Posted on 04/21/2009 9:03:33 PM PDT by zaphod3000
Think about it a little more.
Western civilization and it’s Judeo/Christian culture is the only thing that stands between you and Islam.
As you dismantle the family, the building block of our way of life, you are left with Islam.
And why would taking the corrosive influence of corrupt politicians out of the marriage process... directly result in Islam?
It’s your idea, why don’t you tell me how you think a culture without a marriage contract would work.
Rudy is about as Christian as I am, ie not very. Why anyone could take this greaseball seriously after his clownish "all on Florida" campaign is beyond me.
I've noticed that Rudybots who just signed up have been posting alot as of late.
Two people wanting to marry would have to find a church/synagogue/mosque/whatever... and see if the paster/priest/rabbit/imam/whatever would marry them.
If the answer was yes, the two get married. If the answer is no, then they’re SOL... and will probably have to fly to somewhere more permissible to get married (like San Franscisco, probably).
And since there is no governmentally mandated ‘marriage’ document, the residents/businesses/local government can ignore any less-than-ordinary marriage at their pleasure... without fear of lawsuit.
One other thing. This would prevent atheists from marriage.
For the only marriage available would be through religious institutions.
Sounds good. How do you plan to implement it - like who will be financially responsible for any children?
???
Parents are responsible for the offspring they produce.
I don’t understand how that applies to governmentally-approved marriages, though.
If you eliminate civil marriage, you have to decide what to do about: spousal abuse, legitimacy, adoption, surrogacy, child abuse, and child abduction, the termination of the relationship, divorce, annulment, property settlements, alimony, and child custody and visitation, child support awards. . .
Government acknowledge marriage is a business contract.
Legitimacy - as determined by whatever church/synagogue/temple/mosque you belong to.
Adoption - in the same manner single parents can place their children up for adoption... marriage really doesn't figure into this. And if you want to adopt, why would private adoption companies change their adoption rules because there is no more government-sponsored marriage? These agencies are private, after all.
Surrogacy - how would the removal of governmental marriage affect this? Unmarried women can pay for artificial insemination all they want... right now! Removal of governmental marriages isn't going to affect much of anything on this.
Child abuse - again... child abuse is child abuse. Whether the parents have a governmental marriage contract doesn't change the criteria in the law. Right now, if parents are married, they don't get a free-pass or a reduced sentence. The same if the parents are divorced or never married in the first place.
Child abduction - can only happen if the parents are living separately. If that's the case, then... just as now, the courts will have to determine which parent is the best to raise the child. So there wouldn't need to be a change to the law here.
Termination of the relationship/divorce/annulment - based off the faith of the those married by it.
Property settlements - same as those who, in the here and now, simply co-habitate.
Alimony - see above.
Child custody/visitation - ditto
Child support awards - again, ditto
“Government acknowledge marriage is a business contract.”
Here is where the truth comes out. Marriage has become a business. The government has created tax benefits and special perks for it. So naturally, everyone would like to get in on the action.
Take the special perks away, and marriage returns back to where it original came from... ie - a religious sacrament.
(Not even the kings and queens of medieval Europe, despite being absolute monarchs of their own kingdoms... ever considered controlling marriage law. Even they knew that marriage was between two people and conducted by the rules of whatever religion existed. Yet we, who are supposed to be more enlightened... feel we can do so?)
And yet he still was 1000 times better than the Kenyan Usurper, or Meaghan's Dad.
So, you still want the government to regulate those things; but, you don’t want the government to issue a marriage license.
Sharia law would be okay with you.
You aren’t making much sense here.
If the only change would be to remove the government’s (and by default, the corrupt politicians) hand in marriage... then it follows that everything else remains the same.
And as such, if you believe that having laws about all the rest leads to sharia... then you are currently living under sharia, as everything is *already* that way.
You haven’t explained how the influence of government prevents that.
If all you want to change is the act of getting a state marriage license - what’s the point?
Because then gays can’t destroy the sacrament of marriage by having the courts and lawmakers forceably redefine it for all Americans...
...for the government would not be *IN* the business of marriage.
Except for: spousal abuse, legitimacy, adoption, surrogacy, child abuse, and child abduction, the termination of the relationship, divorce, annulment, property settlements, alimony, and child custody and visitation, child support awards. . .
Just no STATE issued piece of paper called a license.
How are you going to get every state to change their law?
So you believe that this would allow Islam and homosexuals to destroy America and make everyone a gay jihadist, then?
I already told you what will happen - is happening.
Thank God your not running for office.You seem to shrink as you post.I like Rudy.Wish he was prolife.
i hate how you guys are so narrow minded when it comes to rudy
had you guys down south actually gave the guy a chance...i bet we wouldn’t have had obama as president
i’m pro life and against gay marriage but you guys have to realize that as long as Rudy was picking a conservative judge those issues would be supported....
i just wish my fellow conservatives down south were more trusting of us northern conservatives and not be biased against an italian new yorker ...
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.