Posted on 12/06/2016 12:15:55 PM PST by fwdude
The common meme that is repeated ad nauseam in recent years, especially by those who would redefine marriage to their own liking, is that "marriage" is simply a civil contract ratified by the state.
Anyone even remotely familiar with contract law sees the obvious flaw in this contention. Contracts involve two or more parties agreeing voluntarily into being bound by the terms of the contract, absent any extenuating circumstance or condition which would void it [external laws or lack of consenting ability.]
Why, then does the strictly 'civil marriage' by same-sex couples require others who ARE NOT PARTIES TO THE CONTRACT to abide by the contract terms as if they signed on as involved parties?
This is never brought up, and when I do, it is dismissed outright without a satisfactory answer.
Thoughts?
The whole same sex marriage thing, legally, is high comedy. This is the first time in the history of man (that comes to mind), where a court used the force of law to change the meaning of a word.
It was necessary because all sorts of government protections and benefits were attached to the word. More people wanted in on it, so they went to the courts which are now populated with “less than honorable’ judges.
It’s just the world we live in today. You can actually read about it in Revelation.
What is it you are being forced to do by two women getting married???
Can't figure out what you are meaning by it.
You have to be kidding, right? Did you get lost on your way to DU?
What was Kim Davis being forced to do by two women mimicking "marriage?"
What about numerous wedding vendors under vicious attack by states? How are they affected by even the CONCEPT of faux "marriage?"
I don’t see what terms of the contract that third parties are abiding by.
In the end, the contract from the gays is with .gov. And at the same time a business forms a contract with .gov. So in the end they all are connected to .gov, and government uses its powers to force the business to accept the gays.
What’s not to get? Why does what two people decide between themselves REQUIRE me to:
- provide employment benefits for a person whom I do not employ,
- nullify my right of free association based on their own contract,
- force children to be adopted, who aren’t a party to the contract?
See my post #8.
- provide employment benefits for a person whom I do not employ,
That's a very tenuous connection, amounting to no connection.
That is the connection. Marriage has been adjusted by the state in the past; race, age, etc.
That's my point! That marriage is much MORE than merely a contract. It affects society and makes CLAIMS upon others.
That's why the disingenuous point of "just a contract" is so deceitful. It imposes on others.
That is no connection. Just because the government deals with party A and also with unrelated party B in another issue does not relate party A to party B.
That’s just a silly argument.
Apparently he or she is not kidding, and what does DU have to do with it aside from you evading an honest question?
What was Kim Davis being forced to do by two women mimicking "marriage?"
The same thing she would have "been forced to do" had a man and woman been seeking "marriage" --her job.
Nice try.
Wow! So we now have leftists posting on FR?
Please review the rules of this site and self-delete your account if you’re not qualified as a member.
Apples and oranges. Recognizing the “contract” is not the same as being party to it.
I’m with you in believing gay marriage is an abomination, I just don’t see the points you mention as a contract thing.
The contract argument came up years ago in regards to having to file paperwork in court to accomplish what would happen automatically in law for spouses.
E.g, One buys a house, then gets married, then dies. House passes to spouse even if deed is not updated. To accomplish that in fag world, you’d have to explicitly set up the deed to work that way and file it. Even then, there were subtle differences between “joint tenancy” and “tenancy in the entirety” in some states.
Recognizing the “marriage” as “official” is a whole other bag o worms. It, technically, does not make you a party to it.
Consummation Definition
noun
the point at which something is complete or finalized.
“the consummation of a sale”
the action of making a marriage or relationship complete by having sexual intercourse.
Without the consummation of a marriage, it is ruled to be nonbinding, and can be annulled. Consummation can, and in some cases, results in the creation of a life. All marriage laws on the books were meant to protect the life and future of a child that might result from the consummation.
So this gives rise to the question. How and when can two women consummate a marriage? The same can be asked about two men.
Two women claiming parentage of a child, especially a male child (neither woman has a Y chromosome to contribute to produce a male), is ludicrous. In every case there is a male father (sperm donor or participant).
Only life begets life.
Kim Davis’ job was to carry out the duties of a County Clerk under the laws of the State of Kentucky. The KY legislature never defined marriage as being applicable to people of the same sex, so she was doing her job, per the KY Constitution, by refusing an ineligible couple.
If you say “Yeah, but the USCC found the KY marriage law unconstitutional,” then you’re still stuck with the reality that at that point, KY had *no* marriage law. Technically. A clerk had no authority to issue a marriage license to any couple at that point.
Thank you, Mrs. Don-o.
It’s sad how conservatism has fallen so much into the hands of its enemies even on this forum.
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.