Brethren, Peace be with you.
Posted on 05/03/2015 7:53:17 AM PDT by Teófilo
If, as seems likely, the Supreme Court will shred the Constitution and impose Gay "Marriage" on all 50 states, here is what states could do to nullify that decision.
I have often argued that the state can't "get out of the marriage business" because the state has an interest in it, but I think I have come up with a way that the state could deal with what it has as a legitimate interest, change some labels, legally, and not have to deal with the question of gay marriage, all in one fell swoop.
Granted, it is ridiculous that the Supreme Court would force us into this position, but if they want to pretend that their is no difference between a gay relationship and a marriage, we can break it down in the law in a way that would not be able to call discriminatory:
1. Pass a law that says that going forward, marriage will be treated as a private religious matter, that the state will no longer either license or concern itself with.
2. Create a state-wide "potential birth registry," that would have the same restrictions that current laws have regarding who can get married: which would include prohibited relationship (incest), age requirements, and limit this to one man and one woman. Children born from a woman in this registry would be presumed to be the children of the man registered with her, just as it works now in a real marriage.
3. Create a state-wide "community property partnership registry," that any 2 people, regardless of their sex, or regardless of whether or not they are in any sexual relationship can enter into.
4. When people registry for the potential birth registry, given them the option of also checking a box to be included in the community property partnership registry.
5. Instead of divorce, you would terminate your registration from from the above registries; but if you could not agree on the division of property, you would have a court case to decide that matter. And if you had any children, you would have to get a child support order (which would address custody, visitation, etc.).
6. Any heterosexual marriages prior to these new laws going into effect would automatically be listed in both registries. Any homosexuals that might have happened because the courts forced the state to allow them prior to this law would automatically be added to the community property registry.Basically, what Monsignor Pope and Fr. Whiteford are proposing, each in his own way, that marriage be privatized while permitting the state to exercise its responsibility in the disposition of private estates and the rearing of children through registries created for that purpose. "Marriage" will then be a thing left to the private conscience of those who seek it.
What??????? Even Thomas Jefferson had a marriage license for his marriage in 1772, and as a lawyer he also got involved in divorce law. George Washington had a legal marriage.
Here is a piece on Virginia marriage law: As you can see, even in the early 1600s you needed a license or a bane.
*An act in 1628 forbade marriages “without lycence or asking in church.” In 1632, in the same group of acts that empowered church wardens to collect penalties of one shilling for each unexcused absence from church and that required ministers to preach one sermon every Sunday, it was stated that “noe mynister shall celebrate matrymony betweene any persons without a facultie or lycense graunted by the Governor except the banes of matrymony have beene first published three severall Sondayes or holidayes” in a church located where the parties lived.
Marriage isn’t a religion, even atheist Navy SEALs need the government to recognize their marriage, and the federal government has been recognizing and making law regarding the marriages of GIs, since the Continental Congress, 1780, 1794, 1798 1802, and on and on.
All societies need marriage law, society cannot function without it.
The Muslim church, the Satanic church, the gay church, the Mormon church, the Catholic church, can have their own ideas, but in the society at large, there must be law and definitions.
When that Muslim man’s wife becomes a Catholic and leaves him and wants custody of the kids and part of his pension, she wants a court to serve her, not the Mosque.
All you is TRUE.
If the definition of “marriage” is left completely in the private domain, all you say can happen.
I don’t adopt this position lightly. Since the state has proven itself unable to define marriage correctly, let its role be relegated to be a bean counter of sorts and unburden it from its perceived power of defining new sorts of unions and new but synthetic human “rights.”
In my Church, matrimony is a sacrament; in someone else’s faith (or atheist association) it might be a hog-tie, perhaps even with real hogs. Who is to say? If the state don’t want to say what marriage is, or can’t bring itself to the true definition of marriage, then let’s take that power away from the state.
~Theo
The states do it, the states will be found with unconstitutional law by the black-robed mafia. Quite regardless of what these laws actually say, or what the Constitution actually says.
Besides, the Church will be seen as dictating to the state.
Just. stop. issuing. any. licenses.
We are a Church, not a notary public.
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.