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?
If a man and woman divorce and remarry one or both remarry then I'm expected to abide by their contracts even though I recognize it as adultery rather than biblical marriage.
True. My point is that marriage isn’t just a contract. But that contention is always being made.
“Clanging cymbals” are manifested in clanging symbols.
The ancient Holy Sacrament of Matrimony, aka “marriage”, was first and wholly a religious rite and a “contract” between God and man.
What it has become now, in the USA, is a pedestrian social event, recently turned into a political statement, neither event of any consequence in the Heavenlies.
It is as a disguise on Halloween, unreal pretense and laughable on its face.
Civil contract as a point of some kind of meaningful legitimacy is also a charade against reality. The only valid and quite secular reason for recording a Sacrament of Matrimony would be for census purposes only.
Radical, I know, but accurate.
You’re making the wrong argument here. Instead of explaining how a marriage contract is different from a regular contract because of the duties it imposes on others who are not parties to the contract, you should explain what laws should be changed so these third parties are NOT obligated to abide by any terms of a marriage contract.
Yes!
I think a lot of people are, bizarrely, missing your very obvious point.
They need to read this thread:
Illinois Commission Panel Says Christian-Owned Bed & Breakfast Must Host Gay Weddings
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3502114/posts
Basically: if you choose to not participate in their activity because you don’t think it’s a “marriage” then you can be punished by law.
Thank you. That was one of many cases where the “marriage contract” was imposed on others without their consent.
Bite me.
The same kind of Leftist as Thomas Jefferson thank you. So sorry that you haven't been able to keep up with the definitions and know the difference between Classical Liberal and Marxist.
Please review the rules of this site and self-delete your account if you’re not qualified as a member.
You want some cheese to go with that whine?
In the absence of state law (Commonwealth law actually) Davis's job was whatever the hell the federal courts said it was. And i don't find a four times divorced (and married to the same man twice) clerk to be a paragon of marital virtue.
She had the option of resigning the position if the directive of the federal court was against her conscience to the extent that she could no longer do the job that the court ordered her to do...which she was obligated by her oath to do.
That aside, i still have not gotten an answer to the question of what authority government has at any level to presume to regulate marriage, which is a private matter between the two parties involved.
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.
Her job was to do as the Federal court instructed her. Her actions were acceptable to the court after the court instructed her.
The smart thing to do would have been for the Governor to issue an executive order stopping the issuance of marriage licenses on the basis that they were an unconstitutional infringement on Rights identified under the 10th Amendment.
Now if the US government wants to send in Regular Army troops to enforce the order, good luck with that. It isn't 1861 any more, and the Feds would lose badly.
I hope you are able to discern the generic “you” from the specific “you”; you personally may never interact with them.
“You” are obligated to recognize their union as a marriage, and if you own a company “you” are required to extend them financial benefits, and if you are in the government “you” are forced to treat them as a cople for tax purposes.
That is how “you” are forced to do things when two women get “married”. And your religious beliefs may be against gays. (say,.. like Muslims)
Marriage was (for thousands of years) a RELIGIOUS institution. Now it is a government defined institution.
Stopped right there. Nobody needs to bow to this kind of unconstitutional tyranny.
You make an interesting argument. Gay marriage, as you say, does not affect me as an individual. That being the case, I have no dog in the fight and approach the matter for the perspective of ‘you are free to do anything that causes another no harm.’ I am neither bound by nor a party to the marriage contract of others, gay or straight.
As for marriage and religion, the alternative is civil unions to set the legal aspects of the ‘partnership.’
As an individual, I really don’t see what all the fuss is about. Let people live by their own lights wherever possible.
But that's not what this marriage issue is about. It has never been about "doing your own thing," but about subjugating an enduring culture under a pernicious Fascism.
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.