True scum at it worst

[greg334]

This is a direct result of the Federal Government messing with States rights where they have NO business. Marriage is a STATE, not, Federal issue. As is most other stuff the Feds have been regulating this days. Like Health Care.

NOPE not really even a state right when you come down to it. IT is something that is between two people based on a religious traditions - which vary between religions. NO one in the state can give permission for one to be married to another under the eyes of God, that is too stalinistic when you come down to it. IF you want to give the state that right, which is allowable, then that means there is no more separation of church and state and no more right to privacy.

 

[layoutshooter]

NOPE not really even a state right when you come down to it. IT is something that is between two people based on a religious traditions - which vary between religions. NO one in the state can give permission for one to be married to another under the eyes of God, that is too stalinistic when you come down to it. IF you want to give the state that right, which is allowable, then that means there is no more separation of church and state and no more right to privacy.

I am not speaking of the religious sacrament, I am speaking of civil marriage. They are not the same. Many are "married" without any religious connotations. Every religion SHOULD be allowed to marry whom they chose too. States need not recognize them.

States have long regulated marriage. They put age limits, require a license, blood tests. They restrict marriage between members of the family. So on and so forth.

 

[greg334]

Blood tests?

This is still being done?

Seriously...

The problem is they regulate marrage for the public good, hence inter-sibling marriages are done to lessen the chance of having children who are deformed or worse. The age limit is there so people don't marry children.

The argument can be made that it may not be for the public good that two women or men marry and that argument would be flawed right from the start but it comes down to what do you expect the limitations of the government that you give those right to, to be?

I don't want them to interfere with anything that has a religious aspect about it, marriage is one thing that falls under that category. If there was a religion which sacrifices a virgin on an alter during the ceremony, than yes that is a problem for the public and leads to other issues, both moral and medical but overall there is no need to define or defend the institution of marriage through the state because they don't have that right.

I guess it really comes down to this, if you want to continue to hand over the power and rights that you have to others, then go and support those who continue to speak of controlling people's behavior through laws, because the only way to enforce those laws is to have a larger government who can handle the population.

 

[layoutshooter]

Blood tests?

This is still being done?

Seriously...

The problem is they regulate marrage for the public good, hence inter-sibling marriages are done to lessen the chance of having children who are deformed or worse. The age limit is there so people don't marry children.

The argument can be made that it may not be for the public good that two women or men marry and that argument would be flawed right from the start but it comes down to what do you expect the limitations of the government that you give those right to, to be?

I don't want them to interfere with anything that has a religious aspect about it, marriage is one thing that falls under that category. If there was a religion which sacrifices a virgin on an alter during the ceremony, than yes that is a problem for the public and leads to other issues, both moral and medical but overall there is no need to define or defend the institution of marriage through the state because they don't have that right.

I guess it really comes down to this, if you want to continue to hand over the power and rights that you have to others, then go and support those who continue to speak of controlling people's behavior through laws, because the only way to enforce those laws is to have a larger government who can handle the population.

I don't know if they still do blood tests. We had to have them when we got married. That WAS 38 years ago and in Florida.

I am not handing away rights. Under you idea people with no religious beliefs can get married.

Marriage has long been a State issue. IF I remember correctly at one time in our history ministers did NOT marry people. The State did and the ministers performed a religious ceremony. Many religious fought the issue when governments wanted them to perform marriages. I seem to remember that from a history class I took, MANY MANY moons ago. Hard to remember details of a class I took 45 to 50 years ago.

 

[AMonger]

I stand corrected, you are absolutely correct. My apologies to Mr. Turkey Day and others. Since Mr. Limbaugh likes to use the term frequently I googled, Limbaugh inteligencia and the first link that came up was: Rush on Bachmann: Conservative Inteligencia Are Trying To Take Down Conservative Tea Party Candidates – Daily Rush Limbaugh & Conservative Video Post.

I should've looked into it further. Again, my apologies.

Hmmmmm...so the dailyrushbo people need a dictionary.