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.
PING!
I have believed that we should eliminate marriage entirely from the state and make people enter into corporate partnerships since I was in high school.
I saw this coming.
At the time, they told me the State had an interest because of genetics. The blood tests they preformed at the time served a vital public health interest to inform those getting married of potential reproductive issues that they need to aware of in the case of pregnancy.
If we did this, not only does it completely disarms the courts, it also opens another alternative reason to deny services to a gay wedding, refusing to service a wedding that isn’t officiated by your own church’s denomination or a denomination recognized by your church for officiating weddings.
Also, we get the benefit of introducing tax reform for small business, since every marriage would not be treated as such.
A state can end it’s participation in marriage by simply signing onto a civil union pact, which protects property situations. You can rig up a dissolving of a civil union as well (some divorce in basic terms). You could write this as a law in twelve lines....that’s how simple it is.
History-wise....none of the states had marriage laws when 1776 rolled around....this occurred with property issues and eventually got forced as a ‘solution’ and the ‘license’.
typos too
Speaking the truth, this is not going to pacify liberals and other queers.
We already have similar conditions set up with civil unions, and any entities can draw up contracts that bring legal actions from the courts to settle disputes. What the queers and their satanic supporters want is to run The Church. The first sin was satan wanting to be God, then he got the first couple to go along with the wanting to be God theme. Nothing new under the sun.
None of the “victim” groups wants equality, they want to rule, and even that won’t be enough. They will want to crush anyone who doesn’t celebrate their specialness. After that they will crush their own who aren’t celebrating their specialness enough.
I think this is a good idea. Although the only states that would do this would be the ones with conservative majorities. The lib states would proudly celebrate gay marriage....
In my home state of Missouri they eliminated blood tests before marriage in the 60’s. I thought they were done to check for venereal disease, not for genetic testing.
they look for blood markers, in California, I had to have the blood test in 1993.
I know, but I not interested in pacifying proponents of same-sex “marriage.”. I want to resist them, and this is one way.
~Theo
I guess you were ahead of your times! :-)
~Theo
I wouldn’t be surprised then if they started taking samples in Missouri for testing in the future.
In the end, the only effective way to resist them will be armed force, IMHO. I hope I am wrong. They will not stop until they are dictators.
Close to mine and a bit more complicated.
I say don’t involve the state in your union and it may ery well have a much more positive effect.
The church should insist on counseling before marriage, for the purpose of creating a legal document, spelling out expectations during the union and what happens should it dissolve.
Don’t record it with any agency. Simply file the binding terms and conditions with a lawyer.
Further, no more taking tax benefits that marriage, under the state sanction, enables.
Problem solved.
Taking the state out of the marriage business has been looking like the best idea for a long time.
And this plan, put forth by a Catholic priest, sounds like a good one.
I wish the Catholic Church - and all other churches - would adopt this plan.
Marriage law (and divorce) has become an absolute mess in every way.
In PA, in 1994, blood tests were required for marriage. And, yes, everyone had to have them for the reason you stated.
All logical..except the whole point of the gays and left is to destroy the religious concept of marriage...so you’ll never be allowed to have anything of your own
Blood tests were elimnated in 1995 in the state of California.
http://www.stancounty.com/clerkrecorder/clerk/marriage-license.shtm
Interesting, but the proposed “solution” does not address the expected exclusivity of the relationship (sexual, financial, emotional, social, etc) that is supposed to be established between the two persons entering into these partnerships.
In fact, this approach could possibly be manipulated to support group marriages between multiple individuals and would probably immediately legalize polygamy. The only real restriction would be having the financial wherewithal to support the children and some sort of pre-existing agreement concerning property (both joint and separate). A person, well-to-do (or otherwise) could establish these registry relations in multiple states between themselves and other contracting parties over and over again, theoretically without limit.
Many years ago, I stumbled into this minefield when, during a college class on politics, I suggested that the then proposed legalization of prostitution (never did occur anywhere except Nevada) would eliminate that (sexual infidelity) as an actionable offense between a husband and wife (or to be PC, between spouses). Turned out that the modern liberated women in the class weren’t so liberated after all.
I agree that, given the current political trajectory of gay marriage, discontinuing the use of religion to solemnize civil marriages/domestic partnerships/etc is probably a desirable thing to accomplish. Let the state call it civil marriage, etc.
Have them sign forms and a register without any special convocation of the community or invocation of community assistance to the new pairing. Make it about as interesting as taking out a building permit. I’m sure, given the tendencies of bureaucrats to well, bureaucratize, eventually they will manage to transform the current, relatively simple, process into a full blown ordeal complete with various fitness examinations, pre-counseling sessions, etc. Just consider, as an example, what it takes to adopt a shelter animal in many places these days.
However, if you want a religious ceremony, it is a separate matter and you are going to have to meet the criteria.of that particular faith tradition to get married. And for most traditions, but not all, that means one man, one woman.
Yes, item #2 in this proposal could be problematic for a number of reasons.
But, aside from the USSC possibly redefining marriage, there are problems with marriage law as it stands now in many (if not all) states - yes, even as it pertains to one man-one woman marriage.
IMHO, some one man-one woman couples are to blame for much of this mess. Some have been redefining marriage on their own for many years, and laws have been changed to accommodate their every want, laying the groundwork for marriage to be redefined completely.
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.