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.
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.
Next up, I hear Triad’s are wanting their civil rights to marry.
Ok, so without government telling us how we define our own personal relationships, we are doomed. That’s just wonderful. When did the Republican party decide that it needed government so much? I thought it was the party for smaller government? No, it isn’t anymore. It is full of a bunch of self righteous hypocrites who wish to use the same jack boots as the left to push their agenda. It isn’t about liberty anymore, just the power to ram your beliefs on others.
This is why we lose and this is why we will continue to lose. No amount of prayer is going to fix that because even Jesus would be sickened by such beliefs.
My issue is KEEP THE LUNK-HEADED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OUT OF WHERE IT DOESN'T BELONG.
Sure it would exist, and sure it would have meaning — again, not everything is a legal matter.
Moreover, why not let civil suits settle the matters such as inheritance?
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.
Ah, but now you're conflating civil government with religion; I have never asserted that marriage was not to have a definition, or that there was no authority which could define it: merely that such authority was not the civil government's proper purview.
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.
Who's ignoring politics? I've done some work challenging [or trying to] contraconstitutional statutes and I've put some thought into an solution to the immigration [amnesty] bull.