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

To: Mrs. Don-o
Can you cite me one principle of Natural Law under which a government should be given the authority to "license" a marriage or similar commitment between two consenting heterosexual adults?

Does A government have any authority to refuse such a license to a couple who is perfectly capable of being married?

138 posted on 09/04/2015 7:50:49 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("It doesn't work for me. I gotta have more cowbell!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies ]


To: Alberta's Child
"Can you cite me one principle of Natural Law under which a government should be given the authority to "license" a marriage or similar commitment between two consenting heterosexual adults?"

Good question. I guess I need to read more Mary Ann Glendon before I can answer it adequately. Let me just say that married people are truly married even without the state's recognition or authorization, and unmarriage-able people cannot be married even with it.

The role of the state, when it exists at all, is to acknowledge, not to create or authorize, a marriage. With the acknowledgement may come some guarantee of the rights of both parties, and of the children produced or adopted into the family predicated by this marriage. The state's role is basically to vindicate justice to the weaker parties.

"Does A government have any authority to refuse such a license to a couple who is perfectly capable of being married?"

I don't think so. Any government has to operate on the principle of "equal justice under law" --- or so it seems to me.

I'm assume when you say "perfectly capable of being married," you mean perfectly capable of the Marriage Act (intercourse in the procreative form), capable of true mature consent (not underage, drunk, crazy, mentally incapacitated, acting under coercion/duress, threat or fraud) and not already married to somebody else, and not related within prohibited degrees of consanguinity.

In other words, they must be at once capable, willing and eligible.

What do you think?

142 posted on 09/04/2015 8:18:47 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Contempt of a lawless court is not a criminal act, itÂ’s a citizenÂ’s duty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies ]

To: Alberta's Child
Please reconsider your stance against Kim Davis, Ted Cruz and even Jim Robinson.....

 

Free Republic will continue the fight for Liberty and against godless socialism and fascist judges!
September 3, 2015 | Jim Robinson

Posted on Thursday, September 03, 2015 5:39:43 PM by Jim Robinson

I stand with Kim Davis! I will not comply!

more...

149 posted on 09/04/2015 9:31:58 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd (With Great Freedom comes Great Responsibility)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | 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