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

To: SeekAndFind

The certificate would take the place of those marriage licenses issued by government now-and since the government didn’t issue it, there is the added benefit of depriving some overpaid, unionized civil clerks of a job because they are not needed-more money for parks and to fix the roads.

You brought up the spousal/marriage issues like divorce covered by a civil contract marriage-I’m just advocating putting those issues into the hands of the clergy and common law, rather than a government beauracracy.

On a related but lighter note-when her husband worked in El Paso, my grandmother had a friend who was an orthodox Jew. When the husband wanted a divorce, the return of things like dowries, separate possessions, that are dictated by the Torah came into play, secular law be damned.


78 posted on 03/14/2013 11:28:17 AM PDT by Texan5 ("You've got to saddle up your boys, you've got to draw a hard line"...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies ]


To: Texan5

RE: The certificate would take the place of those marriage licenses issued by government now-and since the government didn’t issue it

My point is this — just because the government did not issue it, does not mean that they are out of the business entirely.

When one has to “recognize” something, that implies one DECIDES to make it legal and legitimate.

I’m not sure how that solves the problem of churches and religious institutions and devout businessmen being forced to recognize gay marriages or even polygamy ( if God forbid, that ever comes into play ).

Our constitution has the “equal Protection” clause which liberals have redefined to mean many things other than what it was originally intended for.

Say, a gay man sues a Christian employer because he refuses to provide medical benefits for his spouse because the employer does not believe in gay marriage....

How does the government ( which is still in the business of marriage recognition, but not issuing ) react to this?

The gay man can argue that if you recognize my marriage and their marriage, by law, I need equal protection and you still have to force my employer to provide my “spouse” benefits.

This still does not solve the problem Rand Paul says he wants to solve.

Unless we do one thing -— WE ADD AN AMENDMENT TO SAY THAT NO COMPANIES OR BUSINESSES WILL BE FORCED TO RECOGNIZE MARRIAGES THEIR CONSCIENCES AND RELIGION TELL THEM NOT TO.

I can see how this will cause a huge backlash in our courts.


79 posted on 03/14/2013 11:38:50 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies ]

To: Texan5

put divorce in the clergy, er what about two people from different religions?

Ok then do you seriously think after having kids that I woudl listen to a guy years later who never married me because he;s now dead and he;s telling me to not see my kids.

yea right, dream on, that is what anarchy is about, so if there is o law protecting this then it;s one for all and a lots of bad temper\\

I wish people would wake the hell up and stop repeating what sounds good


110 posted on 03/14/2013 5:08:29 PM PDT by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | 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