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

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: SeekAndFind

I agree that an amendment is needed-it is needed now, because the government already encroaches on private business bigtime, where it should not.

If I were king, the rule would be-my business, my rules, in a non-union shop. The law of profit and loss will take care of the companies who play the government’s silly games-they will raise prices to non-competetive levels to pay for the endless rules of government compliance.


82 posted on 03/14/2013 11:51:45 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 79 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind

I’ve been told there was a time when employers only provided benefits to a legal designee-people had to name a beneficiary for life insurance you bought at work, etc, and it could be your cat’s aunt if you wanted, because employers didn’t provide health insurance-people bought their own, which is how I think it should be again...


83 posted on 03/14/2013 11:59:10 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 79 | 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