Replies

On the narrow subject hinted at in the story: same-sex marriage - marriage is not a right! That is why we license it! If a man wishes to marry three women then he will not be granted a license; if a woman wishes to marry her vacuum cleaner than a license will not be granted; a man's horse cannot collect survivor's benefits.

We license marriage as we license the privilege of driving a vehicle: to those we socially deem responsible and mature. For many thousands of years the purpose of marriage is to preserve the procreative ability to produce a family, and the family has been the foundation of social structure since before recorded history.

The fascinating thing about those advocating same-sex marriage is that they wish to overturn the popular will of the people. The present case in California is a perfect example; over 60% of Californians voted to prevent same-sex marriage; the activists celebrate when they get one judge to overturn the will of the people. What is the chance for freedom and the will of the majority in a society that celebrates one tyrant who is willing to overthrow that will?

Let each state deal with such issues as they will on the basis of a popular foundation... there should be no room for judicial fiat!

On the narrow subject hinted at in the story: same-sex marriage - marriage is not a right! That is why we license it!

Marriage was first taxed by the King of England as a way to increase his coffers. That was the introduction of Government interference in what was considered to that point to be a religious, or church sanctioned institution only.

In modern times, Marriage Licenses are both a way for Government to "tax" an activity to increase its coffers and a contract between those who marry and the State.

The contract is the license, which is governed by State Laws (which vary state to state) which defines what happens when the marriage is dissolved. Think alimony, child support, division of assets, etc..

The word "marriage" therefore has been corrupted by the State (think: Government) which incorrectly leads people to believe that the Government can regulate or specify who can/cannot get married.

The reality is, marriage is a religious ceremony performed within the constructs of a church. Yes, it is possible to get married in a church without a license (in some, not all states) the issue is the State (Government) will not recognize the marriage w/o the marriage LICENSE which the state requires if a couple is to take advantage of specific benefits such as tax advantages, ability to speak for the other in the event of serious illness or death and the like.

Now, if we Christians were to seriously revolt against the Government on this topic, we could simply do it by getting married in the church and rejecting the "marriage license" and all it entails by the State. This of course also means refusing the 'tax breaks and benefits' which means giving up several financial advantages the State's "Marriage license" provides.

This would put marriage firmly back in the churches where it belogs, and get Government "out of the marriage business" where it's never belonged.

The other benefit would be gays could no longer claim the term "marriage" since any God fearing, bible believing church would never perform a "gay marriage." That reduces the gay agenda to simple "civil unions" (which in effect, is what every marriage is at the State level.)

I've always argued the core issue isn't anything to do with creating "civil unions" and including the same "benefits' as heterosexual couples enjoy today.

For the gay agenda it's really all about corrupting the institution of marriage, and by extension the Church and Christianity.

That's their real intent.