Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Just mythoughts

Good stuff and thanks for chiming in.

I think it’s a classic case of “God’s Law” vs “Man’s Law”.

And in this case I just don’t think “Man’s Law” should address ‘marriage’.


73 posted on 08/06/2012 12:09:35 PM PDT by privatedrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies ]


To: privatedrive
Good stuff and thanks for chiming in. I think it’s a classic case of “God’s Law” vs “Man’s Law”. And in this case I just don’t think “Man’s Law” should address ‘marriage’.

Oh but there are some who will think so highly of themselves that will ignore the 'warnings' of the Heavenly Father and claim they can do things better.... AND the finger pointing begins from those that jut out their chin when they played the role of Lot's wife.... Hence my tag.

74 posted on 08/06/2012 12:14:04 PM PDT by Just mythoughts (Luke 17:32 Remember Lot's wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies ]

To: privatedrive; Just mythoughts
Well, this brings us around full-circle once again.

The Declaration of Independence, which predates the Constitution and is the rationale for the Constitution, states that the purpose of government is to secure the rights which we receive from the Creator and which are established by Natural Law.

The advocates of the marriage as the basis of the natural family, say that was established by Divine and Natural Law. If this is true --- and I think it is -- then marriage is one of the goods which is supposed to be secured by government.

That's, I know, a sketchy argment, but I think a better, more watertight argument could be made if somebody put a couple days' work into it. I think that's part of what the Manharran Declaration group is trying to do.

Paradoxically, right now we might defend marriage BEST by keeping government out of it (because government wants to subvert natural marriage by redefining it it in a disordered and dysfunctional form.) But in a society which has regained its right mind, I suppose a government could again be estrusted with the defense of marriage, on some level --- at least the level of establishing paternity and inheritance.

Nothing about "Love." Please. This is civil society.

Nothing about "Relationship."

They wouldn't have to use words like "Matrimony" or "Nuptial" or "Husband" aor "Wife" or even "Spouse." They could call it "The Paternity and Inheritance Act." And announce the legislative goal as securing for every child its biological, social, economic and legal claims on its parents. Via some kind of institutional arrangement which would draw together all these claims into one coherent package.

Which, when they get it all sorted out to the last detail, would turn out to be (shhh -- don't tell anybody) ---

Mmmmmmmm

75 posted on 08/06/2012 12:57:32 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("God bless the child that's got his own." Billie Holiday / Arthur Herzog Jr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson