Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So how would Thomas like it if his marriage was recognized in one state but not another? So the Loving decision is fine with him? Ok for me, but not for thee? Leave to the individual states????? He of all people should know better.
They certainly need to go back and look at the Loving decision that allowed interracial marriages, that is not an explicit constitutional right.
It should be overturned because "marriage" is a State issue, not Federal since it is not mentioned in the Constitution. Time to clean up all these Federal overreaches once and for all.
The biggest one is the abuse of the "commerce clause" that permits the Federal government to interfere with the activity of private businesses.
It should be overturned because "marriage" is a State issue, not Federal since it is not mentioned in the Constitution. Time to clean up all these Federal overreaches once and for all.
The biggest one is the abuse of the "commerce clause" that permits the Federal government to interfere with the activity of private businesses.
Then that would mean we'd need to get rid of all of the federal legislation pertaining to legal marriage and the 1000+ rights/benefits/protections associated with that status.
...our research identified a total of 1,138 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges...
(emphasis mine)
Conservatives that oppose gay marriage, I ask you sincerely, is this not a contradiction? Both parties have contradictions, isn't this one of your contradictions?
You want a smaller government that let's people be. Yet, you want a government that intervenes to prevent two adults of the same sex from marrying, despite it not harming society.
The government should not be involved in any marriages. They only use it for taxation. Eliminate any tax benefits for being married since people are now allowed to "shack up" and/or create children outside of marriage. "Marriage" is a religious term anyway. Leave it for people who want it to appease their church.
The government should not be involved in any marriages. They only use it for taxation. Eliminate any tax benefits for being married since people are now allowed to "shack up" and/or create children outside of marriage. "Marriage" is a religious term anyway. Leave it for people who want it to appease their church.
marriage also affects divorce, property distribution after death, children, etc. The government is going to be involved.
The government should not be involved in any marriages. They only use it for taxation. Eliminate any tax benefits for being married since people are now allowed to "shack up" and/or create children outside of marriage. "Marriage" is a religious term anyway. Leave it for people who want it to appease their church.
Thats right, MARRIAGE is a religious sacrament!
The govt has no place in marriage. I dont care why they say its necessary...its NOT, there are reasons we keep religion out of the secular world.
Keep it , most times it's not a religious ceremony .With Bidens America cities and towns can use the twenty five dollar license fee.
Even when a Justice of the Peace marries a couple, 'God' is still mentioned.
Marriage is very much a religious sacrament, it doesnt matter if some think its not, the fact that they are 'getting married', means they are taking part in a religious sacrament.
...the fact remains that the most stable root of morality is religion .
Is that a fact, now? Well, morality, perhaps.
That is, of course, an interesting argument - "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." The Taliban are 100% convinced that they are enforcing a divine morality, for instance. No ruler is scarier than the one who feels he's carrying God's will. It means the opposition doesn't just hold a different viewpoint, the opposition is wicked. If you're carrying out the will of the Supreme Being, any action can be justified.
Morality aside, you can most certainly build a perfectly well-working set of ethics without invoking supernatural entities. The writers of the US constitution took some care to not mention any sort of religion, let alone a specific one.
Quote:
In short an authentic revival of traditional Christianity would be of great benefit to all members of American society , both religious and secular , since the general moral foundation of society would be greatly strengthened .
It would be sad commentary on humanity in general and Americans in particular if it takes a supernatural father figure who'll either spank or dole out treats in the afterlife to motivate to ethical behavior. Of course some will say that you should apply whatever works - that if Christianity/Hinduism/Zoroastrianism is what it takes to make people behave, embrace it. Utilitarianism. I don't know. Perhaps I hold out higher hopes for humanity.
Anyway, what we're currently seeing is a revival of people who use Christianity to regulate the behavior of others. Every single Christian in the country is 100% free to not enter into a same-sex marriage, and if that fills them with a warm, tingling sense of abiding by Christian morals, good for them. It's when they start arguing that their Christian morals need to be applied universally that we need to put a foot down.
It's a great way to fill the churches, though. Tell people that they're getting their reward in heaven by making others change their ways, that'll fill the old collection platter right quick. Whereas, of course, the Carpenter's Son challenges us to change our own ways. But that's, like, hard. Calls for introspection and effort. If a return of Christianity had people embrace humility, charity and love of their fellow man, well... Bring it on. But I'm not optimistic in that regard.
Then that would mean we'd need to get rid of all of the federal legislation pertaining to legal marriage and the 1000+ rights/benefits/protections associated with that status.
...our research identified a total of 1,138 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges...
(emphasis mine)
Imagine the porcine squeals of outrage from the Good Christians if someone were to actually suggest that. As I said, it's only ever brought up as a problem when gay marriage is discussed. People have been hunky-dory with government recognizing marriage since Hammurabi.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annandale_Man
The government should not be involved in any marriages. They only use it for taxation. Eliminate any tax benefits for being married since people are now allowed to "shack up" and/or create children outside of marriage. "Marriage" is a religious term anyway. Leave it for people who want it to appease their church.
So - have your written your Congressman yet to suggest this?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
