Posted on 04/17/2015 10:23:05 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Bookmarking for a future link back. Say, around the end of June.
Same with marriage, I think. People forget that the US is a very different country than any other in the world. We have God-given rights that the government actually has to acknowledge, and then a set of laws that are limited privileges that are a completely separate thing, that exist solely for the benefit of the government.
Marriage is an issue that has traditionally crossed these boundaries. People get married in a church, and then file a marriage license wit the government, and they've let themselves believe it's one and the same things. But it is not - not at all. And the difference between them is what is being used to bash the hell out of marriage itself, when it should be limited solely to that government license that has been allowed to be misname a "marriage" license.
But it is no such thing, and it has never been any such thing. It already is a civil union license. The government just hijacked the word "marriage" to hide what they did. But now that's come back to bite everyone in their keesters.
Still, I’m not sure there needs to be any such license any more. When the people honored an invisible hand that said yes, these were going to be heterosexual marriages, then the government was looked to for assurance that this was not going to be incest, or that the participants were not suffering from venereal disease.
If the attitude now is “if it’s a civil union it has to embrace gay marriage too” then drop the pretense and don’t even issue the license any more.
So, I really think its presence under any name (marriage, union, partnership, etc.) is dangerous to the very culture. I would seek to prevent it in any form.
I understand your concern. But I would also say that one of the cultural battlefields is the war over terminology, legalism and their applications. To discriminate carefully between rights and privileges, therefore, is a clear starting point and only good can flow from it. That's why evil always tries to blur the line between the two.
But when the going gets tough, the tough get precise. And in this case, marriage needs to be connected to the church it comes from to expose what it is claiming to be when it claims to be equal. The way to do that is to rip it out of the government's authority to define it and the way to do that, is to stand on the truth of it being a right, and not a privilege, so they government cannot claim authority over it.
You would not accept the legitimacy of a Hindu or Buddhist marriage for yourself or your family members, right? But you are not threatened by those faiths using the term "marriage" even though you personally don't acknowledge their legitimacy before your faith. That's because they say they are "Buddhist marriages" and "Hindu marriages." Well, apply the same things to gays. Make them have to say, "Church of the Stunning Rainbow marriages."
Puts things immediately in perspective, and clearly points out that you do not mean, by "marriage," what they do. That's WHY blurring that definition by limiting the word merely to "marriage" through government decree is the plan of the Left.
By what authority will people be able to take the word "marriage" out of the government's dictionary?
Not rip it out, redefine it. And that would come from a Congressional Bill to change "marriage licenses" to "civil union registrations." And pretty much leave them as they already are - a sworn affadavit by two people to be treated as a limited corporation for specific purposes by the government.
Because whether you realize it or not, that's what a government "marriage license" already is, and already does - ONLY.
And that's why I object to it being called "marriage," because it's not anything of the kind right now, without changing anything at all. So what I'm really arguing for is truth in advertising.
I think these are stubborn people trying to redefine marriage — and hateful too — and they will fight anything that prevents their being able to have the word ‘marriage’.
That fight will be no different than the fight to preserve the word as it now is....man/woman.
I totally agree. Because they not only want the word "marriage," they also hate Christianity.
Which is truly, fantastically stupid, because while these people attack Christianity they are doing so in a way that also attacks Islam. Yet they are terrified of Islam, because they also know Islam not only will kill them and does kill them, Islam doesn't give a damn what they call anything. Yet they continue on with their rants against religion in America.
Then again, liberals aren't exactly noted for their rationality.
True Dat!
How anyone in the world thinks sticking a baby maker in a cesspool is not just a good idea, but a biological, genetic necessity, is absolutely beyond me. "I know...I'll inject MERSA up my putz. (I had to, ya know, it's genetic.)"
Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.
At one time, I could claim that at least it got National Security more or less right. These days, US.gov is screwing up even that.
June. The traditional month of Brides. Their mockery has no limit.
Then she's his step-daughter. If she's his adopted daughter then they might run into legal issues depending on where they live.
An unadopted step-daughter is not related in any way and would just be a young bride for an older guy and I don't see anything wrong with that at all so long as she freely consents.
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.