Posted on 07/03/2015 5:17:54 AM PDT by tioga
In order that we might all raise the level of discourse and expand our language abilities, here is the daily post of “Word for the Day”.
Louche
Adjective
Rules: Everyone must leave a post using the Word for the Day in a sentence.
The sentence must, in some way, relate to the news of the day.
The Review threads are linked for your edification. ;-)
Practice makes perfect.....post on....
Review Threads:
Review Thread One: Word For The Day, Thursday 11/14/02: Raffish (Be SURE to check out posts #92 and #111 on this thread!)
Review Thread Two: Word For The Day, Tuesday 1/14/03: Roister
Review Thread Three: Word For The Day, Tuesday 1/28/03: Obdurate
Churches need to celebrate Holy Matrimony without benefit of state licensure.
Done for the week-people are putting off anything but repairs to literally keep their shelter from falling down-I’m doing the same myself, because of all the insanity...
Not only is Hillary louche-
She’s totally reprehensible
Anyone who will vote for her
Can’t pretend to be sensible
Sanders and the other loons
Are each one a true believer
In their very own delusions
While Hillary is a deceiver
She and Bill are hoping for
A chance for some more theft-
However when the Obamas leave
Will any valuables be left?
For the care of the children. Homosexual couples are unable to have children, except by adoption (a different case).
And so-called permanent pairing is a misnomer. I've read that the un-coupling rate among homosexuals is even higher than that among heterosexual couples. The first "gay marriage" authorized in this country lasted less than a year. "Divorce" battles between gays have often been ugly and violent.
I still say that the way to go is legal partnership with rights spelled out on paper.
Actually, I have a lot to say about the state of "marriage" in this country, and I feel that I have the right to opine, considering that I have been married to the same man 56 years with its ups and downs; and I've raised 4 kids who are all married to the opposite sex.
The way Sheriff David Clarke sees it, the wild horse has broken loose and is halfway out of the barn, threatening to trample the crops.
If the court can redefine marriage and force people to buy health care from a private business, there is nothing it can’t do, said Clarke, the sheriff of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, and frequent Fox News contributor.
“The thing that bothers me the most in this decision, though, is the way the court acted as essentially five oligarchs,” he told WND. “If we wanted to change the U.S. Constitution, there is a process for that, and there was a robust debate going on in all states, where some states elected to change the definition of marriage, others had not, and these five decided to act like legislators. And my concern is, it takes away from the legislative authority of Congress. And if they can do it with gay marriage, they can do it with anything.”
I think Dave is right-get rid of the selling of marriage licenses-let them sell civil contracts if someone wants one-but quit calling it a marriage license. No government permission is needed for marriage, and government workers like judges, etc have no right to perform weddings-that is up to the church/synagogue/temple/mosque. I really think that is the only way around this abomination of a ruling. I certainly wouldn’t continue to attend my parish church if the priest there performed a homosexual wedding-I’d go find one where the priest only marries a man and a woman...
Au contraire. That was MY suggestion. Dave wants us to give up and roll over on this question.
It took about 2 minutes and this tuned up on my screen:
I agree with you, too-both my first husband and MrT5 were in the military, which requires a civil license for dependent benefits-otherwise, we would have skipped spending 20 bucks at the courthouse and just gone straight to the priest and the wedding celebration...
You don’t need permission from any government to get married...
Sorry-I misread-but I don’t think we should jump up and down over it, either-that is why it is being waved around as a bright shiny object-look here, look here...
It would be better to just quietly put the state out of the marriage business and put it back in the hands of God and clergy where it belongs.
My family has been here since the late 1700’s, when it was Spanish territory. According to public records, the first relatives to have a courthouse marriage license were wed in the early 20th century-before that, it was all certificates entered in family bibles and signed by the priest/pastor/preacher-whichever was the circuit rider in that part of the territory, and until he came through on his rounds, they made do with a declared common law marriage with witnesses, to protect any children conceived before the religious ceremony thing was done. It all worked, it was legal and it didn’t require any government-putting it in the secular realm/the courthouse has just f’ed it all up...
Hear! Hear!
I am quibbling about changing the language to suit the complainers all the time. See my rant up higher on the thread. (in the first 20 comments)
How can we write laws if the complainers constantly change the meaning of the words to suit their whims?
Probably the least louche candidate on the Democratic platform:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3307476/posts
Still seems a little batty to me.
Happy 7/4, everyone. Sort of.
I saw-and it made me think of some lines from one my favorite Led Zeppelin songs-
“There’s a sign on the wall, but she wants to be sure
‘Cause you know sometimes words have two meanings”
“If there’s a bustle in your hedgerow, don’t be alarmed now,
It’s just a spring clean for the May queen.
Yes, there are two paths you can go by, but in the long run
There’s still time to change the road you’re on.
And it makes me wonder...”
You are likely right about the louche part, but I think he is crazier than a s***house rat...
Let the state do what it does in terms of the legal benefits that accrue to the “married” state, and let the churches do their sacraments. One doesn’t need a church official to be state-married. A church-marriage is recognized by the state today because it suits all parties.
If it no longer suits the interests of the church to have its sacraments also be legal state-marriages, then the church can withdraw. The faithful who want the benefits of state-marriage will need to have a legal ceremony as well as a sacrament.
As far as I understand state law *permits* clergy to officiate weddings and sign state paperwork. It does not *require* them to do so.
I think that varies from state to state-Texas and some other states still have a common law for marriage-here it is a holdover from frontier times when there was no regular mass or service because most people lived days and miles of travel on horseback or by wagon from any sort of town and church, and clergy of all denominations were circuit riders. State licensed marriage has not been around that long around here-I think it should handle contract arrangements for the non-religious-let sacramental marriage stay with the church for those who believe in God-it belongs there.
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.