Ex-Judge Roy Moore Files Supreme Court Brief to Urge End to Marriage Equality

[TheProgressivePatriot]

This is sickening, disgusting and heart breaking ! There is something seriously wrong with people who think that they have the right to control the lives of other people in the name of their distorted and bastardized version of religious liberty.

Same sex marriage has been the law of the land since June of 2015. Five years. Same sex couples have actually been getting married much longer than that in some states. Society has not been undermined and the institution of marriage has not been destroyed. In fact, in my estimation, is stronger when there is inclusion and the base is broadened.

Furthermore, it is not even an issue for the vast majority of Americans. These same sex couple have just become part of the social fabric and are an integral part of the community like everyone else. They work, they pay taxes, they volunteer, the maintain homes and establish families. And now they and their children can enjoy the same legal protections , financial advantages and social status as the rest of us take for granted.

And what will happen if Obergefell is overturned. No doubt some states- and we could pretty much name then- would halt such weddings. But it is unknown if they would, or could void the marriages that have taken place already. Straight people should consider how they would feel if their marriage was somehow annulled for some bogus religious reason- such as not being married in a church. They should think about how their lives would be upended by a cascade of legal and financial issues thrown at them.

It is clear to me that people like Davis and Moore have serious problems and suffer from something bordering on a religious psychosis. They have absolutely no compassion or empathy for the people who would be devastated by this.

I can think of no time in the history of this nation that a right was established and then revoked. It would truly be a dark day in America if such a thing were to happen . My only hope is that John Roberts, a conservative to be sure- but one who is also concerned about his legacy, and that of his court-would not let this happen.

Ex-Judge Roy Moore Files Supreme Court Brief to Urge End to Equal Marriage

"The Foundation believes that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend for it to protect a right to same-sex marriage," the briefing said.

www.newsweek.com

When Obergefell v. Hodges was decided in 2015, Moore ordered Alabama judges to ignore the ruling. Moore was suspended for that action.

Same-sex marriage was legalized in 2015 by the Supreme Court's decision in the Obergefell v. Hodges case in which justices found that the Fourteenth Amendment protects both opposite-sex and same-sex marriage.

"The Foundation has an interest in this case because it believes that religious liberty is the foremost gift of God," the briefing read, "and Kim Davis was deprived of her religious liberty because of this Court's decision in Obergefell."

"In addition, the Foundation believes that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend for it to protect a right to same-sex marriage," the briefing continued.

so the mentally ill that dont like a government telling them who they can marry want that same government to say who they can marry,,,


wouldnt it be better to just get the government out of marriage???

Would you care to explain what that would actually look like in the real world?

if you wanted to get married you go to a church of your choosing and get married,,,case closed,,,

or you could always go out into nature and profess your communion and end it there,,

marriage is between the two getting married and nobody elses business,,,

Brilliant! Now you just have to figure out how you will sell that I idea to the millions of people who would loose all of the financial benefits and legal protection that now go with marriage.

If it aint broken it don't need to be fixed. We are not going to throw the baby out with the bath water. Speaking of babies, how do you think that your scheme would effect parenthood?

so its all about the money to you,,,figures it would be something greedy,,,

Oh Christ! Did I say it was all about money? Did I not mention legal protections? And you're ignoring the issue of children

 

[progressive hunter]

This is sickening, disgusting and heart breaking ! There is something seriously wrong with people who think that they have the right to control the lives of other people in the name of their distorted and bastardized version of religious liberty.

Same sex marriage has been the law of the land since June of 2015. Five years. Same sex couples have actually been getting married much longer than that in some states. Society has not been undermined and the institution of marriage has not been destroyed. In fact, in my estimation, is stronger when there is inclusion and the base is broadened.

Furthermore, it is not even an issue for the vast majority of Americans. These same sex couple have just become part of the social fabric and are an integral part of the community like everyone else. They work, they pay taxes, they volunteer, the maintain homes and establish families. And now they and their children can enjoy the same legal protections , financial advantages and social status as the rest of us take for granted.

And what will happen if Obergefell is overturned. No doubt some states- and we could pretty much name then- would halt such weddings. But it is unknown if they would, or could void the marriages that have taken place already. Straight people should consider how they would feel if their marriage was somehow annulled for some bogus religious reason- such as not being married in a church. They should think about how their lives would be upended by a cascade of legal and financial issues thrown at them.

It is clear to me that people like Davis and Moore have serious problems and suffer from something bordering on a religious psychosis. They have absolutely no compassion or empathy for the people who would be devastated by this.

I can think of no time in the history of this nation that a right was established and then revoked. It would truly be a dark day in America if such a thing were to happen . My only hope is that John Roberts, a conservative to be sure- but one who is also concerned about his legacy, and that of his court-would not let this happen.

Ex-Judge Roy Moore Files Supreme Court Brief to Urge End to Equal Marriage

"The Foundation believes that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend for it to protect a right to same-sex marriage," the briefing said.

www.newsweek.com

When Obergefell v. Hodges was decided in 2015, Moore ordered Alabama judges to ignore the ruling. Moore was suspended for that action.

Same-sex marriage was legalized in 2015 by the Supreme Court's decision in the Obergefell v. Hodges case in which justices found that the Fourteenth Amendment protects both opposite-sex and same-sex marriage.

"The Foundation has an interest in this case because it believes that religious liberty is the foremost gift of God," the briefing read, "and Kim Davis was deprived of her religious liberty because of this Court's decision in Obergefell."

"In addition, the Foundation believes that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend for it to protect a right to same-sex marriage," the briefing continued.

so the mentally ill that dont like a government telling them who they can marry want that same government to say who they can marry,,,


wouldnt it be better to just get the government out of marriage???

Would you care to explain what that would actually look like in the real world?

if you wanted to get married you go to a church of your choosing and get married,,,case closed,,,

or you could always go out into nature and profess your communion and end it there,,

marriage is between the two getting married and nobody elses business,,,

Brilliant! Now you just have to figure out how you will sell that I idea to the millions of people who would loose all of the financial benefits and legal protection that now go with marriage.

If it aint broken it don't need to be fixed. We are not going to throw the baby out with the bath water. Speaking of babies, how do you think that your scheme would effect parenthood?

so its all about the money to you,,,figures it would be something greedy,,,

Oh Christ! Did I say it was all about money? Did I not mention legal protections? And you're ignoring the issue of children

what legal protections???

and gays cant have children,,,

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

This is sickening, disgusting and heart breaking ! There is something seriously wrong with people who think that they have the right to control the lives of other people in the name of their distorted and bastardized version of religious liberty.

Same sex marriage has been the law of the land since June of 2015. Five years. Same sex couples have actually been getting married much longer than that in some states. Society has not been undermined and the institution of marriage has not been destroyed. In fact, in my estimation, is stronger when there is inclusion and the base is broadened.

Furthermore, it is not even an issue for the vast majority of Americans. These same sex couple have just become part of the social fabric and are an integral part of the community like everyone else. They work, they pay taxes, they volunteer, the maintain homes and establish families. And now they and their children can enjoy the same legal protections , financial advantages and social status as the rest of us take for granted.

And what will happen if Obergefell is overturned. No doubt some states- and we could pretty much name then- would halt such weddings. But it is unknown if they would, or could void the marriages that have taken place already. Straight people should consider how they would feel if their marriage was somehow annulled for some bogus religious reason- such as not being married in a church. They should think about how their lives would be upended by a cascade of legal and financial issues thrown at them.

It is clear to me that people like Davis and Moore have serious problems and suffer from something bordering on a religious psychosis. They have absolutely no compassion or empathy for the people who would be devastated by this.

I can think of no time in the history of this nation that a right was established and then revoked. It would truly be a dark day in America if such a thing were to happen . My only hope is that John Roberts, a conservative to be sure- but one who is also concerned about his legacy, and that of his court-would not let this happen.

Ex-Judge Roy Moore Files Supreme Court Brief to Urge End to Equal Marriage

"The Foundation believes that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend for it to protect a right to same-sex marriage," the briefing said.

www.newsweek.com

When Obergefell v. Hodges was decided in 2015, Moore ordered Alabama judges to ignore the ruling. Moore was suspended for that action.

Same-sex marriage was legalized in 2015 by the Supreme Court's decision in the Obergefell v. Hodges case in which justices found that the Fourteenth Amendment protects both opposite-sex and same-sex marriage.

"The Foundation has an interest in this case because it believes that religious liberty is the foremost gift of God," the briefing read, "and Kim Davis was deprived of her religious liberty because of this Court's decision in Obergefell."

"In addition, the Foundation believes that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend for it to protect a right to same-sex marriage," the briefing continued.

so the mentally ill that dont like a government telling them who they can marry want that same government to say who they can marry,,,


wouldnt it be better to just get the government out of marriage???

Would you care to explain what that would actually look like in the real world?

if you wanted to get married you go to a church of your choosing and get married,,,case closed,,,

or you could always go out into nature and profess your communion and end it there,,

marriage is between the two getting married and nobody elses business,,,

Brilliant! Now you just have to figure out how you will sell that I idea to the millions of people who would loose all of the financial benefits and legal protection that now go with marriage.

If it aint broken it don't need to be fixed. We are not going to throw the baby out with the bath water. Speaking of babies, how do you think that your scheme would effect parenthood?

so its all about the money to you,,,figures it would be something greedy,,,

You might want to consider this. Are you people really willing to destroy an entire institution that so many people are invested in, and that works rather well, in order to avoid the issue of government sanctioned same sex marriage?

Can Government Get out of the Marriage Business?

Can Government Get out of the Marriage Business?

Government is inextricably linked to the marriage business.

www.outsidethebeltway.com

Selected excerpts with notations where needed:

In the debate last night, Ron Paul noted his position on marriage as follows:
get the government out of it. Why doesn’t it go to the church? And why doesn’t it to go to the individuals? I don’t think government should give us a license to get married. It should be in the church.

The Church? Really? Where does that leave people who are not religious or who just do not want to get married in a church? Will we then be discriminating against those people on the basis of religion? What are the implications for government benefits and the government’s role in mediating divorces? . Shall that be left too Jewish, Sharia or Cannon law? Not very well thought out.

Here’s the deal: much of the significance of marriage is very much linked to civil-legal matters in a way that makes it impossible for government to extricate itself from its definition. Marriage is many things that have nothing to do with government such as romance, love, friendship, lifelong companionship, and even sacred bonds. There is little doubt that those things can all be achieved without the government being involved (as is the case with friendship, for example).

However, marriage is also about certain mutual legal obligations regarding property, finances, children and whatnot, about which governmental intervention is sometimes necessary to resolve disputes (as is the case with any contractual relationship).

Further, marriage diminishes legal complexity in a variety issues (children, death [i.e., funeral arrangements], hospital visitations, medical decisions, etc.). Now, we could utterly remove marriage as a legal institution, but then we would have to replace it with something else, and that something else would almost certainly be more cumbersome in terms of government entanglements that the current system.

To put it as simply as possible: for government to truly get out of the marriage business it would have to stop recognizing the spousal relationship as having special legal standing. This is because to recognize that relationship as having specific legal significances it would need a definition of “marriage” that could be held up to legal scrutiny (to, for example, stop people from arbitrarily claiming whatever privileges might exist for married couples). Such a stand would have to exist whether the government issued the licenses or not. Once the law has to define “marriage” then government is, by definition, in the “marriage business.”

To summarize the summary: the only way to truly get government out of the marriage business would be to reduce marriage to the same status of friendship, i.e., a social relationship utterly defined by private interactions and that lacks legal significance.

 

[progressive hunter]

This is sickening, disgusting and heart breaking ! There is something seriously wrong with people who think that they have the right to control the lives of other people in the name of their distorted and bastardized version of religious liberty.

Same sex marriage has been the law of the land since June of 2015. Five years. Same sex couples have actually been getting married much longer than that in some states. Society has not been undermined and the institution of marriage has not been destroyed. In fact, in my estimation, is stronger when there is inclusion and the base is broadened.

Furthermore, it is not even an issue for the vast majority of Americans. These same sex couple have just become part of the social fabric and are an integral part of the community like everyone else. They work, they pay taxes, they volunteer, the maintain homes and establish families. And now they and their children can enjoy the same legal protections , financial advantages and social status as the rest of us take for granted.

And what will happen if Obergefell is overturned. No doubt some states- and we could pretty much name then- would halt such weddings. But it is unknown if they would, or could void the marriages that have taken place already. Straight people should consider how they would feel if their marriage was somehow annulled for some bogus religious reason- such as not being married in a church. They should think about how their lives would be upended by a cascade of legal and financial issues thrown at them.

It is clear to me that people like Davis and Moore have serious problems and suffer from something bordering on a religious psychosis. They have absolutely no compassion or empathy for the people who would be devastated by this.

I can think of no time in the history of this nation that a right was established and then revoked. It would truly be a dark day in America if such a thing were to happen . My only hope is that John Roberts, a conservative to be sure- but one who is also concerned about his legacy, and that of his court-would not let this happen.

Ex-Judge Roy Moore Files Supreme Court Brief to Urge End to Equal Marriage

"The Foundation believes that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend for it to protect a right to same-sex marriage," the briefing said.

www.newsweek.com

When Obergefell v. Hodges was decided in 2015, Moore ordered Alabama judges to ignore the ruling. Moore was suspended for that action.

Same-sex marriage was legalized in 2015 by the Supreme Court's decision in the Obergefell v. Hodges case in which justices found that the Fourteenth Amendment protects both opposite-sex and same-sex marriage.

"The Foundation has an interest in this case because it believes that religious liberty is the foremost gift of God," the briefing read, "and Kim Davis was deprived of her religious liberty because of this Court's decision in Obergefell."

"In addition, the Foundation believes that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend for it to protect a right to same-sex marriage," the briefing continued.

so the mentally ill that dont like a government telling them who they can marry want that same government to say who they can marry,,,


wouldnt it be better to just get the government out of marriage???

Would you care to explain what that would actually look like in the real world?

if you wanted to get married you go to a church of your choosing and get married,,,case closed,,,

or you could always go out into nature and profess your communion and end it there,,

marriage is between the two getting married and nobody elses business,,,

Brilliant! Now you just have to figure out how you will sell that I idea to the millions of people who would loose all of the financial benefits and legal protection that now go with marriage.

If it aint broken it don't need to be fixed. We are not going to throw the baby out with the bath water. Speaking of babies, how do you think that your scheme would effect parenthood?

so its all about the money to you,,,figures it would be something greedy,,,

You might want to consider this. Are you people really willing to destroy an entire institution that so many people are invested in, and that works rather well, in order to avoid the issue of government sanctioned same sex marriage?

Can Government Get out of the Marriage Business?

Can Government Get out of the Marriage Business?

Government is inextricably linked to the marriage business.

www.outsidethebeltway.com

Selected excerpts with notations where needed:

In the debate last night, Ron Paul noted his position on marriage as follows:
get the government out of it. Why doesn’t it go to the church? And why doesn’t it to go to the individuals? I don’t think government should give us a license to get married. It should be in the church.

The Church? Really? Where does that leave people who are not religious or who just do not want to get married in a church? Will we then be discriminating against those people on the basis of religion? What are the implications for government benefits and the government’s role in mediating divorces? . Shall that be left too Jewish, Sharia or Cannon law? Not very well thought out.

Here’s the deal: much of the significance of marriage is very much linked to civil-legal matters in a way that makes it impossible for government to extricate itself from its definition. Marriage is many things that have nothing to do with government such as romance, love, friendship, lifelong companionship, and even sacred bonds. There is little doubt that those things can all be achieved without the government being involved (as is the case with friendship, for example).

However, marriage is also about certain mutual legal obligations regarding property, finances, children and whatnot, about which governmental intervention is sometimes necessary to resolve disputes (as is the case with any contractual relationship).

Further, marriage diminishes legal complexity in a variety issues (children, death [i.e., funeral arrangements], hospital visitations, medical decisions, etc.). Now, we could utterly remove marriage as a legal institution, but then we would have to replace it with something else, and that something else would almost certainly be more cumbersome in terms of government entanglements that the current system.

To put it as simply as possible: for government to truly get out of the marriage business it would have to stop recognizing the spousal relationship as having special legal standing. This is because to recognize that relationship as having specific legal significances it would need a definition of “marriage” that could be held up to legal scrutiny (to, for example, stop people from arbitrarily claiming whatever privileges might exist for married couples). Such a stand would have to exist whether the government issued the licenses or not. Once the law has to define “marriage” then government is, by definition, in the “marriage business.”

To summarize the summary: the only way to truly get government out of the marriage business would be to reduce marriage to the same status of friendship, i.e., a social relationship utterly defined by private interactions and that lacks legal significance.

if it works so well then why do you want it changed???

your ok with forced authority as long as it works in your favor ,,,

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

This is sickening, disgusting and heart breaking ! There is something seriously wrong with people who think that they have the right to control the lives of other people in the name of their distorted and bastardized version of religious liberty.

Same sex marriage has been the law of the land since June of 2015. Five years. Same sex couples have actually been getting married much longer than that in some states. Society has not been undermined and the institution of marriage has not been destroyed. In fact, in my estimation, is stronger when there is inclusion and the base is broadened.

Furthermore, it is not even an issue for the vast majority of Americans. These same sex couple have just become part of the social fabric and are an integral part of the community like everyone else. They work, they pay taxes, they volunteer, the maintain homes and establish families. And now they and their children can enjoy the same legal protections , financial advantages and social status as the rest of us take for granted.

And what will happen if Obergefell is overturned. No doubt some states- and we could pretty much name then- would halt such weddings. But it is unknown if they would, or could void the marriages that have taken place already. Straight people should consider how they would feel if their marriage was somehow annulled for some bogus religious reason- such as not being married in a church. They should think about how their lives would be upended by a cascade of legal and financial issues thrown at them.

It is clear to me that people like Davis and Moore have serious problems and suffer from something bordering on a religious psychosis. They have absolutely no compassion or empathy for the people who would be devastated by this.

I can think of no time in the history of this nation that a right was established and then revoked. It would truly be a dark day in America if such a thing were to happen . My only hope is that John Roberts, a conservative to be sure- but one who is also concerned about his legacy, and that of his court-would not let this happen.

Ex-Judge Roy Moore Files Supreme Court Brief to Urge End to Equal Marriage

"The Foundation believes that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend for it to protect a right to same-sex marriage," the briefing said.

www.newsweek.com

When Obergefell v. Hodges was decided in 2015, Moore ordered Alabama judges to ignore the ruling. Moore was suspended for that action.

Same-sex marriage was legalized in 2015 by the Supreme Court's decision in the Obergefell v. Hodges case in which justices found that the Fourteenth Amendment protects both opposite-sex and same-sex marriage.

"The Foundation has an interest in this case because it believes that religious liberty is the foremost gift of God," the briefing read, "and Kim Davis was deprived of her religious liberty because of this Court's decision in Obergefell."

"In addition, the Foundation believes that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend for it to protect a right to same-sex marriage," the briefing continued.

so the mentally ill that dont like a government telling them who they can marry want that same government to say who they can marry,,,


wouldnt it be better to just get the government out of marriage???

Would you care to explain what that would actually look like in the real world?

if you wanted to get married you go to a church of your choosing and get married,,,case closed,,,

or you could always go out into nature and profess your communion and end it there,,

marriage is between the two getting married and nobody elses business,,,

Brilliant! Now you just have to figure out how you will sell that I idea to the millions of people who would loose all of the financial benefits and legal protection that now go with marriage.

If it aint broken it don't need to be fixed. We are not going to throw the baby out with the bath water. Speaking of babies, how do you think that your scheme would effect parenthood?

so its all about the money to you,,,figures it would be something greedy,,,

You might want to consider this. Are you people really willing to destroy an entire institution that so many people are invested in, and that works rather well, in order to avoid the issue of government sanctioned same sex marriage?

Can Government Get out of the Marriage Business?

Can Government Get out of the Marriage Business?

Government is inextricably linked to the marriage business.

www.outsidethebeltway.com

Selected excerpts with notations where needed:

In the debate last night, Ron Paul noted his position on marriage as follows:
get the government out of it. Why doesn’t it go to the church? And why doesn’t it to go to the individuals? I don’t think government should give us a license to get married. It should be in the church.

The Church? Really? Where does that leave people who are not religious or who just do not want to get married in a church? Will we then be discriminating against those people on the basis of religion? What are the implications for government benefits and the government’s role in mediating divorces? . Shall that be left too Jewish, Sharia or Cannon law? Not very well thought out.

Here’s the deal: much of the significance of marriage is very much linked to civil-legal matters in a way that makes it impossible for government to extricate itself from its definition. Marriage is many things that have nothing to do with government such as romance, love, friendship, lifelong companionship, and even sacred bonds. There is little doubt that those things can all be achieved without the government being involved (as is the case with friendship, for example).

However, marriage is also about certain mutual legal obligations regarding property, finances, children and whatnot, about which governmental intervention is sometimes necessary to resolve disputes (as is the case with any contractual relationship).

Further, marriage diminishes legal complexity in a variety issues (children, death [i.e., funeral arrangements], hospital visitations, medical decisions, etc.). Now, we could utterly remove marriage as a legal institution, but then we would have to replace it with something else, and that something else would almost certainly be more cumbersome in terms of government entanglements that the current system.

To put it as simply as possible: for government to truly get out of the marriage business it would have to stop recognizing the spousal relationship as having special legal standing. This is because to recognize that relationship as having specific legal significances it would need a definition of “marriage” that could be held up to legal scrutiny (to, for example, stop people from arbitrarily claiming whatever privileges might exist for married couples). Such a stand would have to exist whether the government issued the licenses or not. Once the law has to define “marriage” then government is, by definition, in the “marriage business.”

To summarize the summary: the only way to truly get government out of the marriage business would be to reduce marriage to the same status of friendship, i.e., a social relationship utterly defined by private interactions and that lacks legal significance.

if it works so well then why do you want it changed???

your ok with forced authority as long as it works in your favor ,,,

We did not change it. We made it more inclusive. Forced authority? Are you being forced to get gay married? The forced authority was the states telling people that they could not get married. Now everyone has a choice

 

[progressive hunter]

This is sickening, disgusting and heart breaking ! There is something seriously wrong with people who think that they have the right to control the lives of other people in the name of their distorted and bastardized version of religious liberty.

Same sex marriage has been the law of the land since June of 2015. Five years. Same sex couples have actually been getting married much longer than that in some states. Society has not been undermined and the institution of marriage has not been destroyed. In fact, in my estimation, is stronger when there is inclusion and the base is broadened.

Furthermore, it is not even an issue for the vast majority of Americans. These same sex couple have just become part of the social fabric and are an integral part of the community like everyone else. They work, they pay taxes, they volunteer, the maintain homes and establish families. And now they and their children can enjoy the same legal protections , financial advantages and social status as the rest of us take for granted.

And what will happen if Obergefell is overturned. No doubt some states- and we could pretty much name then- would halt such weddings. But it is unknown if they would, or could void the marriages that have taken place already. Straight people should consider how they would feel if their marriage was somehow annulled for some bogus religious reason- such as not being married in a church. They should think about how their lives would be upended by a cascade of legal and financial issues thrown at them.

It is clear to me that people like Davis and Moore have serious problems and suffer from something bordering on a religious psychosis. They have absolutely no compassion or empathy for the people who would be devastated by this.

I can think of no time in the history of this nation that a right was established and then revoked. It would truly be a dark day in America if such a thing were to happen . My only hope is that John Roberts, a conservative to be sure- but one who is also concerned about his legacy, and that of his court-would not let this happen.

Ex-Judge Roy Moore Files Supreme Court Brief to Urge End to Equal Marriage

"The Foundation believes that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend for it to protect a right to same-sex marriage," the briefing said.

www.newsweek.com

When Obergefell v. Hodges was decided in 2015, Moore ordered Alabama judges to ignore the ruling. Moore was suspended for that action.

Same-sex marriage was legalized in 2015 by the Supreme Court's decision in the Obergefell v. Hodges case in which justices found that the Fourteenth Amendment protects both opposite-sex and same-sex marriage.

"The Foundation has an interest in this case because it believes that religious liberty is the foremost gift of God," the briefing read, "and Kim Davis was deprived of her religious liberty because of this Court's decision in Obergefell."

"In addition, the Foundation believes that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend for it to protect a right to same-sex marriage," the briefing continued.

so the mentally ill that dont like a government telling them who they can marry want that same government to say who they can marry,,,


wouldnt it be better to just get the government out of marriage???

Would you care to explain what that would actually look like in the real world?

if you wanted to get married you go to a church of your choosing and get married,,,case closed,,,

or you could always go out into nature and profess your communion and end it there,,

marriage is between the two getting married and nobody elses business,,,

Brilliant! Now you just have to figure out how you will sell that I idea to the millions of people who would loose all of the financial benefits and legal protection that now go with marriage.

If it aint broken it don't need to be fixed. We are not going to throw the baby out with the bath water. Speaking of babies, how do you think that your scheme would effect parenthood?

so its all about the money to you,,,figures it would be something greedy,,,

You might want to consider this. Are you people really willing to destroy an entire institution that so many people are invested in, and that works rather well, in order to avoid the issue of government sanctioned same sex marriage?

Can Government Get out of the Marriage Business?

Can Government Get out of the Marriage Business?

Government is inextricably linked to the marriage business.

www.outsidethebeltway.com

Selected excerpts with notations where needed:

In the debate last night, Ron Paul noted his position on marriage as follows:
get the government out of it. Why doesn’t it go to the church? And why doesn’t it to go to the individuals? I don’t think government should give us a license to get married. It should be in the church.

The Church? Really? Where does that leave people who are not religious or who just do not want to get married in a church? Will we then be discriminating against those people on the basis of religion? What are the implications for government benefits and the government’s role in mediating divorces? . Shall that be left too Jewish, Sharia or Cannon law? Not very well thought out.

Here’s the deal: much of the significance of marriage is very much linked to civil-legal matters in a way that makes it impossible for government to extricate itself from its definition. Marriage is many things that have nothing to do with government such as romance, love, friendship, lifelong companionship, and even sacred bonds. There is little doubt that those things can all be achieved without the government being involved (as is the case with friendship, for example).

However, marriage is also about certain mutual legal obligations regarding property, finances, children and whatnot, about which governmental intervention is sometimes necessary to resolve disputes (as is the case with any contractual relationship).

Further, marriage diminishes legal complexity in a variety issues (children, death [i.e., funeral arrangements], hospital visitations, medical decisions, etc.). Now, we could utterly remove marriage as a legal institution, but then we would have to replace it with something else, and that something else would almost certainly be more cumbersome in terms of government entanglements that the current system.

To put it as simply as possible: for government to truly get out of the marriage business it would have to stop recognizing the spousal relationship as having special legal standing. This is because to recognize that relationship as having specific legal significances it would need a definition of “marriage” that could be held up to legal scrutiny (to, for example, stop people from arbitrarily claiming whatever privileges might exist for married couples). Such a stand would have to exist whether the government issued the licenses or not. Once the law has to define “marriage” then government is, by definition, in the “marriage business.”

To summarize the summary: the only way to truly get government out of the marriage business would be to reduce marriage to the same status of friendship, i.e., a social relationship utterly defined by private interactions and that lacks legal significance.

if it works so well then why do you want it changed???

your ok with forced authority as long as it works in your favor ,,,

We did not change it. We made it more inclusive. Forced authority? Are you being forced to get gay married? The forced authority was the states telling people that they could not get married. Now everyone has a choice

I am being forced to get the governments permission,,,

and yes you are changing it since its been the norm for thousands of yrs,,,

like I said I find it strange you dont like the governent telling you who you can and cant marry and your solution is to have the same government say who you can or cant marry,,,

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

This is sickening, disgusting and heart breaking ! There is something seriously wrong with people who think that they have the right to control the lives of other people in the name of their distorted and bastardized version of religious liberty.

Same sex marriage has been the law of the land since June of 2015. Five years. Same sex couples have actually been getting married much longer than that in some states. Society has not been undermined and the institution of marriage has not been destroyed. In fact, in my estimation, is stronger when there is inclusion and the base is broadened.

Furthermore, it is not even an issue for the vast majority of Americans. These same sex couple have just become part of the social fabric and are an integral part of the community like everyone else. They work, they pay taxes, they volunteer, the maintain homes and establish families. And now they and their children can enjoy the same legal protections , financial advantages and social status as the rest of us take for granted.

And what will happen if Obergefell is overturned. No doubt some states- and we could pretty much name then- would halt such weddings. But it is unknown if they would, or could void the marriages that have taken place already. Straight people should consider how they would feel if their marriage was somehow annulled for some bogus religious reason- such as not being married in a church. They should think about how their lives would be upended by a cascade of legal and financial issues thrown at them.

It is clear to me that people like Davis and Moore have serious problems and suffer from something bordering on a religious psychosis. They have absolutely no compassion or empathy for the people who would be devastated by this.

I can think of no time in the history of this nation that a right was established and then revoked. It would truly be a dark day in America if such a thing were to happen . My only hope is that John Roberts, a conservative to be sure- but one who is also concerned about his legacy, and that of his court-would not let this happen.

Ex-Judge Roy Moore Files Supreme Court Brief to Urge End to Equal Marriage

"The Foundation believes that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend for it to protect a right to same-sex marriage," the briefing said.

www.newsweek.com

When Obergefell v. Hodges was decided in 2015, Moore ordered Alabama judges to ignore the ruling. Moore was suspended for that action.

Same-sex marriage was legalized in 2015 by the Supreme Court's decision in the Obergefell v. Hodges case in which justices found that the Fourteenth Amendment protects both opposite-sex and same-sex marriage.

"The Foundation has an interest in this case because it believes that religious liberty is the foremost gift of God," the briefing read, "and Kim Davis was deprived of her religious liberty because of this Court's decision in Obergefell."

"In addition, the Foundation believes that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend for it to protect a right to same-sex marriage," the briefing continued.

so the mentally ill that dont like a government telling them who they can marry want that same government to say who they can marry,,,


wouldnt it be better to just get the government out of marriage???

Would you care to explain what that would actually look like in the real world?

if you wanted to get married you go to a church of your choosing and get married,,,case closed,,,

or you could always go out into nature and profess your communion and end it there,,

marriage is between the two getting married and nobody elses business,,,

Brilliant! Now you just have to figure out how you will sell that I idea to the millions of people who would loose all of the financial benefits and legal protection that now go with marriage.

If it aint broken it don't need to be fixed. We are not going to throw the baby out with the bath water. Speaking of babies, how do you think that your scheme would effect parenthood?

so its all about the money to you,,,figures it would be something greedy,,,

You might want to consider this. Are you people really willing to destroy an entire institution that so many people are invested in, and that works rather well, in order to avoid the issue of government sanctioned same sex marriage?

Can Government Get out of the Marriage Business?

Can Government Get out of the Marriage Business?

Government is inextricably linked to the marriage business.

www.outsidethebeltway.com

Selected excerpts with notations where needed:

In the debate last night, Ron Paul noted his position on marriage as follows:
get the government out of it. Why doesn’t it go to the church? And why doesn’t it to go to the individuals? I don’t think government should give us a license to get married. It should be in the church.

The Church? Really? Where does that leave people who are not religious or who just do not want to get married in a church? Will we then be discriminating against those people on the basis of religion? What are the implications for government benefits and the government’s role in mediating divorces? . Shall that be left too Jewish, Sharia or Cannon law? Not very well thought out.

Here’s the deal: much of the significance of marriage is very much linked to civil-legal matters in a way that makes it impossible for government to extricate itself from its definition. Marriage is many things that have nothing to do with government such as romance, love, friendship, lifelong companionship, and even sacred bonds. There is little doubt that those things can all be achieved without the government being involved (as is the case with friendship, for example).

However, marriage is also about certain mutual legal obligations regarding property, finances, children and whatnot, about which governmental intervention is sometimes necessary to resolve disputes (as is the case with any contractual relationship).

Further, marriage diminishes legal complexity in a variety issues (children, death [i.e., funeral arrangements], hospital visitations, medical decisions, etc.). Now, we could utterly remove marriage as a legal institution, but then we would have to replace it with something else, and that something else would almost certainly be more cumbersome in terms of government entanglements that the current system.

To put it as simply as possible: for government to truly get out of the marriage business it would have to stop recognizing the spousal relationship as having special legal standing. This is because to recognize that relationship as having specific legal significances it would need a definition of “marriage” that could be held up to legal scrutiny (to, for example, stop people from arbitrarily claiming whatever privileges might exist for married couples). Such a stand would have to exist whether the government issued the licenses or not. Once the law has to define “marriage” then government is, by definition, in the “marriage business.”

To summarize the summary: the only way to truly get government out of the marriage business would be to reduce marriage to the same status of friendship, i.e., a social relationship utterly defined by private interactions and that lacks legal significance.

if it works so well then why do you want it changed???

your ok with forced authority as long as it works in your favor ,,,

We did not change it. We made it more inclusive. Forced authority? Are you being forced to get gay married? The forced authority was the states telling people that they could not get married. Now everyone has a choice

I am being forced to get the governments permission,,,

and yes you are changing it since its been the norm for thousands of yrs,,,

like I said I find it strange you dont like the governent telling you who you can and cant marry and your solution is to have the same government say who you can or cant marry,,,

Well as I see it, Marriage has been evolving for thousands of years and has gone through many changes. Are you equally outraged about the fact that women are no longer considered the property of men, or that interracial marriage is now legal when it was not before? Stagnation is death to an institution. Evolution gives it new life.

As far as the governments permission goes, that is malarkey. The fact that marriage is regulated by the government- mostly to guard against under age nuptials and other abuses- does not mean that you need permission. Everyone is issued a marriage license as long as they meet a minimal and basic criteria.

The government was telling people who they can marry based on the respective genders of the parties. Now they are not But, I realize that I'm wasting my time here. I know that people like you can't be reasoned with . I think that you are motivated by a combination of traditionalism, bigotry and anti government paranoia and I am not qualified to fix that, if anyone is.

Marriage, including same sex marriage is here to stay. Deal with it.

 

[progressive hunter]

This is sickening, disgusting and heart breaking ! There is something seriously wrong with people who think that they have the right to control the lives of other people in the name of their distorted and bastardized version of religious liberty.

Same sex marriage has been the law of the land since June of 2015. Five years. Same sex couples have actually been getting married much longer than that in some states. Society has not been undermined and the institution of marriage has not been destroyed. In fact, in my estimation, is stronger when there is inclusion and the base is broadened.

Furthermore, it is not even an issue for the vast majority of Americans. These same sex couple have just become part of the social fabric and are an integral part of the community like everyone else. They work, they pay taxes, they volunteer, the maintain homes and establish families. And now they and their children can enjoy the same legal protections , financial advantages and social status as the rest of us take for granted.

And what will happen if Obergefell is overturned. No doubt some states- and we could pretty much name then- would halt such weddings. But it is unknown if they would, or could void the marriages that have taken place already. Straight people should consider how they would feel if their marriage was somehow annulled for some bogus religious reason- such as not being married in a church. They should think about how their lives would be upended by a cascade of legal and financial issues thrown at them.

It is clear to me that people like Davis and Moore have serious problems and suffer from something bordering on a religious psychosis. They have absolutely no compassion or empathy for the people who would be devastated by this.

I can think of no time in the history of this nation that a right was established and then revoked. It would truly be a dark day in America if such a thing were to happen . My only hope is that John Roberts, a conservative to be sure- but one who is also concerned about his legacy, and that of his court-would not let this happen.

Ex-Judge Roy Moore Files Supreme Court Brief to Urge End to Equal Marriage

"The Foundation believes that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend for it to protect a right to same-sex marriage," the briefing said.

www.newsweek.com

When Obergefell v. Hodges was decided in 2015, Moore ordered Alabama judges to ignore the ruling. Moore was suspended for that action.

Same-sex marriage was legalized in 2015 by the Supreme Court's decision in the Obergefell v. Hodges case in which justices found that the Fourteenth Amendment protects both opposite-sex and same-sex marriage.

"The Foundation has an interest in this case because it believes that religious liberty is the foremost gift of God," the briefing read, "and Kim Davis was deprived of her religious liberty because of this Court's decision in Obergefell."

"In addition, the Foundation believes that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend for it to protect a right to same-sex marriage," the briefing continued.

so the mentally ill that dont like a government telling them who they can marry want that same government to say who they can marry,,,


wouldnt it be better to just get the government out of marriage???

Would you care to explain what that would actually look like in the real world?

if you wanted to get married you go to a church of your choosing and get married,,,case closed,,,

or you could always go out into nature and profess your communion and end it there,,

marriage is between the two getting married and nobody elses business,,,

Brilliant! Now you just have to figure out how you will sell that I idea to the millions of people who would loose all of the financial benefits and legal protection that now go with marriage.

If it aint broken it don't need to be fixed. We are not going to throw the baby out with the bath water. Speaking of babies, how do you think that your scheme would effect parenthood?

so its all about the money to you,,,figures it would be something greedy,,,

You might want to consider this. Are you people really willing to destroy an entire institution that so many people are invested in, and that works rather well, in order to avoid the issue of government sanctioned same sex marriage?

Can Government Get out of the Marriage Business?

Can Government Get out of the Marriage Business?

Government is inextricably linked to the marriage business.

www.outsidethebeltway.com

Selected excerpts with notations where needed:

In the debate last night, Ron Paul noted his position on marriage as follows:
get the government out of it. Why doesn’t it go to the church? And why doesn’t it to go to the individuals? I don’t think government should give us a license to get married. It should be in the church.

The Church? Really? Where does that leave people who are not religious or who just do not want to get married in a church? Will we then be discriminating against those people on the basis of religion? What are the implications for government benefits and the government’s role in mediating divorces? . Shall that be left too Jewish, Sharia or Cannon law? Not very well thought out.

Here’s the deal: much of the significance of marriage is very much linked to civil-legal matters in a way that makes it impossible for government to extricate itself from its definition. Marriage is many things that have nothing to do with government such as romance, love, friendship, lifelong companionship, and even sacred bonds. There is little doubt that those things can all be achieved without the government being involved (as is the case with friendship, for example).

However, marriage is also about certain mutual legal obligations regarding property, finances, children and whatnot, about which governmental intervention is sometimes necessary to resolve disputes (as is the case with any contractual relationship).

Further, marriage diminishes legal complexity in a variety issues (children, death [i.e., funeral arrangements], hospital visitations, medical decisions, etc.). Now, we could utterly remove marriage as a legal institution, but then we would have to replace it with something else, and that something else would almost certainly be more cumbersome in terms of government entanglements that the current system.

To put it as simply as possible: for government to truly get out of the marriage business it would have to stop recognizing the spousal relationship as having special legal standing. This is because to recognize that relationship as having specific legal significances it would need a definition of “marriage” that could be held up to legal scrutiny (to, for example, stop people from arbitrarily claiming whatever privileges might exist for married couples). Such a stand would have to exist whether the government issued the licenses or not. Once the law has to define “marriage” then government is, by definition, in the “marriage business.”

To summarize the summary: the only way to truly get government out of the marriage business would be to reduce marriage to the same status of friendship, i.e., a social relationship utterly defined by private interactions and that lacks legal significance.

if it works so well then why do you want it changed???

your ok with forced authority as long as it works in your favor ,,,

We did not change it. We made it more inclusive. Forced authority? Are you being forced to get gay married? The forced authority was the states telling people that they could not get married. Now everyone has a choice

I am being forced to get the governments permission,,,

and yes you are changing it since its been the norm for thousands of yrs,,,

like I said I find it strange you dont like the governent telling you who you can and cant marry and your solution is to have the same government say who you can or cant marry,,,

Well as I see it, Marriage has been evolving for thousands of years and has gone through many changes. Are you equally outraged about the fact that women are no longer considered the property of men, or that interracial marriage is now legal when it was not before? Stagnation is death to an institution. Evolution gives it new life.

As far as the governments permission goes, that is malarkey. The fact that marriage is regulated by the government- mostly to guard against under age nuptials and other abuses- does not mean that you need permission. Everyone is issued a marriage license as long as they meet a minimal and basic criteria.

The government was telling people who they can marry based on the respective genders of the parties. Now they are not But, I realize that I'm wasting my time here. I know that people like you can't be reasoned with . I think that you are motivated by a combination of traditionalism, bigotry and anti government paranoia and I am not qualified to fix that, if anyone is.

Marriage, including same sex marriage is here to stay. Deal with it.

you see it wrong,,,marriage has been the same for thousands of yrs,,,its only recently its been taken out of the church and controlled by governments,,,

as long as your happy about being controlled then go with it,,,but remember you are what the government allows not a free man,,,

 

[Polishprince]

Marriage, including same sex marriage is here to stay. Deal with it.

Don't be so sure about that. They thought prohibition was here to stay too. Gay Marriage is a new institution which has not yet stood the test of time itself.

The last civilization to have it was in Sodom.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

This is sickening, disgusting and heart breaking ! There is something seriously wrong with people who think that they have the right to control the lives of other people in the name of their distorted and bastardized version of religious liberty.

Same sex marriage has been the law of the land since June of 2015. Five years. Same sex couples have actually been getting married much longer than that in some states. Society has not been undermined and the institution of marriage has not been destroyed. In fact, in my estimation, is stronger when there is inclusion and the base is broadened.

Furthermore, it is not even an issue for the vast majority of Americans. These same sex couple have just become part of the social fabric and are an integral part of the community like everyone else. They work, they pay taxes, they volunteer, the maintain homes and establish families. And now they and their children can enjoy the same legal protections , financial advantages and social status as the rest of us take for granted.

And what will happen if Obergefell is overturned. No doubt some states- and we could pretty much name then- would halt such weddings. But it is unknown if they would, or could void the marriages that have taken place already. Straight people should consider how they would feel if their marriage was somehow annulled for some bogus religious reason- such as not being married in a church. They should think about how their lives would be upended by a cascade of legal and financial issues thrown at them.

It is clear to me that people like Davis and Moore have serious problems and suffer from something bordering on a religious psychosis. They have absolutely no compassion or empathy for the people who would be devastated by this.

I can think of no time in the history of this nation that a right was established and then revoked. It would truly be a dark day in America if such a thing were to happen . My only hope is that John Roberts, a conservative to be sure- but one who is also concerned about his legacy, and that of his court-would not let this happen.

Ex-Judge Roy Moore Files Supreme Court Brief to Urge End to Equal Marriage

"The Foundation believes that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend for it to protect a right to same-sex marriage," the briefing said.

www.newsweek.com

When Obergefell v. Hodges was decided in 2015, Moore ordered Alabama judges to ignore the ruling. Moore was suspended for that action.

Same-sex marriage was legalized in 2015 by the Supreme Court's decision in the Obergefell v. Hodges case in which justices found that the Fourteenth Amendment protects both opposite-sex and same-sex marriage.

"The Foundation has an interest in this case because it believes that religious liberty is the foremost gift of God," the briefing read, "and Kim Davis was deprived of her religious liberty because of this Court's decision in Obergefell."

"In addition, the Foundation believes that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend for it to protect a right to same-sex marriage," the briefing continued.

so the mentally ill that dont like a government telling them who they can marry want that same government to say who they can marry,,,


wouldnt it be better to just get the government out of marriage???

Would you care to explain what that would actually look like in the real world?

if you wanted to get married you go to a church of your choosing and get married,,,case closed,,,

or you could always go out into nature and profess your communion and end it there,,

marriage is between the two getting married and nobody elses business,,,

Brilliant! Now you just have to figure out how you will sell that I idea to the millions of people who would loose all of the financial benefits and legal protection that now go with marriage.

If it aint broken it don't need to be fixed. We are not going to throw the baby out with the bath water. Speaking of babies, how do you think that your scheme would effect parenthood?

so its all about the money to you,,,figures it would be something greedy,,,

You might want to consider this. Are you people really willing to destroy an entire institution that so many people are invested in, and that works rather well, in order to avoid the issue of government sanctioned same sex marriage?

Can Government Get out of the Marriage Business?

Can Government Get out of the Marriage Business?

Government is inextricably linked to the marriage business.

www.outsidethebeltway.com

Selected excerpts with notations where needed:

In the debate last night, Ron Paul noted his position on marriage as follows:
get the government out of it. Why doesn’t it go to the church? And why doesn’t it to go to the individuals? I don’t think government should give us a license to get married. It should be in the church.

The Church? Really? Where does that leave people who are not religious or who just do not want to get married in a church? Will we then be discriminating against those people on the basis of religion? What are the implications for government benefits and the government’s role in mediating divorces? . Shall that be left too Jewish, Sharia or Cannon law? Not very well thought out.

Here’s the deal: much of the significance of marriage is very much linked to civil-legal matters in a way that makes it impossible for government to extricate itself from its definition. Marriage is many things that have nothing to do with government such as romance, love, friendship, lifelong companionship, and even sacred bonds. There is little doubt that those things can all be achieved without the government being involved (as is the case with friendship, for example).

However, marriage is also about certain mutual legal obligations regarding property, finances, children and whatnot, about which governmental intervention is sometimes necessary to resolve disputes (as is the case with any contractual relationship).

Further, marriage diminishes legal complexity in a variety issues (children, death [i.e., funeral arrangements], hospital visitations, medical decisions, etc.). Now, we could utterly remove marriage as a legal institution, but then we would have to replace it with something else, and that something else would almost certainly be more cumbersome in terms of government entanglements that the current system.

To put it as simply as possible: for government to truly get out of the marriage business it would have to stop recognizing the spousal relationship as having special legal standing. This is because to recognize that relationship as having specific legal significances it would need a definition of “marriage” that could be held up to legal scrutiny (to, for example, stop people from arbitrarily claiming whatever privileges might exist for married couples). Such a stand would have to exist whether the government issued the licenses or not. Once the law has to define “marriage” then government is, by definition, in the “marriage business.”

To summarize the summary: the only way to truly get government out of the marriage business would be to reduce marriage to the same status of friendship, i.e., a social relationship utterly defined by private interactions and that lacks legal significance.

if it works so well then why do you want it changed???

your ok with forced authority as long as it works in your favor ,,,

We did not change it. We made it more inclusive. Forced authority? Are you being forced to get gay married? The forced authority was the states telling people that they could not get married. Now everyone has a choice

I am being forced to get the governments permission,,,

and yes you are changing it since its been the norm for thousands of yrs,,,

like I said I find it strange you dont like the governent telling you who you can and cant marry and your solution is to have the same government say who you can or cant marry,,,

Well as I see it, Marriage has been evolving for thousands of years and has gone through many changes. Are you equally outraged about the fact that women are no longer considered the property of men, or that interracial marriage is now legal when it was not before? Stagnation is death to an institution. Evolution gives it new life.

As far as the governments permission goes, that is malarkey. The fact that marriage is regulated by the government- mostly to guard against under age nuptials and other abuses- does not mean that you need permission. Everyone is issued a marriage license as long as they meet a minimal and basic criteria.

The government was telling people who they can marry based on the respective genders of the parties. Now they are not But, I realize that I'm wasting my time here. I know that people like you can't be reasoned with . I think that you are motivated by a combination of traditionalism, bigotry and anti government paranoia and I am not qualified to fix that, if anyone is.

Marriage, including same sex marriage is here to stay. Deal with it.

you see it wrong,,,marriage has been the same for thousands of yrs,,,its only recently its been taken out of the church and controlled by governments,,,

as long as your happy about being controlled then go with it,,,but remember you are what the government allows not a free man,,,

As I said, I realize that there is not reasoning with you. There is not point to this . You plan is a pipe dream that you have no support for and most people think is idiotic

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Marriage, including same sex marriage is here to stay. Deal with it.

Don't be so sure about that. They thought prohibition was here to stay too. Gay Marriage is a new institution which has not yet stood the test of time itself.

The last civilization to have it was in Sodom.

Perhaps you would like to document all of the evidence of societal decay as a result of same sex marriage

 

[Toro]

Roy Moorelester

lol

 

[progressive hunter]

This is sickening, disgusting and heart breaking ! There is something seriously wrong with people who think that they have the right to control the lives of other people in the name of their distorted and bastardized version of religious liberty.

Same sex marriage has been the law of the land since June of 2015. Five years. Same sex couples have actually been getting married much longer than that in some states. Society has not been undermined and the institution of marriage has not been destroyed. In fact, in my estimation, is stronger when there is inclusion and the base is broadened.

Furthermore, it is not even an issue for the vast majority of Americans. These same sex couple have just become part of the social fabric and are an integral part of the community like everyone else. They work, they pay taxes, they volunteer, the maintain homes and establish families. And now they and their children can enjoy the same legal protections , financial advantages and social status as the rest of us take for granted.

And what will happen if Obergefell is overturned. No doubt some states- and we could pretty much name then- would halt such weddings. But it is unknown if they would, or could void the marriages that have taken place already. Straight people should consider how they would feel if their marriage was somehow annulled for some bogus religious reason- such as not being married in a church. They should think about how their lives would be upended by a cascade of legal and financial issues thrown at them.

It is clear to me that people like Davis and Moore have serious problems and suffer from something bordering on a religious psychosis. They have absolutely no compassion or empathy for the people who would be devastated by this.

I can think of no time in the history of this nation that a right was established and then revoked. It would truly be a dark day in America if such a thing were to happen . My only hope is that John Roberts, a conservative to be sure- but one who is also concerned about his legacy, and that of his court-would not let this happen.

Ex-Judge Roy Moore Files Supreme Court Brief to Urge End to Equal Marriage

"The Foundation believes that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend for it to protect a right to same-sex marriage," the briefing said.

www.newsweek.com

When Obergefell v. Hodges was decided in 2015, Moore ordered Alabama judges to ignore the ruling. Moore was suspended for that action.

Same-sex marriage was legalized in 2015 by the Supreme Court's decision in the Obergefell v. Hodges case in which justices found that the Fourteenth Amendment protects both opposite-sex and same-sex marriage.

"The Foundation has an interest in this case because it believes that religious liberty is the foremost gift of God," the briefing read, "and Kim Davis was deprived of her religious liberty because of this Court's decision in Obergefell."

"In addition, the Foundation believes that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend for it to protect a right to same-sex marriage," the briefing continued.

so the mentally ill that dont like a government telling them who they can marry want that same government to say who they can marry,,,


wouldnt it be better to just get the government out of marriage???

Would you care to explain what that would actually look like in the real world?

if you wanted to get married you go to a church of your choosing and get married,,,case closed,,,

or you could always go out into nature and profess your communion and end it there,,

marriage is between the two getting married and nobody elses business,,,

Brilliant! Now you just have to figure out how you will sell that I idea to the millions of people who would loose all of the financial benefits and legal protection that now go with marriage.

If it aint broken it don't need to be fixed. We are not going to throw the baby out with the bath water. Speaking of babies, how do you think that your scheme would effect parenthood?

so its all about the money to you,,,figures it would be something greedy,,,

You might want to consider this. Are you people really willing to destroy an entire institution that so many people are invested in, and that works rather well, in order to avoid the issue of government sanctioned same sex marriage?

Can Government Get out of the Marriage Business?

Can Government Get out of the Marriage Business?

Government is inextricably linked to the marriage business.

www.outsidethebeltway.com

Selected excerpts with notations where needed:

In the debate last night, Ron Paul noted his position on marriage as follows:
get the government out of it. Why doesn’t it go to the church? And why doesn’t it to go to the individuals? I don’t think government should give us a license to get married. It should be in the church.

The Church? Really? Where does that leave people who are not religious or who just do not want to get married in a church? Will we then be discriminating against those people on the basis of religion? What are the implications for government benefits and the government’s role in mediating divorces? . Shall that be left too Jewish, Sharia or Cannon law? Not very well thought out.

Here’s the deal: much of the significance of marriage is very much linked to civil-legal matters in a way that makes it impossible for government to extricate itself from its definition. Marriage is many things that have nothing to do with government such as romance, love, friendship, lifelong companionship, and even sacred bonds. There is little doubt that those things can all be achieved without the government being involved (as is the case with friendship, for example).

However, marriage is also about certain mutual legal obligations regarding property, finances, children and whatnot, about which governmental intervention is sometimes necessary to resolve disputes (as is the case with any contractual relationship).

Further, marriage diminishes legal complexity in a variety issues (children, death [i.e., funeral arrangements], hospital visitations, medical decisions, etc.). Now, we could utterly remove marriage as a legal institution, but then we would have to replace it with something else, and that something else would almost certainly be more cumbersome in terms of government entanglements that the current system.

To put it as simply as possible: for government to truly get out of the marriage business it would have to stop recognizing the spousal relationship as having special legal standing. This is because to recognize that relationship as having specific legal significances it would need a definition of “marriage” that could be held up to legal scrutiny (to, for example, stop people from arbitrarily claiming whatever privileges might exist for married couples). Such a stand would have to exist whether the government issued the licenses or not. Once the law has to define “marriage” then government is, by definition, in the “marriage business.”

To summarize the summary: the only way to truly get government out of the marriage business would be to reduce marriage to the same status of friendship, i.e., a social relationship utterly defined by private interactions and that lacks legal significance.

if it works so well then why do you want it changed???

your ok with forced authority as long as it works in your favor ,,,

We did not change it. We made it more inclusive. Forced authority? Are you being forced to get gay married? The forced authority was the states telling people that they could not get married. Now everyone has a choice

I am being forced to get the governments permission,,,

and yes you are changing it since its been the norm for thousands of yrs,,,

like I said I find it strange you dont like the governent telling you who you can and cant marry and your solution is to have the same government say who you can or cant marry,,,

Well as I see it, Marriage has been evolving for thousands of years and has gone through many changes. Are you equally outraged about the fact that women are no longer considered the property of men, or that interracial marriage is now legal when it was not before? Stagnation is death to an institution. Evolution gives it new life.

As far as the governments permission goes, that is malarkey. The fact that marriage is regulated by the government- mostly to guard against under age nuptials and other abuses- does not mean that you need permission. Everyone is issued a marriage license as long as they meet a minimal and basic criteria.

The government was telling people who they can marry based on the respective genders of the parties. Now they are not But, I realize that I'm wasting my time here. I know that people like you can't be reasoned with . I think that you are motivated by a combination of traditionalism, bigotry and anti government paranoia and I am not qualified to fix that, if anyone is.

Marriage, including same sex marriage is here to stay. Deal with it.

you see it wrong,,,marriage has been the same for thousands of yrs,,,its only recently its been taken out of the church and controlled by governments,,,

as long as your happy about being controlled then go with it,,,but remember you are what the government allows not a free man,,,

As I said, I realize that there is not reasoning with you. There is not point to this . You plan is a pipe dream that you have no support for and most people think is idiotic

theres more support for my idea than you realize,,,,,

like I said as long as youre OK being a product of government have at it,,,

but I suggest you never call another person or group authoritarian or fascist,,, cause thats what you are by siding with government control over private lives,,,,

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

This is sickening, disgusting and heart breaking ! There is something seriously wrong with people who think that they have the right to control the lives of other people in the name of their distorted and bastardized version of religious liberty.

Same sex marriage has been the law of the land since June of 2015. Five years. Same sex couples have actually been getting married much longer than that in some states. Society has not been undermined and the institution of marriage has not been destroyed. In fact, in my estimation, is stronger when there is inclusion and the base is broadened.

Furthermore, it is not even an issue for the vast majority of Americans. These same sex couple have just become part of the social fabric and are an integral part of the community like everyone else. They work, they pay taxes, they volunteer, the maintain homes and establish families. And now they and their children can enjoy the same legal protections , financial advantages and social status as the rest of us take for granted.

And what will happen if Obergefell is overturned. No doubt some states- and we could pretty much name then- would halt such weddings. But it is unknown if they would, or could void the marriages that have taken place already. Straight people should consider how they would feel if their marriage was somehow annulled for some bogus religious reason- such as not being married in a church. They should think about how their lives would be upended by a cascade of legal and financial issues thrown at them.

It is clear to me that people like Davis and Moore have serious problems and suffer from something bordering on a religious psychosis. They have absolutely no compassion or empathy for the people who would be devastated by this.

I can think of no time in the history of this nation that a right was established and then revoked. It would truly be a dark day in America if such a thing were to happen . My only hope is that John Roberts, a conservative to be sure- but one who is also concerned about his legacy, and that of his court-would not let this happen.

Ex-Judge Roy Moore Files Supreme Court Brief to Urge End to Equal Marriage

"The Foundation believes that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend for it to protect a right to same-sex marriage," the briefing said.

www.newsweek.com

When Obergefell v. Hodges was decided in 2015, Moore ordered Alabama judges to ignore the ruling. Moore was suspended for that action.

Same-sex marriage was legalized in 2015 by the Supreme Court's decision in the Obergefell v. Hodges case in which justices found that the Fourteenth Amendment protects both opposite-sex and same-sex marriage.

"The Foundation has an interest in this case because it believes that religious liberty is the foremost gift of God," the briefing read, "and Kim Davis was deprived of her religious liberty because of this Court's decision in Obergefell."

"In addition, the Foundation believes that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend for it to protect a right to same-sex marriage," the briefing continued.

so the mentally ill that dont like a government telling them who they can marry want that same government to say who they can marry,,,


wouldnt it be better to just get the government out of marriage???

Would you care to explain what that would actually look like in the real world?

if you wanted to get married you go to a church of your choosing and get married,,,case closed,,,

or you could always go out into nature and profess your communion and end it there,,

marriage is between the two getting married and nobody elses business,,,

Brilliant! Now you just have to figure out how you will sell that I idea to the millions of people who would loose all of the financial benefits and legal protection that now go with marriage.

If it aint broken it don't need to be fixed. We are not going to throw the baby out with the bath water. Speaking of babies, how do you think that your scheme would effect parenthood?

so its all about the money to you,,,figures it would be something greedy,,,

You might want to consider this. Are you people really willing to destroy an entire institution that so many people are invested in, and that works rather well, in order to avoid the issue of government sanctioned same sex marriage?

Can Government Get out of the Marriage Business?

Can Government Get out of the Marriage Business?

Government is inextricably linked to the marriage business.

www.outsidethebeltway.com

Selected excerpts with notations where needed:

In the debate last night, Ron Paul noted his position on marriage as follows:
get the government out of it. Why doesn’t it go to the church? And why doesn’t it to go to the individuals? I don’t think government should give us a license to get married. It should be in the church.

The Church? Really? Where does that leave people who are not religious or who just do not want to get married in a church? Will we then be discriminating against those people on the basis of religion? What are the implications for government benefits and the government’s role in mediating divorces? . Shall that be left too Jewish, Sharia or Cannon law? Not very well thought out.

Here’s the deal: much of the significance of marriage is very much linked to civil-legal matters in a way that makes it impossible for government to extricate itself from its definition. Marriage is many things that have nothing to do with government such as romance, love, friendship, lifelong companionship, and even sacred bonds. There is little doubt that those things can all be achieved without the government being involved (as is the case with friendship, for example).

However, marriage is also about certain mutual legal obligations regarding property, finances, children and whatnot, about which governmental intervention is sometimes necessary to resolve disputes (as is the case with any contractual relationship).

Further, marriage diminishes legal complexity in a variety issues (children, death [i.e., funeral arrangements], hospital visitations, medical decisions, etc.). Now, we could utterly remove marriage as a legal institution, but then we would have to replace it with something else, and that something else would almost certainly be more cumbersome in terms of government entanglements that the current system.

To put it as simply as possible: for government to truly get out of the marriage business it would have to stop recognizing the spousal relationship as having special legal standing. This is because to recognize that relationship as having specific legal significances it would need a definition of “marriage” that could be held up to legal scrutiny (to, for example, stop people from arbitrarily claiming whatever privileges might exist for married couples). Such a stand would have to exist whether the government issued the licenses or not. Once the law has to define “marriage” then government is, by definition, in the “marriage business.”

To summarize the summary: the only way to truly get government out of the marriage business would be to reduce marriage to the same status of friendship, i.e., a social relationship utterly defined by private interactions and that lacks legal significance.

if it works so well then why do you want it changed???

your ok with forced authority as long as it works in your favor ,,,

We did not change it. We made it more inclusive. Forced authority? Are you being forced to get gay married? The forced authority was the states telling people that they could not get married. Now everyone has a choice

I am being forced to get the governments permission,,,

and yes you are changing it since its been the norm for thousands of yrs,,,

like I said I find it strange you dont like the governent telling you who you can and cant marry and your solution is to have the same government say who you can or cant marry,,,

Well as I see it, Marriage has been evolving for thousands of years and has gone through many changes. Are you equally outraged about the fact that women are no longer considered the property of men, or that interracial marriage is now legal when it was not before? Stagnation is death to an institution. Evolution gives it new life.

As far as the governments permission goes, that is malarkey. The fact that marriage is regulated by the government- mostly to guard against under age nuptials and other abuses- does not mean that you need permission. Everyone is issued a marriage license as long as they meet a minimal and basic criteria.

The government was telling people who they can marry based on the respective genders of the parties. Now they are not But, I realize that I'm wasting my time here. I know that people like you can't be reasoned with . I think that you are motivated by a combination of traditionalism, bigotry and anti government paranoia and I am not qualified to fix that, if anyone is.

Marriage, including same sex marriage is here to stay. Deal with it.

you see it wrong,,,marriage has been the same for thousands of yrs,,,its only recently its been taken out of the church and controlled by governments,,,

as long as your happy about being controlled then go with it,,,but remember you are what the government allows not a free man,,,

As I said, I realize that there is not reasoning with you. There is not point to this . You plan is a pipe dream that you have no support for and most people think is idiotic

theres more support for my idea than you realize,,,,,

like I said as long as youre OK being a product of government have at it,,,

but I suggest you never call another person or group authoritarian or fascist,,, cause thats what you are by siding with government control over private lives,,,,

There is support? Lets see it. Document it. Support from who? Kook libertarians and anti government radicals? The government does not control my private life. I go about my business not thinking much at all about the government. But I know that the government is there to provide me with certain rights and protections...Protections for you libertarians and paranoid anti government zealots who are a 1/2 of a degree from anarchy.

 

[miketx]

Why does the OP want to marry another man?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Why does the OP want to marry another man?

I don't you dip shit. I am married to a woman. 30 years. But I support the right of those who do. Is it that hard for your small mind to understand that straight people might advocate for LGBT people ? Apparently so.

 

[miketx]

Why does the OP want to marry another man?

I don't you dip shit. I am married to a woman. 30 years. But I support the right of those who do. Is it that hard for your small mind to understand that straight people might advocate for LGBT people ? Apparently so.

It's a known fact that most homesexuals ask questions on message boards and them answer them in the next sentence.

 

[progressive hunter]

This is sickening, disgusting and heart breaking ! There is something seriously wrong with people who think that they have the right to control the lives of other people in the name of their distorted and bastardized version of religious liberty.

Same sex marriage has been the law of the land since June of 2015. Five years. Same sex couples have actually been getting married much longer than that in some states. Society has not been undermined and the institution of marriage has not been destroyed. In fact, in my estimation, is stronger when there is inclusion and the base is broadened.

Furthermore, it is not even an issue for the vast majority of Americans. These same sex couple have just become part of the social fabric and are an integral part of the community like everyone else. They work, they pay taxes, they volunteer, the maintain homes and establish families. And now they and their children can enjoy the same legal protections , financial advantages and social status as the rest of us take for granted.

And what will happen if Obergefell is overturned. No doubt some states- and we could pretty much name then- would halt such weddings. But it is unknown if they would, or could void the marriages that have taken place already. Straight people should consider how they would feel if their marriage was somehow annulled for some bogus religious reason- such as not being married in a church. They should think about how their lives would be upended by a cascade of legal and financial issues thrown at them.

It is clear to me that people like Davis and Moore have serious problems and suffer from something bordering on a religious psychosis. They have absolutely no compassion or empathy for the people who would be devastated by this.

I can think of no time in the history of this nation that a right was established and then revoked. It would truly be a dark day in America if such a thing were to happen . My only hope is that John Roberts, a conservative to be sure- but one who is also concerned about his legacy, and that of his court-would not let this happen.

Ex-Judge Roy Moore Files Supreme Court Brief to Urge End to Equal Marriage

"The Foundation believes that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend for it to protect a right to same-sex marriage," the briefing said.

www.newsweek.com

When Obergefell v. Hodges was decided in 2015, Moore ordered Alabama judges to ignore the ruling. Moore was suspended for that action.

Same-sex marriage was legalized in 2015 by the Supreme Court's decision in the Obergefell v. Hodges case in which justices found that the Fourteenth Amendment protects both opposite-sex and same-sex marriage.

"The Foundation has an interest in this case because it believes that religious liberty is the foremost gift of God," the briefing read, "and Kim Davis was deprived of her religious liberty because of this Court's decision in Obergefell."

"In addition, the Foundation believes that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend for it to protect a right to same-sex marriage," the briefing continued.

so the mentally ill that dont like a government telling them who they can marry want that same government to say who they can marry,,,


wouldnt it be better to just get the government out of marriage???

Would you care to explain what that would actually look like in the real world?

if you wanted to get married you go to a church of your choosing and get married,,,case closed,,,

or you could always go out into nature and profess your communion and end it there,,

marriage is between the two getting married and nobody elses business,,,

Brilliant! Now you just have to figure out how you will sell that I idea to the millions of people who would loose all of the financial benefits and legal protection that now go with marriage.

If it aint broken it don't need to be fixed. We are not going to throw the baby out with the bath water. Speaking of babies, how do you think that your scheme would effect parenthood?

so its all about the money to you,,,figures it would be something greedy,,,

You might want to consider this. Are you people really willing to destroy an entire institution that so many people are invested in, and that works rather well, in order to avoid the issue of government sanctioned same sex marriage?

Can Government Get out of the Marriage Business?

Can Government Get out of the Marriage Business?

Government is inextricably linked to the marriage business.

www.outsidethebeltway.com

Selected excerpts with notations where needed:

In the debate last night, Ron Paul noted his position on marriage as follows:
get the government out of it. Why doesn’t it go to the church? And why doesn’t it to go to the individuals? I don’t think government should give us a license to get married. It should be in the church.

The Church? Really? Where does that leave people who are not religious or who just do not want to get married in a church? Will we then be discriminating against those people on the basis of religion? What are the implications for government benefits and the government’s role in mediating divorces? . Shall that be left too Jewish, Sharia or Cannon law? Not very well thought out.

Here’s the deal: much of the significance of marriage is very much linked to civil-legal matters in a way that makes it impossible for government to extricate itself from its definition. Marriage is many things that have nothing to do with government such as romance, love, friendship, lifelong companionship, and even sacred bonds. There is little doubt that those things can all be achieved without the government being involved (as is the case with friendship, for example).

However, marriage is also about certain mutual legal obligations regarding property, finances, children and whatnot, about which governmental intervention is sometimes necessary to resolve disputes (as is the case with any contractual relationship).

Further, marriage diminishes legal complexity in a variety issues (children, death [i.e., funeral arrangements], hospital visitations, medical decisions, etc.). Now, we could utterly remove marriage as a legal institution, but then we would have to replace it with something else, and that something else would almost certainly be more cumbersome in terms of government entanglements that the current system.

To put it as simply as possible: for government to truly get out of the marriage business it would have to stop recognizing the spousal relationship as having special legal standing. This is because to recognize that relationship as having specific legal significances it would need a definition of “marriage” that could be held up to legal scrutiny (to, for example, stop people from arbitrarily claiming whatever privileges might exist for married couples). Such a stand would have to exist whether the government issued the licenses or not. Once the law has to define “marriage” then government is, by definition, in the “marriage business.”

To summarize the summary: the only way to truly get government out of the marriage business would be to reduce marriage to the same status of friendship, i.e., a social relationship utterly defined by private interactions and that lacks legal significance.

if it works so well then why do you want it changed???

your ok with forced authority as long as it works in your favor ,,,

We did not change it. We made it more inclusive. Forced authority? Are you being forced to get gay married? The forced authority was the states telling people that they could not get married. Now everyone has a choice

I am being forced to get the governments permission,,,

and yes you are changing it since its been the norm for thousands of yrs,,,

like I said I find it strange you dont like the governent telling you who you can and cant marry and your solution is to have the same government say who you can or cant marry,,,

Well as I see it, Marriage has been evolving for thousands of years and has gone through many changes. Are you equally outraged about the fact that women are no longer considered the property of men, or that interracial marriage is now legal when it was not before? Stagnation is death to an institution. Evolution gives it new life.

As far as the governments permission goes, that is malarkey. The fact that marriage is regulated by the government- mostly to guard against under age nuptials and other abuses- does not mean that you need permission. Everyone is issued a marriage license as long as they meet a minimal and basic criteria.

The government was telling people who they can marry based on the respective genders of the parties. Now they are not But, I realize that I'm wasting my time here. I know that people like you can't be reasoned with . I think that you are motivated by a combination of traditionalism, bigotry and anti government paranoia and I am not qualified to fix that, if anyone is.

Marriage, including same sex marriage is here to stay. Deal with it.

you see it wrong,,,marriage has been the same for thousands of yrs,,,its only recently its been taken out of the church and controlled by governments,,,

as long as your happy about being controlled then go with it,,,but remember you are what the government allows not a free man,,,

As I said, I realize that there is not reasoning with you. There is not point to this . You plan is a pipe dream that you have no support for and most people think is idiotic

theres more support for my idea than you realize,,,,,

like I said as long as youre OK being a product of government have at it,,,

but I suggest you never call another person or group authoritarian or fascist,,, cause thats what you are by siding with government control over private lives,,,,

There is support? Lets see it. Document it. Support from who? Kook libertarians and anti government radicals? The government does not control my private life. I go about my business not thinking much at all about the government. But I know that the government is there to provide me with certain rights and protections...Protections for you libertarians and paranoid anti government zealots who are a 1/2 of a degree from anarchy.

governments do not provide rights,,,they provide privileges than can just as easy take away,,,

face it your POV leans authoritarian bordering on fascist,,,

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Why does the OP want to marry another man?

I don't you dip shit. I am married to a woman. 30 years. But I support the right of those who do. Is it that hard for your small mind to understand that straight people might advocate for LGBT people ? Apparently so.

It's a known fact that most homesexuals ask questions on message boards and them answer them in the next sentence.

It's a known fact that all bigots are morons who make assumptions about others sexuality based on their politics and advocacy

 

[miketx]

Why does the OP want to marry another man?

I don't you dip shit. I am married to a woman. 30 years. But I support the right of those who do. Is it that hard for your small mind to understand that straight people might advocate for LGBT people ? Apparently so.

It's a known fact that most homesexuals ask questions on message boards and them answer them in the next sentence.

It's a known fact that all bigots are morons who make assumptions about others sexuality based on their politics and advocacy

No I just think it's a mental illness to let another man poke his weenie in you butt.