Posted on 07/31/2011 2:47:45 PM PDT by Steelfish
Edited on 07/31/2011 5:23:27 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
EDITORIAL A Gay-Wedding Crasher A law professor attempts to use a homosexual rights ruling to defend a polygamous family in Utah.
In this file photo, (pic in URL) Kody Brown poses with his wives Janelle, Christine, Meri, and Robyn for TLC's reality TV show, "Sister Wives." The Browns' attorney, Jonathan Turley, filed a lawsuit challenging the Utah bigamy law that makes their lifestyle illegal.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
In case you were wondering, we are over here now. See post #40 & 41.
It is you and I, and all in this thread, and - unfortunately - that gay couple in Maine. It is all of us. And we all have equal voice - that is how the system was set up.
Why can't we sanction marriage?
We can, as long as that sanctioning is kept in line with the Biblical foundation on which it is based. Once Government moves away from that, then it is no longer marriage. It is a Government-recognized union, it is a party, it may be some pronouncement - but it is NOT marriage. Even if Government tries to call it the same.
Do you understand Natural Law?
Yes I do.
Natural Law has always been applicable in the state-sanctioning of marriage. Why isn't Natural Law applicable here?
Does Natural Law allow gay marriage? No? Then why can Government call and sanction gay marriage, "marriage"? What Government is sanctioning is NOT marriage in any way as defined in Natural Law. Thus I refuse to cede the word marriage, and all it encompasses, to Government.
Do you realize the Founding Fathers ALL believed in the application of Natural Law?
Yes, as do I. And I do not believe they would condone or accept gay marriage at all. They would call it abhorrent and evil, and NOT marriage as God intended. It would not be marriage.
Have you been zotted/banned before and now rejoined FR under a new name?
Nope. Been lurking for about 6 months before I joined.
Will you answer all these questions honestly?
Already did. Now will you answer some of mine?
1. Why should Government get to dictate what is marriage?
2. Why should a marriage only be proper if Government accepts it?
3. Should the church accept a marriage of a gay couple, just because the Government says that marriage consists of gay couples?
4. Why should we leave an institution to the hands of Government if Government will misuse and pervert that institution?
Unfortunately, we're seeing the Government consistently ignore the Constituion, and redefine the Amendments and restrictions at it sees fit. Thomas Jefferson said it best:
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground."
However that has nothing to do with the LEGAL ENTITY of marriage.
I do believe it does.
My husband and I got married in a church, we made a covenant before God
Did the Church consider you married at that point? Do you believe at that point God considered the two had become one?
however we needed a license and signatures in order to have it legally recognized
So you signed a contract with the Government that told the Government about your commitment to each other. Did that complete your marriage sacrament? Or was it an afterthought, a notice to the Government of your actions already taken in the church before God?
Separate things entirely
YES! ABSOLUTELY! It is when Government tries to use the same name as the sacred that the sacred is reduced and profaned.
The marriage happened in the church, before God. The registration of your marriage - the civil union you created - was for the Government only.
You do not need the former (ceremony) to have the latter (legal marriage). THEY ARE TWO SEPARATE THINGS.
PRECISELY. Which is why they should NOT have the same name AT ALL. The former - the ceremony in front of believers and God, is the marriage. The latter is a simplified legal contract with implied rights and responsibilities, no different than most legal contracts with those powers and responsibilities spelled out.
Giving them the same name demeans the institution of marriage; in no way is Adam and Steve proclaiming their commitment to each other in front of a judge a marriage. It's a union, it's a commitment, it's a contract - it is NOT marriage, however.
Legal marriage was created to provide protection of women and children and still forms that function which is why we are fighting so hard to keep it.
Except that, I would argue, as society has fallen (as is its natural tendency and ultimately must happen prior to the return of the Son of God), so too have the blessings that used to be associated with the civil side of the ceremony.
It used to be that morality dictated no sex before marriage. A man would take care of his wife and children, a woman would stay faithful to her husband. However, we've seen that all decay and rot over the last 40-odd years. "Marriage vows" are now quickies done for fun in Vegas. They are something many change with regularity, like drapes.
Government has not done its role of shepherding and guarding the institution of marriage; it has enabled the decay we see in it today. And with the push of gay marriage, we see that decay increasing and spreading.
So my solution: take marriage back from the Government. It belongs in the church - that ceremony before God and all gathered.
Let Government do its "civil union" thing, let it register and control civil agreements and contracts as people desire, for it does that in all other aspects of life (joint ownerships, partnerships, LLCs, trusts and wills, etc).
Get Government out of the marriage thing altogether. Give it back to the church whole and intact, for the church to control. It is the only institution that can be trusted to keep the sacrament pure and holy.
THAT is my argument. It is not about granting gay marriage, or making it easier for them - it already IS easy! Gays can get "married" now - today! It is about realizing the truth of Government, the rot and decay that exists, and breaking out that which is holy and good and preserving it as such. Do not let the stench of Government evil corrupt it, but refusing to let Government even touch it.
I'm suggesting that the government not be brought into the "marriage" business at all. IF marriage is religious, then let it be a religious ceremony.
One has nothing to do with the other. You are claiming that we should do away with Legal Marriage and seem to think it will make everything better. It won’t.
The legal entity of marriage does not degrade the religious rite. That sort of twisted thinking leads to polygamy which leads to abuse. The legal entity of marriage protects men and women and children. To do away with that is not only stupid but borders on insanity.
The Government doesn’t take away from the religious rite of marriage, it can’t so your whole line of reasoning is fallacious.
Addressed to the rest.
The last I heard, this is a discussion forum.
The other day on another thread I made the same proposal.
savagesusie responded much as she did in post 14 above.
The pertinent part of my response to her was:
-----------
Not too bad for a quick response. At least you’re thinking.
In reality, I would expect that debate on my proposal to get government out of marriage would include a discussion on why government is involved in it to start with. Properly done, that should inevitably lead to a conclusion that marriage is male-female in it’s essence, and should be supported as such by government.
Such a debate has to be supported by something more than unfounded assertion and opinion.
And such a debate may reveal that government is involved in marriage in some ways that it need not be.
In any case, I don’t see that on the whole the public discussion is on the right track. The public discussion needs to reestablish the basics, and go from there.
--------------
Too many contribute only unfounded assertion and opinion to the discussion.
Far too many prefer provocative disparagement to productive discussion.
If we are to prevail we must do better than that.
I repeat: the last I heard, this is a discussion forum.
Marriage is BOTH. Two separate entities, one religious one legal.
repeat: the last I heard, this is a discussion forum.
- - - -
A conservative, pro-family discussion forum.
The calling for the dissolution of legal marriage is neither conservative or pro-family. It is exactly what the libs want.
Government doesn't dictate what is marriage. The dictionary does.
2. Why should a marriage only be proper if Government accepts it?
Because "proper" means; "fulfilling all expectations and criteria."
3. Should the church accept a marriage of a gay couple, just because the Government says that marriage consists of gay couples?
No. Red herring. And no theologically based churches do.
4. Why should we leave an institution to the hands of Government if Government will misuse and pervert that institution?
Strawman. No one is "leaving" the institution of marriage to the hands of government. Marriage has always been, and will always be, a sacrament celebrating the union of a man and a woman. For legal purposes, all governments -- even secular ones -- recognize it as so.
Now one more question to you: What does a gay couple in Maine have to do with marriage?
Here's a little metaphor that should clarify the point:
RINOs don't take away from the message of conservatism, so they don't hurt the name "Republican" in any way, right?
You understand my point? The word and all that is associated with it is demeaned when some call an aberration by the same name.
Remember Rush's oft-used saying: "Words Mean Things". The word "marriage" means a union of two people, usually in a religious context. By giving that word over to gay "marriage" advocates to use, then we are letting them redefine what the word means.
It used to mean a commitment before God and all. Now it no longer means that, because the use of the word has been corrupted. Much like the very word "gay". It used to mean happy, joyful. Now it means homosexual - that word has been corrupted so that it can no longer carry the original meaning in any real way.
I do not want to see that happen to marriage.
It’s a pro-life, pro-family, pro-religious freedom, pro-liberty, anti-homosexual agenda discussion forum. If you can’t handle that, take a hike.
Here’s a message for you, keep promoting the gay agenda, your account gets the zot! Shaddup about it already!!
ROTFLOL! Yes, I want the definition to go back to what it was before statists like you tried to turn it into some bureaucratic, licensed affair! Let's take it back to the churches where it belongs!
Tell me, if Jesus were walking the earth today in the flesh and Congress decided to put into place some definition of marriage, would you tell Jesus that He should bow to the State? Does Render Unto Caesar include those things about which Jesus taught (e.g., marriage)?
Once again, we see that where the government gets its nose into the tent, we soon get the hump.
I haven’t read the thread, but I’m guessing that KrisKrinkle and FromTheSidelines expressed views similar to mine, and since you gave them a warning, I imagine I should take it as directed toward me, too. (I didn’t see those until after my last post.)
But I don’t at all support gay marriage. My point is that it’s the government pushing gay marriage, and if marriage were left to the churches, it wouldn’t be an issue.
But if that’s out of bounds, then okay.
Sorry I didn’t ping you here when I mentioned you.
So you support gay marriage. From Merriam Webster's dictionary:
1: a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock
c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3: an intimate or close union
The dictionary now defines marriage to include same-sex unions. Do you accept marriage as that? I do not.
Because "proper" means; "fulfilling all expectations and criteria."
Is a commitment in the church, before God and all gathered, not fulling all the expectations and criteria of God and the church? No? We need to wait for a signed piece of paper from the Government to complete it?
Then we have, in fact, given Government dominion and power over marriage.
No. Red herring. And no theologically based churches do.
But the dictionary - which dictates what marriage is, according to you, does. So the church is wrong, because it disagrees with the dictionary?
Now one more question to you: What does a gay couple in Maine have to do with marriage?
Because for a short time, gay marriage existed in Maine - per the dictionary definition of the word.
I refuse to recognize such unions as marriage; they are a union, and a civil one at that, but they are NOT marriage. Am I "hung up" on a word? Perhaps. But words mean things. If we use one word for marriage, and the evil, abhorrent thing that Government does uses the same word, then it becomes that much harder to draw a line between Christ, the church, and the secular world.
Words have meanings. Reserve and protect those which relate to the most sacred that we have.
WHERE did I promote the gay agenda? Can you let me know where I erred? Show the words I wrote that do that which you accuse me of?
Seriously, I’m interested to know...
I’m not going to argue with you about this. Either get off the topic or get lost!
Priceless!
Whenever social conservatives such as myself (and Reaganaut) defend the traditional institution of marriage, we can always count on at least one atheist libertarian calling us "statists."
Congrats!
You did your duty.
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.