Posted on 06/17/2013 7:18:47 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
No. The First Amendment precludes that. No wonder you come across like you have no clue what you are talking about...
Marriage exists, obviously. I married my Wife and would have done so regardless of what the government wanted. In fact, not having to get a Marriage License would have made it easier for a young couple starting out.
That you appear to WANT government involved in your marriage says a lot about you, again... None of it good.
No, America is trending on libertine and freedom without responsibility.
There has never been a time in American history when the federal government was not having to decide the validity of marriage for it’s purposes, for instance in 1780 the Continental congress legislated on widow benefits for the military, and it continued to update those laws without interruption, 1794, 1798, 1802, and on and on.
So atheists are out of luck, and gay churches and Islam gets gay marriage and polygamy according to you.
Something that you repeatedly promote, yet ignore when confronted on it.
Paying out disbursements of earned pay from deceased military members is not legislating marriage.
You fail in the most epic ways possible.
Earned pay? One man single, one married, both die, only one has a legally defined widow, and she receives consideration, that still applies in 2013, who gets the widow pension, the gay partner, all 4 wives?
He’s gone on like this for days. Read some of the other posts. He doesn’t like being reminded that the constitution hadn’t been ratified in 1780. Seriously...he will troll the hell out of you if you let him.
I know. This is an old dance... He never comes up with anything new.
There is only so much room on the one page of that MS Word doc that he cuts and pastes most of his crap from.
LOL...
Come to think of it, there are a couple of trolls here that bear all the markings of badly written quasi-heuristic shell scripts. ;-)
You should read the post "for instance in 1780 the Continental congress legislated on widow benefits for the military, and it continued to update those laws without interruption, 1794, 1798, 1802, and on and on."
You may be winning the gay marriage war, but you sure aren't very convincing here, among conservatives.
Post 85 was new, I notice that you avoided it, just as you avoid every substantive flaw pointed out in your agenda.
That's contract law though. Has nothing to do with marriage I could have just as easily signed it over to the NRA.
Still doesn't make it relevant.
Why do you do that, you are talking about life insurance, not a widow’s pension, or on base housing or medical or all the other categories of ‘married’ and the military or federal employment.
You do that kind of thing over and over, you just make up something else and pretend that is the question, nobody is more evasive and secretive than libertarians.
“”There has never been a time in American history when the federal government was not having to decide the validity of marriage for it’s purposes, for instance in 1780 the Continental congress legislated on widow benefits for the military, and it continued to update those laws without interruption, 1794, 1798, 1802, and on and on.””
“”Earned pay? One man single, one married, both die, only one has a legally defined widow, and she receives consideration, that still applies in 2013, who gets the widow pension, the gay partner, all 4 wives?””
That is nothing more than contract law. You and your employer could agree that all of your benefits go to your cat.
Has very little to do with marriage.
You are fighting awfully hard to keep the legal framework that is currently allowing gays to re-write a religious institution.
Why is that?
The military does not give benefits to your cat, only your married spouse, earlier you wanted that defined only by religion, now you want it to be anybody and everything, just write up a piece of paper and now the government has to give widow benefits to your cat, or gay lover, or your multiple wives.
You are fighting awfully hard to prevent conservatives from stopping this march of gay marriage and the polygamy to follow.
You incredibly dishonest arguments of ending marriage to save it, by just letting each individual define it for themselves, are childish.
Do something that you have never done, tell us how you disagree with this (below) as things stand today, not in some theoretical future.
1.3 Personal Relationships
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.
“Come to think of it, there are a couple of trolls here that bear all the markings of badly written quasi-heuristic shell scripts. ;-)”
There are organizations that pay people all day to troll and disrupt grassroot conservative message boards and also to shape political discourse.
Romney’s people had them in droves for two primaries.
I wouldn’t doubt there is a word doc for them to cut-and-paste from.
Captain Cut-n-Paste just won’t give up. And I’m still hedging my bets that there is more poorly coded script to him than actual living troll.
LOL, you are one cowardly troll, you have nothing to say, but you will hide out and make insults against people, classic libertarianism, a childish, contradictory fantasy.
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.