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

Skip to comments.

Why Not Separate Marriage and State? ZOT! And ZOT Again!
National Review ^ | 3/29/13 | John Fund

Posted on 06/04/2014 10:19:50 AM PDT by Iced Tea Party

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 421-426 next last
To: OneWingedShark

That post didn’t make any sense, what did you say that will help conservatives actually save marriage law and defeat the democrats and libertarians on the issue?

For instance reverse Obama’s marriage changes at the federal level?


161 posted on 06/04/2014 1:00:31 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Iced Tea Party
Since when is the National Review a "liberal rag"?

Pretty much since Buckley died, unfortunately. It's been Democrat Lite or RINO ever since.

162 posted on 06/04/2014 1:01:09 PM PDT by Albion Wilde ("The commenters are plenty but the thinkers are few." -- Walid Shoebat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

You’ve done wonderfully, lj. I don’t know what we would have done without you!


163 posted on 06/04/2014 1:01:27 PM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Albion Wilde

Yes.


164 posted on 06/04/2014 1:02:45 PM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
I think you're right.

There's just a lot of confusion about 1) what our rights and freedoms are (they are not granted nor necessarily spelled out by any government) & 2) who enforces those right and freedoms (not the feds except by individual cases in federal court).

So I'm saying marriage is certainly a right. So is doing back-flips. But these days, things have become so convoluted that when you say something is a right, many people and certainly the federal government, think you've just expanded their power to interfere with ("enforce") that right. I get that feeling from reading this article.

165 posted on 06/04/2014 1:03:50 PM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

Obama changed marriage policy at the federal level, politically we can reverse him with a conservative president.

We do that on abortion, Obama also reversed policy on abortion at the federal level.


166 posted on 06/04/2014 1:05:07 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Iced Tea Party

Better yet, don’t marry perverts, monitor them, especially queers with access to children.


167 posted on 06/04/2014 1:05:07 PM PDT by Neoliberalnot (Marxism works well only with the uneducated and the unarmed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
-- If it had been only private, then we would would not have had to wait until today to get gay marriage and polygamy. --

The government outlawed the practices of polygamy and homosexuality, much as it now outlaws bestiality. A subtle difference from defining legal marriage, but a difference just the same; and a difference that, if enforced, would prevent private polygamy and homo-marriage agreements.

Separate from that, I have been of a mind that the rationale used by these robed clowns, to find a right for homos to marry, is equal protection found in the constitution. Do you know if my thought on that are in fact correct? I haven't studied the various decisions, but cant think of any other basis for striking down laws that prohibit homosexual marriage, polygamy, etc.

168 posted on 06/04/2014 1:05:51 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

I would never take the advice or accept the opinion of someone who has already thrown in the towel.


169 posted on 06/04/2014 1:06:00 PM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Albion Wilde; Responsibility2nd; trisham
Thanks for noticing that.
170 posted on 06/04/2014 1:06:26 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; Orangedog
That's because the libertarians realize that they can't just come out in favor of their liberal agenda, so they try to sidetrack the issue with innumerable red herrings.

 

What is most bizarre is that they don't even try to hide it. It's an us vs. them mindset.

"Us libertarians are right - you conservatives are wrong"

 

171 posted on 06/04/2014 1:07:28 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

Evidently the constitution does allow the government to decide on marriage issues for itself, since the Congress was passing laws regarding marriage, from the beginning.


172 posted on 06/04/2014 1:08:05 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Albion Wilde

“Gay Church of Christ” Unfortunately, I think a rogue sect of the COC already performs that atrocity, along with rogue Episcopalian sects-if I had belonged to either church, I’d have left over that...


173 posted on 06/04/2014 1:08:15 PM PDT by Texan5 ("You've got to saddle up your boys, you've got to draw a hard line"...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods

That’s how it was handled by the Pilgrims in Plimoth/Plymouth. They believed marriage had nothing to do with religion and shouldn’t be connected with a church. Marriage was strictly a legal contract.


174 posted on 06/04/2014 1:09:58 PM PDT by MayflowerMadam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: trisham
I would never take the advice or accept the opinion of someone who has already thrown in the towel.

These are the same people who were running around 160 years ago saying that slavery was the "law of the land" and everyone should just accept it.

175 posted on 06/04/2014 1:11:13 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
That post didn’t make any sense, what did you say that will help conservatives actually save marriage law and defeat the democrats and libertarians on the issue?

I think you aren't reading it.
Law isn't the arena wherein the issue of marriage needs addressed; your post indicates that you are thinking purely and strictly in terms of law and politics.
(Besides that, your political portion shows a laughable nativity: that the Republican goal is at all different from the Democrat. Everything on the Republican party platform is a lie: they have no intention of pushing for any plank.)

176 posted on 06/04/2014 1:11:37 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: HMS Surprise
But, even preachers are ignorant of the concept of marriage, and most won’t even perform a ceremony without a marriage “license.” People are just plain stupid, and that is why we suffer.

Only the people who want their marriage recognized by law, comply with the laws, nobody forces you to do that, and in fact many Americans do have their own private marriages, without com[plying with law.

If you don't care if it is recognized by the government, then don't, do what you want.

177 posted on 06/04/2014 1:11:53 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Texan5

Perhaps you’re thinking of the United Church of Christ. A demonination such as Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United COC.

No “Church of Christ” fits the definition you mention.


178 posted on 06/04/2014 1:12:49 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

> ...defending LBJ.
>
> Any more libertarian talking points against us conservatives you wanna come up with?

*cough, cough* — What?
Defending LBJ a LIBERTARIAN talking point?


179 posted on 06/04/2014 1:13:46 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Yes.


180 posted on 06/04/2014 1:14:26 PM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 421-426 next last

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.

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