State Can't Ban Living Together, Judge Rules

I see no problem with slavery in certain realms. For instance, if a man were to steal something from another man, he should be brought to trial, and if found guilty, he should pay back the value of what was stolen four fold. If he could not pay, then he would become a 'slave' to that man until his debt to that man was paid off. The 'slave owner' would be required to provide food, shelter, and clothing to the slave along with compassion so as to win the slaves heart away from doing that which is considered wrong.

Another instance would be prisoners of war. They could be held as prisoners of the government and made to work in the land to help 'pay the debt' of war. When the cost of the war had been 'replenished' to the Treasury, then the captives would be released back to their homelands.

You see, we may have passed a law or amendment abolishing slavery, but that doesn't mean it has ended. Every person in an American jail has lost his rights as a free man (although that could be argued otherwise). He must remain a slave to the judicial system until his 'debt to society' has been paid in full.

What I'd be more concerned about is the other slavery in America. Our lust to be 'slaves to sin'. We are slowly giving up our 'rights endowed to us by our Creator', to be slaves to the sins of fornication, adultery, sexual immorality, greed, debauchery, drunkeness, slander, malice, rage, envy and the like.

For that we won't have to worry about the the American judicial system punishing us, God will not be mocked, a man reaps what he sows.

I think gunsofaugust was talking about people who were living together in fornication only.

His view is no different than the view of almost all Americans until the free sex movement of the 1960s. Most people still do not want their son or daughter to shack up instead of marrying.

Unless they are a non-Christian, at least I know the Catholic church is strongly opposed to fornication and adultery.

This free sex movement was promoted by the far left, not by conservatives. Laws based upon moral principles were normal under our Constitution from 1787 until the 1960s and 1970s, so it is not as if it is some kind of extremist position, quite the contrary, it was not contrary to the Constitution for almost 200 years.

These laws were not removed by vote, but by judicial decree by activist judges.

Have a good day.

You can't have freedom if you don't have the freedom to make wrong choices. Wrong choices that really only affect yourself. Causing others harm that are not willing participants is a different issue.

That's why we have free will. Without it, everything else is meaningless.

And as far as the point I was making, you know what I was referring to. Black slaves, not criminals, becoming other mens property. My reply was to someone who said the founding fathers interpretation of their own constitution was basically infallible. Black slaves, thought of as property, is a glaring example of the opposite.

We always have the freedom to make wrong choices. But there are consequences for all of our choices, good and bad. I have the freedom to rob a bank. That is my free will to make that decision. But seeing as that is against the law, there will be consequences.

Since we do not live in a vacuume, very rarely will 'wrong choices' not affect someone else. For 20 years I smoked. Not around the family. Never in the house. Only at work in my truck, alone. I have the right to smoke in America. It is legal to smoke in America. I was responsible by only smoking when alone, and never in a public place. Did this 'choice' affect anyone?

I had freedom to choose that path. It really had nothing to do whether smoking was legal or not. I assumed it would not hurt anybody. If I where to tell you that the Docs only gave 2 more years at most to live with this lung cancer I have, would you think anyone other than myself has been affected? Ask my wife if she's affected. What about my 12 & 6 yr old?

This law of 201 years was passed for a reason. The wise men of old, after fighting for freedom and liberty, decided that two consenting adults should not lawfully be allowed to live together without being married. Is there anything in their wise minds that could have fortold what the consequences of living together outside of marriage may result in? Could they see the harm to others by choosing this avenue of behavior?

As far as the slave issue, I won't say the Constitution is infallible. But there was not a law or amendment in the Constitution stating that the owning of Black slaves as property was righteous and true. When they realized they needed a law or amendent stating that it was wrong to own Black slaves as property, they put one in it.

Such is the case with this 201 year old law. At some point, legislators realized a need for it by looking at the results of not having it. Hopefully, the higher courts will agree with these wise old men.

If not, how long will it be before a group of people don't see the relevance of the 13th Amendent, and use an activist group of people to get it tossed out?

Let's hope for at least 201 more years.

I prefer the intended Constitutional Republic instead of an oligarchy of judges who violate their role and become lawmakers.

A constitutional republic places limits on how far the government may intrude on individual liberty and has coequal branches of government to act as a check on each other. Don't get me wrong; you could fill volumes (and folks have) with examples of judges exceeding their legitimate authority. I just don't agree that this is such an example.

I understand what you are saying. I just wish we would vote on such things instead of resorting to the personal opinion of judges concerning issues of morality. The judge's job is to apply the meaning of the law as intended by those who wrote it and nothing else.

I agree, but it's a two-way street. I would prefer that judges never strike down a law passed by elected representatives, but I would also prefer that representatives never pass an unconstitutional law.

but I would also prefer that representatives never pass an unconstitutional law.

I a law was Constitutional for 200 years, and the very men who were at the founding convention approved it in their state, this reveals the intent of their words.

A judge does not get to just come along and make it up and rewrite the intent of the Constitution. That is why they gave us the amendment process as the way to change the constitution.

If you use judges as a replacement for amendments, then you have an Oligarchy and not a Republic.

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.