, since most people have their clergy sign the marriage certificate and the clergy then directly sends the certificate back to the county clerk to file.
Yes, but as you can read in my earlier post: The Government wrote a law that said I must first pay their fee/tax for the privilege of having my marriage listed in their database. They, in no way, “marry” me.
That the Priest signs the license proves that his actions are sacrosanct and above the authority of the state’s ability to marry me. Some people have a Justice of the Peace sign their license, but he is only filling the role of a priest in the absence of one.
I can get a marriage license and then never file it. If it is never filed then I am not married in the view of the government’s own legal rules and system. However, many states already recognize common law spouses and/or civil unions. These occur outside of the State marriage license process and are legal in a court of law.
If the government removed themselves from the marriage process it would not end marriage or marital contract law.
Now, let me be clear: I’m arguing all of this, but my original point is still very simple: “My priest married me. Not my Mayor.”
I am not advocating the removal of the marriage license process. Just debating whom actually marries you versus who licenses you and that one is more important than the other. And that one could vanish and it would not matter, legally speaking.
I fully agree with you. Your original post sounded like you were saying that your priest could marry you without ANY involvement of the state - no license needed. If I was guilty of misunderstanding that, than I apologize.
The clergy "pulls the trigger" on the marriage happening, that is certain. What's troubling is that virtually ANYONE can be deemed a member of the "clergy" for purposes of solemnizing a marriage - from an atheistic UCC anthing-goes "minister" to a Wiccan priest. And many do.
No need to apologize. My original post was meant to be a quick, flippant comment tossed out into the internet universe. A poorly written attempt at being clever.
I quickly found, however, that I had opened a can of worms on myself.
And yes, I agree that we need a little more authority on whom is qualified to be ordained as a religious officiant in a marital ceremony. For example, Bill Clinton presided over the ceremony, rights, and marital union of Huma and Anthony Weiner. Wow.
Marriage is a sacred event that is both spiritual and legal... And a lot older than both my State government and our Supreme Court. In my opinion, our Government’s involvement has not necessarily made it a better, nor stronger institution, but it’s also pretty low on my list of things I want to spend time changing.
Oh, and I don’t think that homosexuals should get married. All of this is a fad - a proven unpopular fad - and our governments are unwise to meddle with it.
<How do you do that nice italic font to quote my previous post?
Enter the html tags:
< i> before the text that you want in italics.
< /i> after the text that want in italics.
Here's my favorite HTML code cheat sheet website:
http://www.web-source.net/html_codes_chart.htm#.UVXgsTc0NnR
“Aside from making sure I don’t marry my sister, or first cousin, I can find no reason for the state to be involved at all.”
It’s sad that so many don’t undertstand the societal interest and need to support family formation in law, in order to protect children. It’s an unfortunate consequence of decades of media/academy attacks on culture, to the point where even conservatives dont understand the importance of them.
And btw, devils advocate question: Is marrying your first cousin any more wrong or dangerous than gay relationships. if you have the right to marry anyone, why not that?
“My priest ordained my marriage. Not my mayor.”
Clearly you DID register your marriage with the civil authorities if you went ahead and filed taxes as married, bought a house as ‘community property’ etc.
“I really didn’t think this issue mattered.”
America wont be America in another generation if we lose the family.
... maybe its lost already since the young’uns are for SSM. Crazy that they keep supporting the things that do them the most damage.
“You won’t find anywhere in the constitution that government should incentivize or take any ‘interest’ in procreation”
LOL. Marriage definitions and laws have been here for millenia, and the constitutions of almost all our states explicitly mention children, family and marriage. Our Federal constitution has a 10th amendment, leaving this matter to states.
The basis of the CONCEPT of limited Government as expressed in our Constitution REQUIRES foundational institutions that support liberty. The FIRST of these is family. To support family we require Marriage in law, or children are harmed. If we raise the next generation as barbarians, our Federal constitution will be worthless.
As long as Property exists, it will accumulate in Individuals and Families. As long as Marriage exists, Knowledge, Property and Influence will accumulate in Families.
John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, July 16, 1814
Children should be educated and instructed in the principles of freedom.
John Adams, Defense of the Constitutions, 1787
“You realize that two people can have a legal, presentable, and binding document without having a “Government” stamp/signature on it... don’t you?”
Self-contradiction there... if it is ‘legal’ its purpose is to hold up in court - that’s Government recognition.
“You seem to believe that without a government stamp tax then nothing is legal or lawful or provable in a court of law?”
LOL. So you will try up your own contracts to do exactly the same thing as what a legal marriage license does and go through all that both to save the $50 filing fee?!?!?
“Then read up on how marriage contracts (heck, even Wills) were drawn up in pioneer America, pre-1750.”
Um, these are contracts, legally binding - intended to hold up in front of a government agent aka judge in a court of law.
Methinks you are trying real hard to split hairs. if you want to consider your real marriage what the priest did, fine, but government and legal recognition hinges on goign to the courthouse.
It would be great if we could just convince gay couples that a gay-church priest is all they need to be ‘married’ but thats not what they want. They want the courthouse seal of approval.
My guess is they will say there is no constitutional right for same sex marriage. Actually, I don’t think there is a right for any marriage inherent in the constitutional. I believe it’s a state matter too.
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.