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 ...
Did you see post 185?
The first financial protection legislation for the wives of our GIs, passed by the federal government, was in 1780, passed by the Continental Congress, the United States Congress expanded that legislation in 1794, 1798, 1802 and so on.
Guaranteed if states get out of the marriage licensing business, The Dems will just make marriage a federal license and that will nullify all other marriage related laws such as polygamy, age etc. However, that would also make the Congress have to deal with age of consent, numbers of “partners”, familial relationships, etc. And then the SC would have to deal with the 9th and 10th Amendment since they would be in violation of the constitution as it relates to states rights and federalism.
Pop corn anyone?
Amen!
I used to think that. not now, i think they just want to destroy everything good and wholesome. period.
We'll see.
No I didn't, and no poster said that.
I asked you about your claim "If the laws of God are so unimportant to someone that they're secondary to the laws of man, I have to doubt the sincerity of that person's religious beliefs."
Who said that the 'laws of God are secondary to the laws of man'?
What if the couple doesn't believe in Christianity and won't subject themselves to what they are convinced is an outmoded religious marriage ceremony that they find offensive to their atheistic non-belief? If neither religious nor civic ceremony is acceptable to the couple what's left, a handshake and a kiss before a witness? Seems to me that they would at least want something more than that to memorialize their marriage, not to mention the questionable legal validity of such a union.
Satisfied? If not you'll just have to ignore my misunderstanding of #184 and yours because I'm fresh out of apologies.
Actually, “marriage” would just be another class of contract whereby individuals enter into a relationship for mutual benefit. There would be certain state (and I guess federal) laws governing this type of contract and there would probably be a model contract (considerably more explicit than the current one page marriage license) developed for use. Refocusing on marriage as strictly a private contract would also probably introduce the opportunity for introducing special clauses that were unique to that particular marriage. Say, the permissibility of each party having outside sexual partners, minimal sexual intimacy requirements, comingling of property and finances, minimum child bearing requirements, minimum support requirements for common family activities (including children), special contract default and termination conditions.
A lot of this already exists in current law and government practice. The difference would be that, whereas before the government inserted itself into the process early with the screening of applicants for marriage licenses, actually issuing the same, appointing outside agents as officials to solemnize marriages, and cssting itself as a principal enforcer of marriage law, all these actions would now occur in private transactions in law offices (presumably...maybe car dealerships, loan agencies, whatever) and the government would only be notified after the fact when the marriage contact was deposited with the County Recorder. Disputes over contract execution would have to be decided through arbitration clauses in the contract or as lawsuits in the state circuit courts.
Transacting the marriage would take place in an office setting; sheafs of documents would be passed around to be reviewed by the contracting parties and signed, various certificates (health, financial, etc.) produced, fees paid, and the proceedings witnessed and notarized. It would be about as emotional as say...a home closing.
Afterward, the notarized contract would be deposited with the County Recorder’s Office and the transaction reviewed to ensure its compliance with existing law.
Anyway, that’s how I imagine this concept of extracting the government and churches from actually performing marriage ceremonies might be implemented.
We can already see. It won’t stop anyone from Mississippi from getting married, including gays. It just means that they’ll go get their licenses in another state. Completely, 100% pointless.
My point is...why the church?
Ding! they are free to move around the country and marry.
It is a civil issue, they can receive a marriage license at any municipality.
The Church is for a vow/religious vow before God. This ceremony is a commitment before God. If they, or anyone wish to be married by a religious leader, that leader must somehow understand their commitment to each other and God’ principles. It is the responsibility of the Shepard.
With this understanding if they agree on the religious commitment of marriage, then by all means. Welcome please sign and see you in the class....next Sunday. Oh and its pot luck so bring a covered dish ;)
Exactly!!!!
Ding! they are free to move around the country and marry.
It is a civil issue, they can receive a marriage license at any municipality.
The Church is for a vow/religious vow before God. This ceremony is a commitment before God. If they, or anyone wish to be married by a religious leader, that leader must somehow understand their commitment to each other and God’ principles. It is the responsibility of the Shepard.
With this understanding if they agree on the religious commitment of marriage, then by all means. Welcome please sign and see you in the class....next Sunday. Oh and its pot luck so bring a covered dish ;)
Shack up, knock up seems to be the cool with libs.
They will not an should not go with a church marriage.
Let them worry about consequences. Let them learn the hard way about being careful of what they wish for.
Oh I agree. My point was, if they don’t have marriages at all (I assume that s the plan) won’t that have some rather drastic unintended consequences? I fully admit I am not following this particular point closely enough to know.
I disagree
the USSC has affirmed that “marriage” now is indeed a legal matter, not a spiritual one or a religious sacrament
Legal matters belong to Caesar, not to the Church, so we must render marriage laws unto Caesar
If it was a human right somehow protected by the Constitution, why would you have to get a government license to do it? So Caesar has ruled
Spoken like a true Republican. Cowards every one of them.
Spoken like a true Quixote. Reality is reality, there’s no cowardice in facing it. The cowardice is in lying to yourself to make what you’re doing right and useful. It IS a stupid gesture it WILL accomplish nothing, those are the simple and plain facts. The only question is are you smart enough to admit the reality you live in, or will you continue to take comfort in willful delusion.
You would have if your wife's family made the assertion to the hospital that you two weren't legally married and that they were the true next of kin.
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.