marriage ammendment

[Osborn F Enready]

Marriage is a relgious instititution, therefore the church should say what it thinks marriage is, not the Federal Government or the State.

This is why marriage should be removed from politics all-together. No more marriage license required, just a willing "provider of service" and a willing "consumer of that service".

People should mind their own lives.

[tman_ndsu08]

God damned right, osborne.


How did the government even get its nose into the business of marriage?

How dare they say what we can or can not do with our lives!

[Saint Vern]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Marriage is a relgious instititution, therefore the church should say what it thinks marriage is, not the Federal Government or the State. This is why marriage should be removed from politics all-together. No more marriage license required, just a willing "provider of service" and a willing "consumer of that service". People should mind their own lives.

You mean like not cheapening genuine marriage by prostituting it to the latest fad of unrighteousness? Good call. Oh...and both "the church" and the state (via the Natural Law view on which Western civilization is based) have already long ago defined marriage, and no urgency on some people's part to destroy our culture shall trump this.

[tman_ndsu08]

Marriage belongs to the church and the church alone.


The government has no authority or any right to have a say in anything that church does.



If you want to get married, go to a church. Leave the government out of it.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Saint Vern Oh. Then you will be quick to tell Chuck Manson and Teddy Bundy--Oops!--that they were within their freedom to decide for themselves how to behave per the alleged "right of privacy" that, by the way, does not exist in the Fourth Amendment.

To say that this argument is idiotic is an understatement. There is nothing bearing a resemblence to mass murder in allowing people to marry. Marriage is a contract between private consenting people that does not affect anyone outside of the contract. Murder is a violent act that by it's very nature is nonconsentual. There is no connection whatsoever.

I noticed you didn't respond to my previous post. Too logical for you? I'll repeat the basic thrust. You say gay marriage would destroy our culture/marriage. I say, divorce in heterosexual marriage already does this to a large extent. So, I assume in the interest of consistency you are for outlawing divorce?

[Saint Vern]

Quote by: tivodan1116 There is nothing bearing a resemblence to mass murder in allowing people to marry.

...because it is not about any "resemblance". It is about carrying your false claim about Amendment 4 to its inevitable logical conclusion. Sorry but that is how it works, and there still is no general privacy "right" or any authority to redefine marriage.


Oh...but murdering our culture is indeed what you are determined to do, so maybe you oughta rethink your indignation.

[Saint Vern]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Marriage belongs to the church and the church alone. The government has no authority or any right to have a say in anything that church does. If you want to get married, go to a church. Leave the government out of it.

True indeed, but then you have to consider that our Founders based their work in building a system of government on the Word of God and the norms of their times, which in fact had "norms" equalling "normal". So the definition is established.

[tman_ndsu08]

The government and the church are separate absolute.

One should have no effect on the other.


Marriage is a church issue. Keep the government out of it.

[Saint Vern]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 The government and the church are separate absolute. One should have no effect on the other. Marriage is a church issue. Keep the government out of it.

Uh...not entirely separate. Churches and church people have all the right in the world to participate in and/or control government at any level they can. The only barrier is against government diddling in such institutions'/people's doings. Nevertheless, the understanding of the meaning of "marriage" is a fixture of Western culture and certainly of our Founders' work.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 The government and the church are separate absolute. One should have no effect on the other. Marriage is a church issue. Keep the government out of it.

Marriage is a moral issue, and the government does have the right to determine morality.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 If you want to get married, go to a church. Leave the government out of it.

I would agree but the government is already in the marriage business. Different tax rates for marrieds, legal protections regarding people testifying against their spouses, custody awards in divorce cases, legal rights in end-of-life issues and a lot more. Government is up to its cheeks in marriage and to get it out would be a LOT more complex than anything that has been addressed here so far.
The very LEAST of the problems would be a severe overload of the court systems when all the things I've mentioned were challenged in court on an individual basis.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Saint Vern Uh...not entirely separate. Churches and church people have all the right in the world to participate in and/or control government at any level they can. The only barrier is against government diddling in such institutions'/people's doings. Nevertheless, the understanding of the meaning of "marriage" is a fixture of Western culture and certainly of our Founders' work.

The First Amendment provides an explict barrier to the establishment of religion, as was the clear intention of the Founders.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. - Thomas Jefferson Jan.1.1802

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe Marriage is a moral issue, and the government does have the right to determine morality.

Then why is adultery legal?

[Saint Vern]

Quote by: RickSp The First Amendment provides an explict barrier to the establishment of religion, as was the clear intention of the Founders.

The First prevents the congress "establishing" a state church, but it places no barrier at all in the way of churches or church people, which is what the Founders were. In fact it forbids legislative and court action against such participation. Determining one's government and representation is part of the rights of such institutions and people. Thus what you said makes no difference to what I said.

[Saint Vern]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Then why is adultery legal?

It is a function of the times and our abandonment of morality.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe Marriage is a moral issue, and the government does have the right to determine morality.

Utter BS!

Marriage has nothing to do with morals.

Marriage is defined by the church alone as a man and a women celebrated their connection in the presence of god or something along those lines.


Anything outside of that is not marriage.

Legal unions are one thing. But they're not marriage.

Quote by: Scribbler1 Government is up to its cheeks in marriage and to get it out would be a LOT more complex than anything that has been addressed here so far.

BS!

I know a quick and easy way for them to get out.

JUST GET OUT!


No more marriage licences granted to everyone. Shut down all the offices of that part of the government.

Marriage is now granted by whoever you deem worth to decide that you're married. Pastor, priest, bum on the street. Whatever you want.

And there are no more legal rewards or punishments for being married. It is only what it is.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Saint Vern ...because it is not about any "resemblance". It is about carrying your false claim about Amendment 4 to its inevitable logical conclusion.

I never made a claim about the 4th Amendment.

Sorry but that is how it works, and there still is no general privacy "right" or any authority to redefine marriage.

Actually there is a privacy right. Griswold v. Connecticut - The various personal rights within the Constitution have penumbras that extend beyond them, and where they intersect, the zone of privacy rights is inferred. Together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, among others, create a new Constitutional right, the right to privacy in marital relations. That's direct from the decision.

Oh...but murdering our culture is indeed what you are determined to do, so maybe you oughta rethink your indignation.

No sloganeering. If you want to make this point, PROVE it. Show examples or studies or SOMETHING that says that gay marriage will harm society in some way. Otherwise, stop spouting slogans.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Then why is adultery legal?

I don't think it totally is. It can be a grounds for divorce. so there's a legality to it.

[Avixious]

Murdering our culture. What percent silver is the spoon up your ass?

This gay marriage amendment is unacceptably arbitrary. Allowing this won't pave way to beastiality, necrophelia, or other perverse things. Sub-governments run this country.

Marriage itself should be terminated, and civil unions in place. Those should eventually run their course as well.

This amendment has no chance of passing. It never did. As we saw in the 2004 election year, it is a political tool. A blantant red herring.

[Osborn F Enready]

(sigh)

Where is Charlie Brown, I have a football for him to kick.

No, seriously....

Saint Vern said: It is a function of the times and our abandonment of morality.

I say:
With you saying things like this, I can't possibly debate you.

Where is morality defined in law, that we are abandoning it?

Where is morality for ALL individuals described?

Since when is any government in the U.S. system, empowered to rule over belief?

Silly.