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

To: ansel12
When did the state not define legal marriage in America?

Just because the state has defined it doesn't mean it should be the one defining it. (i.e. just because some government agent claims the authority to do something does not mean that he has such authority.)

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

You're argument is flawed, of course: the perfectly righteous has no need of a law, for the law is for the unrighteous.
If the general society is generally righteous then there is little need for [much] law, but increasing the number of laws does nothing to increase the general righteousness of the people, and in fact is counterproductive (See Jesus on traditions of the elders).

If you really want to address the issue of homosexuality then the place to start is the heart, not the law.
(Fortunately, God is in the business of making clean the unclean, of making righteous the unrighteous — Isaiah 1:18)

154 posted on 06/04/2014 12:56:01 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 141 | View Replies ]


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 ]

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