In fact, State involvement in marriage goes all the way back to the 1600s in colonial America.
Posted on 10/23/2009 8:02:19 AM PDT by Grunthor
The U.S. government should abolish its sanctioning of marriage, argued Cass Sunstein, President Obama's regulatory czar.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
African Americans have tried that, and the success is unparalleled .... children with no stable parenting demonstrate the successes of such policy.
Pure unadulterated road apples!
I don’t think you can count on the government to protect the marriage from homosexual unions, the government will ultimately approve marriage between anybody and anything. That is something the churches should be doing.
I want no part of some of these people’s “Libertarian Paradise.”
“We are in the world ... not of the world. IE.
John 17:14-21 (New King James Version)
“14 I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world.
15 I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one.
16 They are not of the world, just as I am not
18 As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.
19 And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth.
Jesus Prays for All Believers
20 “I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will[a] believe in Me through their word; 21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.”
The concept of family was thought up thousands of years ago. It was a well thought out idea based on practical living. The family continued on with Christianity and demonstrated its success, inclusive of the birth of the greatest nation on earth.
Now we have fools WHICH WE VOTED IN who want to pull it down.
FOOLS, (parrots) who also know more than thousands of years of marriage.
Its just another attack on America by the destroyer Obama.
You don’t get it. Marriage is a common law contract. Parental rights come from that and are based on that legal tradition.
If you do away with that tradition and there is no marriage, then there are no parental rights left. The state will make new laws regarding children and they won’t be parent friendly. Ever read the UN Rights of Children?
Don’t think for a minute they will base rights on blood kinship, they won’t, they’ve been denying men their biological parental rights for years now, it’s only a short step to denying women’s also and predicating it all on the “best interests of the child” and “public policy interests”.
In fact, State involvement in marriage goes all the way back to the 1600s in colonial America.
“the state owns the rights to body parts of people who are dead or in certain hopeless conditions, and it can remove their organs without asking anyone’s permission.”
Well, that does it for ME. I hereby plan on drinking, smoking, taking every health risk I can enjoy.......when they finally get to me, MY organs won’t be worth their trouble.
Heh.
Because marriage has significant legal ramifications. Always has, always will.
Well, what liberals really mean is that they don’t want anybody to get married unless homosexual marriage is allowed.
The irony is that very few homosexual couples actually go ahead and get married when it’s legally allowed.
Liberals have attacked marriage as a patriarchal, archaic institution for years. Even before the “gay” marriage issue came up, they have denigrated marriage. So in general, they are against marriage. They only type of marriage they are all in favor of is “homosexual” marriage, so that they can brag about how liberal they are by being in favor of same.
That isn’t what I heard lately, but say that is true, do you want the state granting you the right to get married as a conservative? Do you need that?
The two ideas are not necessarily in opposition. Society benefits from many things that don't get special state recognition.
If a man and a woman want to live as husband and wife they don't need a special government license to do so. If they are concerned about division of property and the like they can enter into contractual agreements with each other before marrying at the church.
If the state has such sinister intentions then will state-sanctioned marriage really serve as an effective bulwark against their designs?
Just supplying the facts.
“If liberals can’t shove gay marriage on us - they’ll destroy what we have?”
Look at it from another direction, if givernment is not in any way involved in marriage, WHO is going to join two homosexuals in unholy matrimony?
If there were no state sponsorship of marriage then the only time the state would get involved would be in cases where the couple “divorces” or separates and their are children to order support for. We already have millions of cases such as this every year in this country.
There would be no state marriage, therefore there would be no state divorce.
“Until the government makes good on this separation of marriage and state, I believe that anybody who takes marriage seriously should go ahead with the religious or “true marriage” and dispense with the “Government Marriage” part.”
You, sir are a glittering jewel of understanding and intellect.
“I think you are lost — perhaps you meant to log onto Daily Kos.”
So you WANT as much givernment as possible involved in our lives?
“Great - now I can marry my dog!”
This affects me how? But in all seriousness, will you register at Petsmart?
“You shouldn’t need a government license to get married. The government should butt out.”
This is confusing, I read your #33....you are a contradiction wrapped in a riddle dressed up as an enigma...?
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.