[FormerLib]

I'm not surprised at this is the least. It is quite clear that these people are dedicated to the destruction of our society and they will use whatever methods they can to do so.

[FormerLib]

PING!

[Egon]

Heh. You gotta give them this: at least they're imaginative!

[Support Free Republic]

Aww man! Enough of the fundraiser posts!!!

Only YOU can make fundraiser posts go away. Please contribute!

[JudgemAll]

This is another way of saying make religion illegal and idolatry of feelings mandated.

[WorkingClassFilth]

"University of Houston Law School professor Victor Flatt"

Another item for the Texas budget cutting list of priorities.

[exile]

Tax Benefits???? It's obvious this guy doesn't have a background in accounting. I'm a CPA, and it's common knowledge that most married couples end up paying more in taxes than they would if they were single. Hasn't he heard of the marriage penalty?

[KarlInOhio]

When marriage is outlawed, only outlaws will have in-laws.

[Argus]

De-legalization of property ownership will be the next step. Why should anybody own their own house when other people can't? It's not fair. Everybody should be housed in barracks with a regulation-size cot, chair and nightstand apiece. This is the actual Utopia these neo-Bolsheviks have in mind for us.

[billb]

Well, that's one way to reduce the divorce rate.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Getting government out of people's personal lives isn't "destruction of our society". And while Professor Flatt is listing the perks that government showers on people who get their marriages licensed by the government (University of Houston (search ) Law School professor Victor Flatt cites social security, immigration, tax benefits and travel benefits as some of the perks married couples receive , he forgets to mention all the welfare payments that government showers on single moms as long as they DON'T possess one of these government issued marriage licenses. That practice definitely has contributed to the "destruction of our society". Get rid of legal recognition of marriage, and the government will no longer be able to bribe women not to marry the fathers of their children.

[Hodar]

It is quite clear that these people are dedicated to the destruction of our society and they will use whatever methods they can to do so.

Instead of being 'me'-centric, think about what this group wants. They want equality. They want the benefits that society bestows upon a married couple, that they are denied bases solely upon the gender of thier mate. When they asked for gay-marriage, the uproar was that somehow allowing them to be married would destroy the American family. I can't speak for your marriage, but frankly, mine would not be affected if a couple of gay men, or lesbians made a legally binding commitment.

As they have been denied the ability to marry and obtain the legal benefits found in marriage (spouse automatically inherits in case of death, spouse may sign to permit surgery in emergencies, Alimony, taxes, Social Security, insurance, property ownership, ect). Their next step is to show that the 'married' group is patently uncounstitution under the equal protection clause.

You simply can't have it all your way. Either we openly and freely discriminate against homosexuals in work, school, property, religon, housing, health and education; or we allow them equal access to all benefits the rest of us enjoy.

[SuziQ]

Hmmm, if this gets wide airplay, it may help to show regular folks just what the agenda of the homosexual activists really is. Most people don't know what the homosexual activists have in mind, they haven't been paying attention because they figured it would never affect THEM. This kind of stuff WILL, and I'm thinking the average married couple in America won't take to kindly to monkeying with the institution.

[Salman]

You mean it really is about destroying traditional marriage after all. But they said ...

Duh!

[gridlock]

Duplicate Post.

We thoroughly thrashed this out here

[kimoajax]

If you think about it, questioning the consitutional basis (equality and all) for the preferential treatment of marraige itself is an interesting tactic on their part. In one sense, perhaps designed to broaden support for their "cause" out to all singles. In another sense this sort of "guilt" theme tends to resonate well with libs.

It will be interesting to see if it is picked up.

This sort of question cuts both ways politically. It would be a great question to put to dem candidates.

[JoJo Gunn]

Is it my imagination, or is all this somehow connected?

http://www.democrats.org/news/200310070002.html

http://www.democrats.org/news/200310070001.html

[Hillarys nightmare]

"A group of legal scholars and gay advocacy groups are calling for marriage to be de-legalized in order to make the distribution of benefits more fair for people who aren’t married, including gay couples."
Right! Distribution of benifits. Oh Yeah; Thats the ticket!!!

[tang-soo]

From the NIV ...

I Timothy Chapter 4

Instructions to Timothy

1) The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.

2) Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.

3) They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.

4) For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,

5) because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.