Posted on 09/03/2015 10:03:37 AM PDT by GIdget2004
.
>> “Not a bad idea at all.” <<
But I don’t think it has any legs.
Too many people are just not that motivated.
We need to work on fixing the courts, but only one candidate in the present mix (Cruz) has the balls to go there. Trump has even praised the decisions that are causing the present mischief.
.
.
In contempt of an order to issue a license that does not exist under state law.
The court is in contempt of reason.
.
Elected officials can only be removed by recall election.
Thank you for pinging me. I’ve not been on FR much for a while but I may be coming back. :-)
Your arguments are sound. All arguments on the other side are based on the foundation that two people of the same sex have a right to get married and that not only is that now “legal”, it’s also morally correct.
That foundation is wrong and sooner or later, the entire house of cards called the homosexual agenda will fall.
I think it is folly to expect a “one man fix.” That’s just another form of idolatry.
The Constitution clearly shows who is undertaking this thing: “We The People.”
Whoever makes the most room for “We The People” to pick up the torch once again will do the most part to invite a solution. And that person is looking more like Trump than Cruz.
I know you are in your little box of whoever isn’t a harsh screechy preacher can’t possibly be of any good to the kingdom of God. But I beg to disagree with that.
Absolutely.
And marriage even prior to the Catholic Church was “legally” recognized by whatever form of government in every civilization in the world worthy of the name civilization, especially in regards to legal offspring and inheritance. The Libertarian Party’s stand is indeed a ruse; I’ve read their party platform over the years, and they have supported the entire gamut of the homo-agenda for years. What to speak of open borders and “free flow of people”, no holds barred (at all!) pornography and other issues that are hardcore leftist-anarchist.
The state has legitimate government interests in protecting and promoting marriage, not the least of which interests include child custody and inheritance rights.
It is a mark of social collapse that we now have huge percentages of children born out of wedlock, and even those born within marriage are quite likely to experience divorce. The government can and should be promoting and encouraging marriages. The fact that it isn’t doing so, and actually is doing damage to marriage, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have a legitimate interest in marriage.
Very well said.
But Trump has zero chance of getting elected.
And faggots at the Vatican walk it back
Just great
I was ready to declare kind ambivalence por Il Papa
Silly me
Yes. On November 4, 2008.
Louis, state laws differ. You may be correct in some states. Perhaps in Virginia or other states which had a tradition of a state-supported Anglican clergy until the late 1700s, some vestiges of that may have remained into the 1800s with marriage laws.
I am quite aware that under frontier conditions, circuit-riding ministers had to keep a record of marriages since the closest county official could be an impossibly long journey not just of days or weeks but of months. That was the exception, not the norm, and became less and less common as counties began to be organized on the frontier, with the goal of having everyone live within a one-day horseback ride of a county courthouse.
That certainly was not what I saw with marriage licenses in the old archives of county courthouses in Iowa, or for that matter, genealogical records of marriages in other northern states. I have done very little genealogical research in the South so I can't speak with any level of assurance. I did have a few Quaker ancestors on my mother's side who moved out of the South prior to the Civil War and then left the Society of Friends, but I wouldn't want to extrapolate from those ancestors to other churches. I'm prepared to believe that the marriage practices of the Society of Friends might have been quite different from those of other churches in the same states in the same time period, and I don't have enough information to know for sure.
You may or may not be aware that outside the Anglican and Roman Catholic traditions, marriage for Protestants has historically been regarded as a civil matter and church weddings were prayer services for the couple. In some Protestant nations, two separate marriage ceremonies were conducted in reaction against a Roman Catholic view of marriage as a sacrament. It would take me more time than I have today to track down and post links to documented proof of the marriage practices of Puritan New England, but there's no question that by the early 1800s, marriage licenses were being issued by and regulated by the civil authority in states which were populated largely by people who had formerly lived in New England.
The bottom line is that your view of marriage not having state authority behind it until the early 20th century simply cannot be documented in the historical record, even in the United States. You may be right about Roman Catholic countries where the church took over numerous functions during the Middle Ages due to the collapse of the civil state and a sacramental view of marriage, but that model would be hard to find outside of Europe and nations composed largely of European immigrants.
Not to be argumentative. My family has also done extensive research on our family tree, going back to the Richmond colony in the 1660’s.
As to laws proscribing marriage:
1913 – The federal government formally recognizes marriage in law for the first time with the passage of the Revenue Act of 1913.
1923 – The federal government establishes the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act. [1]
1929 – All states now have laws regarding marriage licenses.
Prior to the 20the century there was a patchwork of civil law pertaining to marriage. In general common law marriage was recognized in every state. Obviously banns filed with the court house would be available as historical documentation. Until the 20th century, however, there was no requirement of certification in law for marriage.
Two issues brought this to a head. The first was biracial marriage. The second was polygamy. Both were hotly contested issues running late into the 19th and early 20th centuries. Eventually states began requiring certification of marriage to curtail miscegenation and polygamy. Cousin marriage was another, though less important issue leading to the requirement to be licensed to marry.
please see post at 732
State licenses and federal recognition are not the problem one way or another.
Township, city, or county, province, or whatever, recognition of marriage as a legal entity goes way, way, way back in time.
Anarchy is not the solution to the problem of fag fake marriage. That’s like killing the patient to get rid of the disease.
Not at all. He will be elected unless very dirty tricks are played, in which case all hell will break loose.
The church does not engage in anarchy.
Since when is it appropriate for the state to require standards for baptism, communion or other religious rites like holy matrimony?
The red herring of child protection is not guaranteed by marriage. Proving paternity is most commonly performed for out of wedlock parenting. There are sufficient laws on the books to protect children, spouses and communities without reference to marriage.
The state’s infringement on holy matrimony does enormous disrespect to the institute of marriage. Insanely high divorce rates and a hookup culture reaction to state infringement on marriage are destroying marriage.
If the state can define marriage to suit its PC priorities it should not be allowed by the church to posit requirements for church based marriage. The only viable and reasonable solution is for the church to refuse to acknowledge the necessity of state licensure for holy matrimony services.
Not everyone is a member of a church.
Should have added:
High divorce rates, abandonment by spouses, and abandoned children is not the result of state recognition of marriage. It is the result of hedonism combined with commieprog government promotion of same.
OH? Why not?
State recognition is not the same as state requirement of licensure.
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.