Posted on 06/27/2015 12:09:54 PM PDT by EveningStar
Mississippi is considering pulling the plug on issuing marriage licenses altogether after the Supreme Court struck down bans on gay marriage Friday morning.
As the state's governor and lieutenant governor condemned the court's decision, state House Judiciary Chairman Andy Gipson began studying ways to prevent gay marriage in Mississippi. Governor Phil Bryant said he would do all he can "to protect and defend the religious freedoms of Mississippi." To Bryant's point of doing "all" the state could do, Gipson, who is a Baptist minister, suggested removing marriage licenses entirely.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
that was not for membership, it was for marriage.
A lot of church memberships really do encourage 10% tithing. It is the storehouse.
need to read and not react so quickly. You missed the point, which tells me you had your response without thinking. You are here to argue
I guess is you define millennia as about 80 years, you’d be correct.
Look what I just found: When the government needed finances, some states began allowing interracial marriages or miscegenation as long as those marrying received a license from the state. So in other words, they had to receive permission to do an act which without such permission would have been illegal. Remember, in Black’s Law Dictionary it points to this historical fact when it defines “marriage license” as, “A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry.” “Intermarry” is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as, “Miscegenation; mixed or interracial marriages.” Not long after these licenses were issued, some states began requiring all people who marry to obtain a marriage license, seeing that they could make a profit off of the Union of Marriage. So in 1923, the Federal Government established the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act (they later established the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act). By 1929, every state in the Union had adopted marriage license laws, and by 1935, all states required licenses except Maryland, which soon followed shortly thereafter. Source:http://macquirelatory.com/Marriage%20License%20Truth.htm
So, if civil licensed marriage has only been the law since 1935, I think Louisiana might be on to something. I’ve heard of a few rural churches that have been doing this or a few years.
Deep down inside, I always admired the Polish people for the reasons you gave.
What’s more important: A state-recognized marriage? Or one that’s recognized by God?
Millennia?
Hardly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_marriage
The point is, nobody has to seek legality for their marriage, it is voluntary.
Yet so many here seem to think that they are coming up with a whole new idea, “marriage that doesn’t count as married to the government, and institutions, and society at large”.
how often do you have to “prove the legality” of your marriage by flashing a piece of paper? How often do you ask couples you meet - most of whom you did not witness getting married, for their “papers, papers please.”
Correct. There would still be “holy matrimony”, a sacrament sanctified by the local church. Anything the couple might feel they need to state for, they could have papers drawn up in a lawyer’s office. The sodomites couldn’t do a thing about it, unless the fedgov is ready to go full satanic and try to force churches to “marry” sodomites.
Interesting idea. Two types of Marriages, Holy Matrimony and Civil Unions.
The government maybe should, but it won’t. The fact of the matter is marriage is a legal term with legal ramifications. Has been for a long time. As long as it’s a legal term the government will be in the licensing and approving business. If you want the government completely out of it then you need to accept a world where your spouse has ZERO legal standing, not to your property, not to your health decisions, not to ANYTHING, unless you go through a lot of paperwork.
That’s really the issue here. Do you want to have to go through a bunch of contracts to gives spouses useful legal standing during times of crisis? Or do you want it to be a nice simple “marriage license”?
Ending or drastically reducing immigration needs to happen regardless but I doubt it will change the federal definition of marriage in the short or medium term. Delaying tactics may help in the short and medium term but not in the long term. I don’t see much of a solution in what you’re saying except maybe in the long term. Which means it might make sense to seek short and medium term solutions at the state level, possibly like what Mississippi is considering.
You are totally missing the real point.
I am saying we need to fight this, not surrender it.
Because the left will never allow you to have your own private marriages in church. They will never allow your church to have its own definition of marriage. They will never stop until they have forced Christians to change their beliefs in their own heads.
So you can surrender everything to them outside of the church and home and your mind and it will not satisfy them.
Obama and Hillary have both said that religious beliefs must be changed, this is their real goal. Satan really wants to make you reject Jesus, that is where it is going.
Ceding marriage just makes their job that much easier.
Marriage has always been either legal, or not legal.
Rome, Greece, native tribes, all had laws concerning marriage, whether they called it religious law, or just law, marriages are ruled as either legal or not legal.
America will continue to have marriages that are legal, and marriages that are not legal.
I don’t really care how consenting adults chose to order their lives. If they aren’t harming kids or puppies its none of my business. Neither is it the business of the state.
L
Marriage is just one more battleground
If it ceded they will just go to the next.
Then change the tax code.
L
Your wording is correct. That’s actually what I meant. Just an upsetting 48 hours so I’m not quite as articulate as usual (assumes I ever was lol).
Correction appreciated. ; )
This is just the beginning.
Mississippi isn’t making any sense, so their marriages won’t be legal anymore? That isn’t real.
As far as the long term war, you cannot start winning the educational/political/voting battles, until you cut off the overwhelming constant flow of new democrat voters into America.
great this idea has been banging around on FR. me included.
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.