"It's sick out there and getting sicker" - Bob Grant
Posted on 01/04/2013 7:22:21 AM PST by SonnyBubba
Any such recognition can be recognized via civil contract. This is not about equality, it is about control.
Not odd at all. It’s a package deal. All three are part of English Common Law. Suspend one, suspend them all. Obama gets this - most folks on our side don’t.
“Who you marry is no one’s business, as long as you’re both consenting adults.”
So Bigamy is no problem? I should think your wife has reasonable interest in knowing whether or not you are presently married.
If marriage is a moral province, let the church be the sole arbiter of the estate.
Let the state govern civil contracts; if it be only valid between two people, and you can't sign one without invalidating all others, so be it.
I fail to see the problem.
“If marriage is a moral province, let the church be the sole arbiter of the estate.”
So you’d be happy with an Imam telling you couldn’t be married?
What do I care what an imam thinks if I don't belong to his mosque?
You’ve just said that marriage is a matter for religion - which is exactly what Sharia law teaches too.
You can’t get married without it.
Now, if you are arguing that marriage is a state matter, then you can drop your dishonest argument.
We need two countries - one liberal - one conservative. Then liberals can do anything they want... open their borders to every 3rd world country... raise minimum wage to a hundred bucks and hour and drug all their school age children.
Here’s a nice link about the side effects of psychoactive drugs - ALL of the school killers were on ‘em. Yep, and the effing ‘press’ isn’t the least bit curious... With two countries they can ‘marry’ whatever they want. And as many as they want and brother and sisters whatever... Think how happy liberals would be if we weren’t always standing in their way? And how happy we would be NOT to have to deal with them? They could outlaw all guns too - Chicago has shown us how well that works... But hey, it’ll be their country... well - their half.
Again, we’ve had guns for hundreds of years - and schools for thousands. The “new’ thing on the scene is mind altering drugs like antidepressants.
Every one of the school shooters was on psychoactive drugs... If we want to ban something we know where to start... for the children...
http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/the-giant-gaping-hole-in-sandy-hook-reporting/
"It's sick out there and getting sicker" - Bob Grant
You seem be in need of attention or something.
Here’s my view:
Marriage as a moral contract should be governed by the church.
Civil contracts should be governed by the state.
They’re completely different things.
The state should not be in the business of marriage.
Now please, go away.
“They’re completely different things.”
No, they aren’t. That’s the point. You are arguing that marriage should simultaneously be the purview of the church and the state, or the imam and the state, or whatever cult has come along and the state.
Yet, you aren’t honest enough to admit that the state is inextricably bound up in marriage. Why? Because that would destroy your argument. Why is the state necessary for marriage - to ensure that the law is being enforced - to protect people in marriage from marrying someone who is already married - to ensure children receive their inheritance from their parents, to ensure that they are cared for by their parents, that they even know who their parents actually are.
You want the state to enforce the contract when it suits you and turn a blind eye when it does not.
Give it up.
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.