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

To: ansel12

God defines marriage not government. When we allow the State to define marriage, it does so for its own purposes. Because the First Amendment forbids the State from expressing an ecclesiastical opinion, its definition of marriage is a secular one derived by the political process. As such whoever has the power at the time gets to define marriage to its advantage or to the disadvantage of groups it wants to punish.

In the case of same sex marriage, clearly advocates are more interested in destroying Christian marriage than they are in adopting it. They also yearn for approval, which I cannot give.

It is time to get government entirely out of the business of marriage. Every single secular aspect of state-defined marriage is already handled by alternative means or can easily be accommodated by minor changes in existing law. Inheritance is already resolved by existing legal structures. We have entire demographic segments in society where more children are born outside of a marriage than are born inside one. Their rights of inheritance are not encumbered by the lack of marriage at their conception, or at their birth or upon the death of a biological parent.

(eg. 74% of black children are born outside of marriage.)

If you scan the website of the Human Rights Campaign (hrc.org) you will see that most of the reasons they give for same sex marriage is related to the tax code. I just heard this morning that over 1,100 specific points of the tax code relates to the government’s definition of marriage. There are 1,138 points of federal law that refer to marital status.

We have allowed the State to make marriage a secular matter when it cannot be. The only role for the State is to respect the marital status of a person, however that person defines it. It is not for the State to express an opinion on that status unless fraud is clearly involved.


25 posted on 06/26/2013 6:54:25 AM PDT by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]


To: theBuckwheat; Outraged At FLA

Some facts, the argument to remove any legal definition of marriage would be the end of marriage anyway, since it wouldn’t exist and the word would not have any definition at all, since it could mean anything from Islamic relationships to gay, to incestuous, to satanic, it would just be a toy word to be mocked and played with for a couple of generations.

Besides, government or a controlling religion/authority has always had to rule on marriage, society cannot function without it, that is why the Romans, the Greeks, the Apache, New Guinea headhunters, people that we have never heard of, all had to have marriage laws, property, children, inheritance, warrior deaths in service, marriage law is not something that politicians cooked up a 100 years ago.

Besides, why waste time on such childish LIBERTARIAN silliness anyway. DON’T WASTE TIME IGNORING ACTUAL POLITICS AND REAL LIFE AND CURRENT LEGISLATION AND ELECTIONS BY TRYING TO PRETEND THAT MARRIAGE WILL BE REMOVED FROM LAW AND GOVERNMENT IN THE NEXT YEAR OR TWO OR 20 ANYWAY, THAT ARGUMENT DOESN’T EXIST, AND QUIT PRETENDING THAT IT DOES.


26 posted on 06/26/2013 7:39:40 AM PDT by ansel12 (Libertarians, Gays = in all marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | 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