Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I disagree. States must be involve in marriage if we are to have marriage licenses. Although marriages licenses have been used to prevent child marriages, bigamy, interracial marriages, same sex marriage, and transmission of disease, the primary purpose today is to legally document the marriage for tax purpose and many other legal actions. The lack of legal documentation of marriage, would cause a multitude of problems.I think you are correct, FactFinder.Christie Vetoes Gay Marriage
Actually I think government belongs out of marriage. I agree that marriage is between a man and a woman but that can conly be sanctified by God.
Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's. In this case I think that is beyond Ceasar's bounds.
"I am adhering to what I've said since this bill was first introduced an issue of this magnitude and importance, which requires a constitutional amendment, should be left to the people of New Jersey to decide,"
Seems like he wants the people to make the decision. And you have a problem with this?
Um, yeah, I usually do when people appeal to bigotry to advance their political careers.
Christy is a fat sack of shit.
I disagree. States must be involve in marriage if we are to have marriage licenses. Although marriages licenses have been used to prevent child marriages, bigamy, interracial marriages, same sex marriage, and transmission of disease, the primary purpose today is to legally document the marriage for tax purpose and many other legal actions. The lack of legal documentation of marriage, would cause a multitude of problems.I think you are correct, FactFinder.Christie Vetoes Gay Marriage
Actually I think government belongs out of marriage. I agree that marriage is between a man and a woman but that can conly be sanctified by God.
Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's. In this case I think that is beyond Ceasar's bounds.
In their decision.
The two judges on Tuesday stated explicitly that they were not deciding whether there was a constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry, instead ruling that the disparate treatment of married couples and domestic partners since the passage of Proposition 8 violated the Constitutions Equal Protection Clause.
Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently, Judge Stephen R. Reinhardt wrote in the decision. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted.
All that Proposition 8 accomplished was to take away from same-sex couples the right to be granted marriage licenses and thus legally to use the designation marriage, the judge wrote, adding, Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gay men and lesbians in California.
In his dissenting opinion, Judge N. Randy Smith wrote that the court was overreaching in nullifying a voter initiative.
The flaw here is that the government cannot demand equal protection to a religious institution. If they had applied that to civil unions, they would be correct.
The flaw in your statement is that "marriage" is not a religious institution (as on only a religious institution). "Marriage" in our society exists in two distinct and separate realms: Religious Marriage and Civil Marriage.
Religious Marriage: Those marriages established as a function of a religious organization. There are some religious organizations that recognize same-sex marriages, there are others that do not. There are religious organizations that don't recognize valid Civil Marriages also if the Civil Marriage occurs outside the dogma of the specific religious organization.
Civil Marriage: Civil Marriages are established under the rules and authority of civil government. Individuals can be married by a religious organization, but if they don't follow civil law, then, as it pertains to Civil Marriage - those religious marriages are not recognized for governmental purposes. A couple can be "married" in a Church/Temple/Synagogue, but if they don't obtain the requisite paperwork from the State that marriage is not valid under Civil Law.
As soon as "marriage" was written into secular law, it was no longer simply a religious institution, it because a separate civil institution also.
If it were only a religious institution, then the government would need to recognize all religious institutions of "marriage" equally - such as Same-sex Marriages performed by religious institutions.
>>>>
And yet another reason to get government out of marriage except for governmental matters of taxes, inheritance, and power of attorney for emergencies and medical decisions....
Again.. all a ploy for forced acceptance and government interference on one side.. and on the other side, not wanting to reduce government's scope
And yet another reason to get government out of marriage except for governmental matters of taxes, inheritance, and power of attorney for emergencies and medical decisions....
Again.. all a ploy for forced acceptance and government interference on one side.. and on the other side, not wanting to reduce government's scope
power of attorney can be handled locally. Inheritance is a right. Goverment should have diddly to do with it. Taxes should be simplified so that marriage or family relationships are null and void, a non sequitor item.
And yet another reason to get government out of marriage except for governmental matters of taxes, inheritance, and power of attorney for emergencies and medical decisions....
Again.. all a ploy for forced acceptance and government interference on one side.. and on the other side, not wanting to reduce government's scope
power of attorney can be handled locally. Inheritance is a right. Goverment should have diddly to do with it. Taxes should be simplified so that marriage or family relationships are null and void, a non sequitor item.
reality isn't just a show on tv, you know.
power of attorney can be handled locally. Inheritance is a right. Goverment should have diddly to do with it. Taxes should be simplified so that marriage or family relationships are null and void, a non sequitor item.
reality isn't just a show on tv, you know.
Oh, government dictates reality?
If you want to file a joint return, have your IRA passed on to your spouse without the tax burden, have legal recognition as family, and lots of other stuff you need a document accepted by the government as proof of marriage.I disagree. States must be involve in marriage if we are to have marriage licenses. Although marriages licenses have been used to prevent child marriages, bigamy, interracial marriages, same sex marriage, and transmission of disease, the primary purpose today is to legally document the marriage for tax purpose and many other legal actions. The lack of legal documentation of marriage, would cause a multitude of problems.I think you are correct, FactFinder.
and we need all that for what?
Same sex marriage is illogical overall. Government should stay out of any discourse on same. It should be a state level issue and right, in whatever outcome may come.
There are three mitigating issues that brought down all the great civilizations of the past, without exception: They are:
untendable debt
expansionism through endless warring
tolerance of all things sexual.
Robert
Robert
Same sex marriage is illogical overall. Government should stay out of any discourse on same. It should be a state level issue and right, in whatever outcome may come.
There are three mitigating issues that brought down all the great civilizations of the past, without exception: They are:
untendable debt
expansionism through endless warring
tolerance of all things sexual.
Robert
I assert that all government should refrain from all issues pertaining to marriage. Marriage is between man/woman and God. Period.
If you want to file a joint return, have your IRA passed on to your spouse without the tax burden, have legal recognition as family, and lots of other stuff you need a document accepted by the government as proof of marriage.I disagree. States must be involve in marriage if we are to have marriage licenses. Although marriages licenses have been used to prevent child marriages, bigamy, interracial marriages, same sex marriage, and transmission of disease, the primary purpose today is to legally document the marriage for tax purpose and many other legal actions. The lack of legal documentation of marriage, would cause a multitude of problems.
and we need all that for what?
The two judges on Tuesday stated explicitly that they were not deciding whether there was a constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry, instead ruling that the disparate treatment of married couples and domestic partners since the passage of Proposition 8 violated the Constitutions Equal Protection Clause.
Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently, Judge Stephen R. Reinhardt wrote in the decision. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted.
All that Proposition 8 accomplished was to take away from same-sex couples the right to be granted marriage licenses and thus legally to use the designation marriage, the judge wrote, adding, Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gay men and lesbians in California.
In his dissenting opinion, Judge N. Randy Smith wrote that the court was overreaching in nullifying a voter initiative.
The flaw here is that the government cannot demand equal protection to a religious institution. If they had applied that to civil unions, they would be correct.
The flaw in your statement is that "marriage" is not a religious institution (as on only a religious institution). "Marriage" in our society exists in two distinct and separate realms: Religious Marriage and Civil Marriage.
Religious Marriage: Those marriages established as a function of a religious organization. There are some religious organizations that recognize same-sex marriages, there are others that do not. There are religious organizations that don't recognize valid Civil Marriages also if the Civil Marriage occurs outside the dogma of the specific religious organization.
Civil Marriage: Civil Marriages are established under the rules and authority of civil government. Individuals can be married by a religious organization, but if they don't follow civil law, then, as it pertains to Civil Marriage - those religious marriages are not recognized for governmental purposes. A couple can be "married" in a Church/Temple/Synagogue, but if they don't obtain the requisite paperwork from the State that marriage is not valid under Civil Law.
As soon as "marriage" was written into secular law, it was no longer simply a religious institution, it because a separate civil institution also.
If it were only a religious institution, then the government would need to recognize all religious institutions of "marriage" equally - such as Same-sex Marriages performed by religious institutions.
>>>>
As you pointed out they are not the same thing. Blurring the line further is not protecting religious rights. It makes for a clearer case to reverse the appelate decision.
Christie Vetoes Gay Marriage
Actually I think government belongs out of marriage. I agree that marriage is between a man and a woman but that can conly be sanctified by God.
Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's. In this case I think that is beyond Ceasar's bounds.
Christie Vetoes Gay Marriage
Actually I think government belongs out of marriage. I agree that marriage is between a man and a woman but that can conly be sanctified by God.
Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's. In this case I think that is beyond Ceasar's bounds.
marriage is a creation of the state... not religion. it is mostly a function of property rights as there are over 1,000 rights and obligations which attach themselves to the status of being married.
"by the power vested in me by the state of _______________"
you can't possibly be saying that people married in nonreligious ceremonies aren't as married as people married in religious ceremonies.
If you want to file a joint return, have your IRA passed on to your spouse without the tax burden, have legal recognition as family, and lots of other stuff you need a document accepted by the government as proof of marriage.and we need all that for what?
Those are all government rules. I state. Abolish them all.
