Posted on 03/11/2009 8:07:41 AM PDT by SmithL
Well, on Tuesday two people filed an initiative to get the state of California out of the business altogether.
The initiative, filed by Kaelan Housewright and Ali Shams, replaces the term "marriage" with "domestic partnership" throughout California statutes, while preserving the rights of marriage.
Shams and Housewright are students, 22 and 21 respectively, the AP reported.
The next step would be to gather roughly 700,000 valid signatures to place the measure on the ballot -- a tall task.
But hey, they have a Facebook group...
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
This was what it was all about all along -
UNdefining marriage.
Families represent the nature of God - Father, Son, Holy Spirit => Father, Mother, Children,
and this is why the wicked seek to destroy it.
The government should not be in the marriage business at all.
I will so get into the face of anyone standing outside of any business trying to get me to sign this petition - how stupid and such a waste of time and money.
“Of the social subjects which must engage the consideration of a legislator, there are none of more importance than those which relate to marriage, the relations of husband and wife, parent and child, and of inheritance; and there are none on which all civilized governments have more certainty adopted a policy for themselves.” —Bennett vs. Toler, Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1860
“If California no longer offers marriages, then no one in California will be able to give a spouse permanent residence in the United States. Permanent residence for spouses is a federally granted right, but it hinges on a status granted by the states — namely marriage, and not domestic partnership.”
Hmmmmmmm
That’s what really cheesed me off about all this.
Now I’m really mad.
My marriage, legally, will be reduced to a “domestic partnership” and lump hubby and I right in there with the freaks and pervs.
If they can’t rise up to our level, then they drag us down to theirs.
Is that about the size of it, or did I miss something?
Am I overreacting?
Might be true however society has a vested right and a basic human right to define the rules of the tribe.
Prop 22 and prop 8 were the People telling the government how to manage specific issues as is the right, duty and obligation of a free people defined in our founding documents.
Let say - you get government out of marriage - then what..
Society as as much right to create rules as it does to develop speed limits. Simply getting the government to redefine terms is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic -
they cannot change the rules of the tribe or society to be respected by the majority.
As I said yesterday - they are pumping up a lead balloon.
That’s the goal of Satan,
to undefine, and thereby destroy, the family unit.
And the left gladly goes right along with it.
No, you got it right.
How can any government "reduce" your marriage? You are according government way too much power - divine power, in fact. A marriage exists in the eyes of God (or your higher power or your preacher or even just your mother) & netmilsmom is exactly right: civil government had no right sticking it's fat nose in the marriage business in the first place!
In fact, we are today looking at a situation where politicians, for their own self-serving purposes, are trying to equate non-traditional relationships with traditional marriage precisely because we naively - and myopically - gave them the power to do so at all.
Does government have oversight of civil contracts undertaken between people who share economic interests? Yes, government has a duty to adjudicate disputes arising from those partnerships.
But which bureaucrats & which politicians get to decide whose marriage is 'valid' & whose isn't? Do we really want to take that power away from our churches & give it to any of them? Who's to say how future politicians & bureaucrats choose to define it?
I'd much prefer that politicians & bureaucrats keep their dirty self-serving mitts out of that one entirely, thank you. It's none of their darn business; it's God's & our mothers' & those who love us.
Conservatives, and the conservative cause, will be best served in the longterm by taking the bonds of holy matrimony out of the hands of the Nancy Pelosis of this world entirely!
That’s great and I agree with it, but the government intrusion in marriage has not really been helpful.
Look at the state of the American Family. The cash gained from child support, licenses and blood tests.
I married my husband in front of Our Lord. We married each other. No one married us.
I think you might be over-reaching. Here's my 2-cents:
Marriage is a religious institution and should remain thus. The state got involved when they had an interest in knowing who was married for probate issues, child support, polygamy, etc., thus we all had to get a marriage license to provide a public record of marriage for the above stated reasons. It wasn't really a hardship and provided benefits to smooth out the public and court related matters (who's the legal spouse that's entitled to the deceased's estate, etc.).
Enter the perverts. They want to play house and the state, always looking to grow business, decides the easiest thing to do is call their abomination a "marriage", change the wording in a few laws and keep on chugging, screw the majority and thousands of years of tradition. What they should be doing is reserving marriage licenses for those who are truly married, i.e. one man and one woman, and selling licenses to those that want to co-habitate, meaning gays, roommates, etc. In the roommate situation, the rental lease would suffice as a "domestic partnership" agreement; in the case of gays, it's a domestic partnership agreement issued by city hall or the courthouse. If they can find a church that will "marry" them, then have at it, but it's not a marriage in the state's eyes, and the state doesn't care except in the case of "dissolution of a domestic partnership", at which point the state treats the matter the same as it would the dissolution of a marriage, i.e. property disbursement, child custody, etc.
Flame away...
>>Conservatives, and the conservative cause, will be best served in the longterm by taking the bonds of holy matrimony out of the hands of the Nancy Pelosis of this world entirely!<<
Amen!
So, AM ... you’ve tried them all, and found them lacking?
>How can any government “reduce” your marriage? You are according government way too much power - divine power, in fact. A marriage exists in the eyes of God (or your higher power or your preacher or even just your mother) & netmilsmom is exactly right: civil government had no right sticking it’s fat nose in the marriage business in the first place!<
How did I accord government any divine power? They can’t reduce it or redefine it for people who really understand the meaning of marriage.
>I’d much prefer that politicians & bureaucrats keep their dirty self-serving mitts out of that one entirely, thank you. It’s none of their darn business; it’s God’s & our mothers’ & those who love us.<
This issue should never have even been up for discussion in the first place, much like 2A.
I still stand by my original post.
These attempts by fringe groups and government to redefine marriage will diminish the value of marriage and contribute to the continuing breakdown of society.
People like us know what marriage means and how important it is.
By redefining it, the rogue elements in our government and the fringe groups bring the mushy middle(as in people who can’t think for themselves and just follow the herd) over to their point of view.
I see it as a kind of culture war.
Any power the government wields at this point doesn’t appear to be divine.
This is just one more part of our culture that they are trying to destroy.
Martromony is a Sacrament in the Catholic Church. Nothing that those two bleeps in CT can ever change that. The government should be out of the Marriage business. They have made it all about the Tax Code.
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.