By what means is he trying to do this?
Interesting and disturbing
- Thread starter layoutshooter
- Start date
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
None at present .... since he is merely a private citizen with no power at this point ..... a condition in which, with any luck, he shall remain ....
Guys, I truly believe you mean well...but this conversation has gone warp speed into Goofyland. Marriage is recognized in law for extremely good reasons. Societies form law to bring sane, rational structure to conduct and relationships which are deemed to be important. No structure is more important or fundamental to society than marriage and family cohesion.
As much as we all gripe about government, it has a crucial role to play in establishing officially sanctioned institutions such as marriage. If marriage was not clearly defined in law, then it could be anything. Bigamy might become rampant. Would that be good public policy? What about consent? If marriage was unregulated, it could easily lead to arranged marriages. Children in some societies are sold by their parents to the highest bidder as child-brides. Be thankful American society recognizes marriage in its law. Unregulated marriage is too preposterous to contemplate. Ostensibly, government pursues public policy which it considers advantageous to the well-being of its people. For 200 years, American society has gotten marriage right. Marriage has been understood to be the union of one man and one woman. Anything else is something other than marriage.
Marriage rightly deserves to be protected in law.
It is not possible to have it both ways. As long as government is involved in any part of our personal lives it will control us.
There has NOT been Federal control of 'marriage' for 200 years.
Just how far should the Federal government go to 'control' marriage? They used Federal troops to do that at one time, go for that again? When government steps outside it's Constitutional bounds you get total control of the people.
gospelriders
Seasoned Expediter
aristotle you nailed it. that kind of deeper thought fits your user name. repped ya
Which idea of marriage SHOULD the Federal government enforce, how much force should the ues and what section of our Constitution allows them to do this?
Control of marriage is NOT a Federal issue. It is, at best, a State issue. That is if one chooses to follow the Constitution.
Control of marriage is NOT a Federal issue. It is, at best, a State issue. That is if one chooses to follow the Constitution.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
I completely missed your earlier comments above (now quoted below) ... dunno how I managed that) - but you nailed it - totally spot on:
With respect to any interface, interaction, or involvement that government needs to have with the subject of marriage - which should always be on a secular basis - it is just that: a voluntary legal contract between individuals.
The institution of marriage itself, throughout history, has fundamentally been a cultural or religious one for the most part .... (and it is inherently a private, not public, matter)
The only way to avoid entanglement in those aspects (cultural or religious), is to confine government's involvement very, very narrowly (recognition and adjudication of disputes of a voluntary contract between individuals)
Speaking of which, I would suspect that you would see a real big flip-flop on the part of those advocating for government involvement in the matter of marriage, were the Supremes to say tomorrow that marriage is constitutionally protected individual right for all individuals, whatever their sexual preference might be - IOW: gay marriage (I can only imagine the howls of indignation)
And depending on what occurs in November, there may be a real possibility of seeing exactly that in our lifetimes ....
Sometimes it might be wise for some to consider very carefully what exactly they wish for .... since they may well get it ..... as well as a few other things in the bargain ....
Unintended consequence are rarely foreseen ...... particularly by those who are blinded by the light of moral clarity necessary for interference into the private affairs of others ......
Precisely.
With respect to any interface, interaction, or involvement that government needs to have with the subject of marriage - which should always be on a secular basis - it is just that: a voluntary legal contract between individuals.
The institution of marriage itself, throughout history, has fundamentally been a cultural or religious one for the most part .... (and it is inherently a private, not public, matter)
The only way to avoid entanglement in those aspects (cultural or religious), is to confine government's involvement very, very narrowly (recognition and adjudication of disputes of a voluntary contract between individuals)
Yup - it is not.
Speaking of which, I would suspect that you would see a real big flip-flop on the part of those advocating for government involvement in the matter of marriage, were the Supremes to say tomorrow that marriage is constitutionally protected individual right for all individuals, whatever their sexual preference might be - IOW: gay marriage (I can only imagine the howls of indignation)
And depending on what occurs in November, there may be a real possibility of seeing exactly that in our lifetimes ....
Sometimes it might be wise for some to consider very carefully what exactly they wish for .... since they may well get it ..... as well as a few other things in the bargain ....
Exactly.
Sadly, that's a point that is largely lost on those who feel the necessity to control the private behavior of others .....
Unintended consequence are rarely foreseen ...... particularly by those who are blinded by the light of moral clarity necessary for interference into the private affairs of others ......
Last edited:
What most people tend to forget is that the only way to insure ones freedom is to protect the freedom of others. Once one person loses their freedoms, we all have.
Just one example of government's ''messing" about where it does not belong. The person that wrote the article done to, at least how I read it, wrote it to ridicule 'fundamentalists' and to argue against their attempts to 'force' their beliefs on others. To be sure, that person's 'side' does exactly the same thing. That is why government must return to it's Constitutional bounds, to stop the 'forcing' of private beliefs of one group on another.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Rightly?
Seriously that's a stretch.
Well then if we want to talk about protecting marriage within the confines of Society and children in order for the protection of it, then why do we have no laws that stop divorce and allow common law marriages?
There is nothing more destructive to the sanctity of the family then breaking of that marriage through divorce. It goes right to the core of break up of the family unit and most of our societal issues we face today.
I won't get into the illegitimate child thing or the common law marriage thing because that would offend a lot of people and that is not the purpose of my example. Rights of the individual and state are.
I can think of very few cases where divorce is a needed thing, abuse is one, abandonment is another but I don't seem to think that either of these cases justify the need for an amendment to 'define' marriage or some laws that are needed to protect the institution of marriage from those who want to be part of it.
Nevertheless, most seem to not get the idea that laws have little to do with the evolution of society, or in this case, the devolution because simply it isn't the case of protecting marriage that I am speaking about but the basic right of one citizen deciding what is good for them without the dictate of others who espouse a certain religion or belief.
There are considerable legal implications involved with marriage, especially in today's society. Benefits, inheritances, taxes, insurance coverages - really there are too many to list. The feds have to be involved because these legal issues can get entangled in different states, and all kinds of problems come up if each state has its own definition of marriage - or worse yet, no definition at all.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
And that's the problem, the issues at hand are not federal ones but state and individual issues so when they get involved and tell me who can be considered my partner or who can access money or control what I do with my property, it oversteps their boundaries and limits my rights/freedoms.
It is not the issue if someone wants to be in a homosexual relationship but that of where the place for the use and abuse of federal laws have to be limited in order to maintain the rights of everyone.
A simple contract and will handles all of this without government interference.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Nope it does not work that way either, there are issues with contracts and wills that do not allow some things to be free of interfierence.
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
Yeah, all that "no stealing," "no murder," "no perjury" stuff, I can see how that's a problem for you. Sorry to have forced that on you.
Being that prenatal infanticide is murder, the prohibition of which being one of those moral/religious codes we have forced on you, should I apologize for forcing your mother to not murder you? You know, Cartman's mother wanted to extend the"right" to abortion out to the 52nd trimester.
--
You know the problem with bad cops? They make the other 5% look bad.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
I think he's just making the point that because on a secular basis marriage is by necessity a contractual legal relationship (which involves things like property rights, etc.) that there will be a potential for some governmental involvement (arbiter of contract disputes, etc.) no matter what.
That involvement should be on the basis on acting to protect individual rights .....
Of course that is a far different thing than defining what contractual relationships may exist with mutual consent between private individuals .... and other similar attempts at right-wing social engineering that are based on religious doctrine .....
This thread has been (and will continue to be) just a hoot to watch ... since it will separate the wheat from the chaff, in terms of where some who lay claim to being "conservative" and for individual freedom and responsibility really are, in terms of government involvement in the private affairs of individuals ....
...... government involvement bad ..... except when I want it, of course ......