Posted on 03/19/2013 3:23:54 AM PDT by Reaganite Republican
Support of the civil society? You are trusting the government to be on the right side of supporting civil society. We are long past the time when the government decided that civil society was an alternative power structure that was to be destroyed, and that includes the family.
The issue of polygamy aside, most of the current argument is about the issue of various benefits, from the government or the employer. And most of that resolves around the income tax or SS tax. Kill them both, and much of the trouble goes away.
If you assume handing government the power to replace sanctioned mariage
with government supplied SNAP,TANF and a million other nanny state and welfare powers somehow thwarts government’s power... I truly don’t know what to say!
A society where marriage is not enforced by law is a barbarous tyranny, with all power in the hands of the government and it’s mob.
Sure governments can and have misused their very ancient duty to protect the family- governments misuse all their powers and duties.
No kidding. I posted a thread recently on No-Fault Divorce.
Naturally I’m against it. I well remember a time when most FReepers were against it also.
But Holy Carp! You should have seen the anger, hostility and vitriol against the pro-marriage viewpoints.
I miss Free Republic.
Your #43 is perfectly stated.
#81 is well said.
One of the benefits of reading others’ posts is I usually find someone has already said what I’d like to say, and sometimes better than I would !
Do you need to put straw men in my mouth to make an argument? When did I advocate any of those welfare programs?
As for the utter nonsense you follow that with, I almost find the incoherency amusing. A government which doesn’t enforce something is the tyrannical one. What? How exactly whether a government enforces marriage is the deciding factor in tyranny can be considered a logical conclusion makes no sense whatsoever.
You do seem to get it right in the last sentence, but the fact that you don’t understand why that undermines your own argument is pretty funny really. Governments can and will abuse their powers. Every time you expand the scope of that power, you open more areas to abuse.
Sure, if we had that government of angels, we could trust everything to them. However we don’t have those angels handy, and they surely don’t work for the government. Hence we have to deal with the reality as constituted and that means you set up institutions in such a way to to protect you from their abuse. Limiting the scope of government as much as possible is just a logical conclusion that one has to derive from watching the inherent corruption that accompanies its expansion.
True, creating the idea that a couple of guys can “marry” each other is the ultimate “social engineering”, not the prevention of it.
More accurately, I suspect, is that you miss a time when our government was restrained by Judeo Christian values. I do too. But those days are over. Obama's reelection (and probably Romney's nomination as well) were a thump on the head to all of us who thought our government was salvageable.
The Mosque is a church, so is the gay marriage performing Episcopalians.
There really is no excuse to not have a will. You're right that there is no excuse not to have a will (especially if you have children), but the bolded part is wrong, and dangerous advice, in many jurisdictions. Many states have extremely specific requirements concerning the execution of a will. It's well worth the money to have a lawyer draft, or at least look over, your will, and advise you about execution. You want to be 100% sure you get it right, since you (obviously) won't be there to settle any disputes.
But it shouldn't. And if we legalize homosexual "marriage," then it becomes impossible to make a legal case against it.
Christians don't seem to realize that there are natural marriages and sacramental marriages. It falls within the competence of the State to legislate the former. In fact, it is the duty of the State to legislate natural marriages.
We all know that marriage has been recognized in all societies in all times (the few exceptions prove the rule). Natural marriage is the lifetime commitment between a man and a woman for the good of each other, and the begetting and raising of children.
A sacramental marriage is the lifetime commitment between a man and woman for the ultimate, salvific good of the other, and the begetting, raising and salvific good of children.
The State has a natural duty to promote natural marriage, and to punish divorce and adultery.
Homosexual "marriage" is a nonsensical term, worthy of nothing.
Make that, “and to discourage divorce and punish adultery.”
Perhaps we need to beat them at their own game. Why should two people who love each other need a license to have a union?
Let the dumb ass gay activists have state sponsored marriage and we will have Religious Union between a man and a woman. No need for a gubmint license then.
Drop the marriage word.
Please excuse my earlier insult to you. It ws out of anger that I wrote what I wrote.
This so called "government intervention or recognition" of marriage is nothing more than a simple form with basic requirements and a tiny fee. If only the rest of government were so "intrusive"!
I believe if the government were to abdicate its responsibility to provide for even the most basic common welfare (there, I said it) we would regress into 1rst cousins procreating, freakish brother-sister couplings and worse. This is a big deal and a monumental mistake for our Nation to take this path.
“When did I advocate any of those welfare programs?”
When you advocate weakening marriage.
Government will take more power to replace what marriages lose,IE: with those and other welfare programs.
To pretend that will not happen is to ignore our recent history and all man’s history.
I see your view leading to more government power- to be abused more!
Removing government power in one instance, I’m sure you will agree, can lead to it getting even more power in other instances.
Here, my contention is that removing it’s power to defend marriage will lead to it getting much more ‘welfare’ powers.
Madison: “What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. “
Social recognition does not equal state recognition. Pennsylvania, for instance, did not require a marriage license until 1885. Yet certainly everyone recognizes the marriages that occurred here in the colonial period. Eliminating state recognition of marriage does not mean marriage will go away. Christian and Jewish marriages will still occur. Even now, many people from the lower classes (who, unless religiously compelled) generally don't bother with civil marriage and will often refer to the "husband" as "my man" and the "wife" as "my lady." And society understands that to mean a long term relationship similar to a marriage. Yet the couples don't marry because that would cause them to forfeit whatever monetary gains are to be had from remaining single. I believe it's possible MORE religious marriages would occur with the monetary incentive to remain single removed.
I'm not an expert in history, but hasn't polygamy been widely recognized throughout history? Marriage has not historically always equalled one man and one woman.
I just don't understand why you are placing so much importance upon civil marriage. Since you've taken a CHurch Doctor as your screen name, I'm assuming you're Catholic. If one of your children had a civil only marriage, would you consider them married? Or would you believe them to be living in a sinful state?
“I’d say government has a role in guiding social standards.”
Then you’ll have no problem when that same government changes those social standards to meet current preferences. The government, after all, derives its power from the consent of the governed, and we are learning quite clearly that “the governed” as a whole are starting to support gay marriage.
This is why right-based social engineering is as dangerous as leftist social engineering. You won’t control a government forever, and you’ve already established some very bad precedents for when the Dems inevitably get their turn in charge.
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.