Change? It Begins With Gay Marriage

Put me down as against gay marriage.

States rights. How 1860.

Georgia should recognize California Gay Marriage licenses when San Francisco recognizes Georgia’s concealed carry permits

I’ve been talking up the NRA/HRC legal dream-team idea for awhile. No one wants to pursue the “full faith and credit” angle.

Conservatives fear legalized gay marriage in California and Massachusetts precisely because they are more inclined to believe that the U.S. Constitution (read: Article IV, Section 1) should always be followed. Which is why, ultimately, the question will have to be resolved constitutionally — that is, probably with an Amendment.

or we could go with civil unions for gay couples, because “separate but equal” is awesome, right?

Gay Civil Unions - FINE!

Gay Marriage - NO WAY!

“Separation of Church and State” -remember?

Time for THE CHURCH to keep the STATE OUT!

First, they are not getting “married.” The California Supreme Court can call it what they want, but you cannot make a pig a dog by calling the pig a dog. It’s still a dog. Marriage is between a man and a woman and a law can only change the legal definition of such.

Second, what concerns me is that the we could see attempts for “married” gay couples to force their “marriage” on other states by suing to have it recognized. That is why the only solution is an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That is the only way we can be sure that some activist judge San Francisco, Boston, or Vermont can force their agendas on the rest of this nation.

This whole thing is sad… very, very sad. How did it come to this?

“People should mind their own [--] business …”

Yep, including government. They should leave institutions alone that they didn’t create and don’t have the right to define.

Webster’s 1828 definition sheds some interesting light on what has been known as “marriage” for centuries:

MAR’RIAGE, n. [L.mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children.

2. In a scriptural sense, the union between Christ and his church by the covenant of grace. Rev.19.

http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=marriage&use1828=on

That’d make it awfully hard to divide property. Unless you went back to when traditional marriage meant the women is property. Hmmmmmmm.

Roy
I’m going to have to give a big thumbs down to gay marriage. Sorry bud. There’s no telling what they would try next if we allowed gay marriage. Besides, this way there’s none of that awkward pressure when one wants to commit and the other is hesitant.

I’ve read data that shows almost 100% of divorced people were once married

The government shouldn’t have the ability to re-name its own contracts?

Well at least that would get rid of all those silly acronyms congress comes up with.

Change the law so all marriages in the eyes of the the government are called civil unions or civil contracts and then let churches decide how to perform marriages

Why must you insist I wake up before noon?

Probably not. I imagine everybody thought they were witches or something like that and took appropriate measures.

I haven’t been swayed thus far.

JSM,

When “state governments” first recognized marriage, there were those states that prohibited inter-racial marriages.

Think you still have a legal defense about your viewpoint now?

“Think you still have a legal defense about your viewpoint now?”

Yes - establishment of religion.

I am not going to get very involved in this discussion… I only wish to point out that inter-racial marriage is fundamentally different than same-sex marriage. The prohibition of inter-racial marriage was immoral and quite unfortunate. However, a marriage between an African-American man and an Asian or Hispanic or White woman (feel free to interchange the ethnic background of the different sexes) has absolutely nothing in common with two men or two women getting married.

Bill, you’re smarter than this. Slow down and think about what I have said. I am referring to the first amendment, which prohibits the establishment of religion by our government. By recognizing a “religious” institution called marriage, government did, in fact, establish a solid connection to “religion.” I believe that this could successfully be challenged legally, especially in the light of recent events, and that government should have no direct tie to the “religious” institution of marriage. There are people everyday going through government required paperwork, blood tests, etc., before they are allowed to have their pastor, priest, bishop, or other religious leader marry them.

So, no, I’m not “interested in living in a country where religious laws supercede the Rule of Law.” I think our government should back out of managing a religious ceremony, especially since it seeks to redefine it.

Wait a minute. Why do states require “marriage licenses” if these things are not regulated by the government? Why do they issue certificates of the marriages then? Why are there references to marriage in various legal and tax codes?

If you didn’t want government involved in marriage, you are way behind the curve now. Good look removing it from just the IRS paperwork by the end of this year.

Historically, there are three terms that can describe a marriage relationship: License, Contract and Coverture. Webster’s (1828) defines “license” as “Leave; permission; authority or liberty given to do or forbear any act… To permit by granting of authority; to remove legal restraint by a grant of permission.”

“Contract” is defined as “An agreement or covenant between two or more persons, in which each party binds himself to do or forbear some act, and each acquires a right to what the other promises ; a mutual promise upon lawful consideration or cause, which binds the parties to a performance ; a bargain ; a compact.”

“Coverture” (not to be confused with “covenant”, which implies equal footing as partners with equal responsibilities) is defined as “the state of a married woman, who is considered as under cover, or the power of her husband, and therefore called a feme-covert, or femme-covert.”

Blackstone’s Commentaries (1.442-445. 1771) discusses Coverture at the close of the chapter, “Of Husbands and Wives.” But here’s how he opens this chapter:

Our law considers marriage in no other light than as a civil contract. The holiness of the matrimonial state is left entirely to the ecclesiastical law: the temporal courts not having jurisdiction to consider unlawful marriage as a sin, but merely as a civil inconvenience. The punishment therefore, or annulling of incestuous or other unscriptural marriages, is the province of the spiritual courts; which act pro salute animae. And, taking it in this civil light, the law treats it as it does all other contracts: allowing it to be good and valid in all cases, where the parties at the time of making it were, in the first place, willing to contract; secondly, able to contract; and, lastly, actually did contract, in the proper forms and solemnities required by law.

Our problem is that we have turned “marriage” over to the state, when “licensing” marriage is not supposed to be the purview of the state at all.

Oh, we should define our laws by the Bible. Are you really sure you want that? We certainly need to do away with our current US Constitution if we are going to live the Biblical life. How many people have you stoned, and how many stonings have you attended? Please don’t tell me zero, or you’ve really lost me on this “by the Bible” stuff.

If this is a rock solid constitutional right than they don’t need to worry about drumming up support from the public do they?

Game Fan,

Whatsamatter? Getting nervous now that there’s been a prior USSC decision that might actually affect your “rock-solid” belief structure?

“If you didn’t want government involved in marriage, you are way behind the curve now.”

You’re right, Tek. This is one of those moral issues that slid under the radar a long time ago and hasn’t given people a reason to challenge it until lately. It came from the same mindset that produced blue laws. American society in the 18th and 19th centuries generally held certain morals, and no one challenged those morals being made into law. Now we see how this was a mistake, constitutionally, and laws need to change.

Some Christians fear the loss of moral laws and see it as the secularization of America. I see it quite the opposite. I feel that promoting freedom for everyone also guarantees the freedoms of Christians and those of all other religions to worship and carry out their particular beliefs as they choose. If America is to maintain its heritage of religious freedom, it will be up to the people, not government. Although our government has clearly recognized God from day one, it cannot maintain for the people the values that Christian faith, or any other faith, teaches. If people reject those values that their faith teaches them and don’t live by them, then they’ll be lost. Government does not exist to put moral limits on society for my benefit.

jsm, I’m confused, you say that government has no right to redefine marriage, but is the government going to force any church to perform a gay marriage that it does not want to?

So if the government isn’t forcing a church to marry a gay couple, how is it redefining that church’s definition of marriage? It’s not.

hero, show me in the Bible where marriage is referred to between two members of the same gender.

Jsm

I will say it is a very slippery slope not showing respect for another man’s religion. This is the problem in the Middle East. You have the God given right to disagree, but we do respect minority rights in America.

I’m thoroughly nonplussed by all the angst and the hype and the faulty logic surrounding the supposed “issue” of gay marriage which has suddenly garnered attention by the mainstream media. And so many “experts” go along for the ride which is even more amazing.

Here’s a link to an article in the AJC. If you scroll soen you’ll find my comment regarding what I think are important issues today. Issues ignored by the MSM as well as much of the blogosphere. There’s 53 more or less. And this is just a partial list. Hopefully everybody has their own list too which should be different.
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/shared-blogs/ajc/politicalinsider/entries/2008/05/31/ron_paul_on_bob_barr_hes_calle.html

http://www.BibleGateWay.com

What is a GMO?

GOPeach seems to want to live in a Bronze Age Middle Eastern marriage.

Works for me.

If I am not a part of your religion, why should I care what your religious text says about anything? Should I care simply because your religion may be in the majority and you will bring your tyranny down upon me for not playing along?

Protecting the rights of more people only makes this country stronger, not weaker. It is the things we do that go against those concepts of equality and protection for all that weaken us (as a nation).

Humm, Icarus comes up with another reason to be a Jew.

(collecting stones…)

Mostly the part that doesn’t reveal his real name and address.