Posted on 07/01/2013 5:26:10 AM PDT by shortstop
Now that marriage means nothing, we should think of new ways to define it.
The Supreme Court last week threw out marriage as understood by most peoples since sometime before Christ was born. In what the president called “a victory for democracy,” a vote of the people and an act of their representatives were nullified by judicial arrogance.
The fundamental unit of society has been changed, not by the wishes or practice of the people, or of their elected representatives, but by the cobbled-together opinion of five unaccountable political appointees in Washington, D.C.
Government for the people, by the people, of the people is not how we play the game today.
And so, marriage has been retired.
The government has claimed it and changed it and, there being no recourse short of armed rebellion, the people will simply abandon it. Legal marriage is no longer in any substantive way what millennia of humankind has understood it to be.
By redefining what it means, the government has made sure that it means nothing.
I’m not saying that men and women won’t pledge their lives to one another, but they will no longer put particular stock in the sanction of the state. Slaves denied access to marriage formulated their own ritual and covenant – they jumped the stick. The American people, now denied marriage as their faith has taught it since the Isrealites left Egypt, will likewise formulate their own ritual and covenant.
Churches will hold ceremonies, individuals will make promises, but the government sanction of marriage is henceforth a cheap and adulterated imitation.
The slate has been wiped clean.
Which means it is free to be written upon.
Now that government-sanctioned marriage is a sacrilege offering nothing more than the filthy lucre of government and employee benefits, new ways to use it will be found.
If the government makes marriage a joke, then resourceful people will make what they can out of the scrap.
For example, if marriage can now be contracted between two men, and those two men can have access to one another’s employment and government benefits, nothing says those two men have to be gay.
Nothing says that marriage has to be sexual. Nothing says it has to include love, of any kind.
If you have benefits and we are friends – or I pay you enough – nothing stops us from marrying so that I may receive your benefits. If I am about to die, and you are my friend, why don’t we marry so that you can get my Social Security survivor benefits?
What is to stop two young roommates, who happen to be the same gender, from entering into a marriage of convenience for financial benefit?
Nothing.
If marriage doesn’t have to be marriage, then same-sex marriage doesn’t have to be gay marriage.
It is merely a contract, an odd status under law in which one person opens the door of benefit to another. Is this a fraud?
Absolutely not.
The Supreme Court has said that all people have a right to marry. Why they marry is their business. There is a traditional purpose to marriage, certainly. But if the court says the traditional definition of marriage is gone, then no one can be surprised by the end of the traditional purpose of marriage.
Nor can anyone protest new uses for marriage.
In the new era, marriage is your plus one. It simply means that, as you claim benefits from your employer or the government, you can check off the “spouse” box, your plus one.
It doesn’t matter who your plus one is.
It doesn’t matter the gender, it doesn’t matter the motivation, it only matters that you’ve got your rights.
And I suggest you use your rights to stick it to them. If marriage means nothing, treat it like nothing, treat them like nothing. Don’t let a dollar go uncollected.
It may be time for churches to stop acting as agents of the state with respect to registering civil unions as a subtext of performing religious marriages.
I see increased missionary activity from the Christians of the global south nations who will bring the Gospel of Jesus to America.
Yes and they will be killed in greater numbers. God Bless their work.
Gov’t employee? Share the LURATIVE benefits with whomever and how may you want. NICE
.....Or start new communities of Christian faith.
correction-—LUCRATIVE
Not to play devil's advocate here, but do you really believe that heterosexual marriage, today, involves any if the things that you list? Puhleassse!!!! Over 50% end in divorce with children caught in the crossfire - they may as well be born out of wedlock.
Homosexual marriage is not something that I, personally, can support. But, I'll be damned if I think that my moral purity is sufficient to tell people right from wrong. I do my thing, they can do theirs. I'm over the social issues - we've got bigger fish to fry. Put me on the Libertarian bandwagon.
So Marriage "meant" excluding gays all along, and was never about lifetime commitments and an oath before the Almighty to build a decent home and family?
Or was it that the government's treatment of married folks was always about excluding gays, and was never really about encouraging the positive social structure of dedicated families?
Interesting.
In reality, all that has changed is that government (unwisely, IMHO) has changed how it will treat same-sex couples who make long-term commitments to each other. They (stupidly, IMHO) used the same term for it as the traditional relationship, but maybe that was just to thumb their noses at religious folk (as our current immature crop of Liberals seem to enjoy doing). All that has to be done to reverse this damage is what should have been done in the first place: get government out of the business of treating married and single folk differently. Then gender-preference in committed relationships becomes meaningless. It is government's refusal to give up this tiny aspect of social engineering that is at the pivot point of the entire argument. Once we are taxed the same, can freely choose who is and is not in our insurance policies (and insurers are freely able to pass those costs on to the insureds), and can have our system to allow medical decisions (like DNR) to be made by anyone we choose, then EVERY difference that the gay lobby is fighting for immediately disappears, and we as a people all gain more Freedom in our lives... sadly, nobody seems interested in more freedom and less government intrusion into our lives these days.
Beyond what we are told, the Christian faith is growing fast around the world. New Christians are counted by individuals while Muslims are counted by country. The numbers for them are way over counted.
I kind of feel sorry for Mrs. Lonsberry.
Just don't mention who was the first governor to sign no-fault divorce into law. Your post will get deleted. It's just easier to blame the homosexuals for the disgraceful state of the insitution of what passes for marriage today than admit both parties have been tag-teaming it to death since the 1960's.
Go down to your county's "family court" one day and ask some of the people there if they wound up in divorce court because a couple of gals in the apartment complex down the road decided to stop driving stick and play house instead. No, what usually gets people into divorce court is a woman knowing that she's all but garanteed custody of the kids and the car and the soon to be second class citizen (i.e., the husband) gets the shaft.
Not to play devil’s advocate here, but do you really believe that heterosexual marriage, today, involves any if the things that you list?”
...mine did. Certainly the marriage vows include “decency, morals and God”. The minister includes that and more as well. So I don’t know WTH you’re talking about.
I’ll define marriage in 2013 in one word-
Whatever.
The IRS will be having fits over this, too many people will save money by filing as married. They probably already have charts & graphs showing how much it is going to cost them. ( they believe it`s their money )
Look for new IRS regulations soon.
Maybe decriminalization would be sufficient. Currently it’s a misdemeanor: furnishing in flagrante delicto.
The repeal could be called the Nate Berkus Law: for lovers of furniture and interior design.
Over 50% end in divorce with children caught in the crossfire - they may as well be born out of wedlock.
It was not directed at your marriage - it was directed at the institution in general. When the state got involved in marriage, it was over. When marriage was strictly an institution of the church, it still had meaning.
>>Just don’t mention who was the first governor to sign no-fault divorce into law. Your post will get deleted. It’s just easier to blame the homosexuals for the disgraceful state of the insitution of what passes for marriage today than admit both parties have been tag-teaming it to death since the 1960’s.
>>Go down to your county’s “family court” one day and ask some of the people there if they wound up in divorce court because a couple of gals in the apartment complex down the road decided to stop driving stick and play house instead. No, what usually gets people into divorce court is a woman knowing that she’s all but garanteed custody of the kids and the car and the soon to be second class citizen (i.e., the husband) gets the shaft.
You hit all the nails right on the head! Our nation destroyed marriage a long time ago, then it turned on the men to destroy us. In a perverse way, I’m glad that some guys can get married without the threat of a DV accusation hanging over their heads for questioning the need for a $200 pair of shoes.
This crusade isn’t over. The ramifications are endless. You will have to accept homosexual marriages in all areas of your life, or face prosecution.
Children will be taught in every grade level in every public school about homosexual sex and “marriage”, and about how it is no different from heterosexual sex and traditional marriage. If you protest, your child will be ostracized. If you continue to protest, you might logically be charged with “hate crimes”.
Your Church/Synagogue will eventually be forced into silence on the subject of homosexuality. You will not be allowed to speak against homosexuality. Think that’s unlikely? It’s already law in Canada.
If you own a business, you must use that business to support homosexuality no matter what your belief system. If you sell flowers, you must provide them for homosexual “weddings”.
Whatever you do, wherever you go, homosexuality as a normalcy will be in your face and you must not only accept it, you must acknowledge and accommodate it. You can no longer ignore it, homosexual “marriage” will soon be the law of the land and that means there will no longer be allowed any barriers regarding it. None, whatsoever.
They proceed to cross up electrical conduit and plumbing pipe to the point where one turns on a light switch and the light bulb, rather than lighting, proceeds to fill with water and bursts.
The old black servant says it best when his eyes grow big and he exclaims "This house has sure gone crazy!"
What if a father marries his son to avoid inheritance taxes? That might be illegal in some states, why, if they love each other? If it is illegal in a state then marry a stepson or stepdaugther and avoid inheritance taxes, yahoo.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.