There is no such thing as “the marriage business.” Anyone see same-sex marriage at the voting booth? Who put it there? Why? Why does anybody need anybody else’s permission to live how they want?Why is this a government question? They are not a capable body to make such a definition. I think the government should get out of the marriage business and let competent bodies make the call. They can use another word for what same sex couples want to do. If you agree, consider signing the petition linked below.
wh.gov/UwiP
Just FYI, this is through the White House so there would be no spam involved.I’m not into signing petitions, because I usually get a load of spam afterward, so I’m going to pass on this.
I believe you are correct. I have a niece that is a gay rights agita… err… activist and her stated agenda is to normalize homosexuality as just another way of living. But listening to her she wants to ultimately show that marriage means nothing and to tear it down to “free women from the oppression of marriage and children.” Is she a wackadoo? Maybe, but there are plenty of ssm supporters that see marriage as archaic and seek to tear it down.I suggest you visit the marriage equality web site. Homosexual persons want nothing less than the word marriage as the name for their living arrangement.
I think the homosexual group wants these rights automatically which can be done in two ways. Redefine marriage to include same sex couples, or create a new license that covers same sex couples which can then be granted automatic rights however the government sees fit. Since redefining marriage is not a legitimate option but an exercise in futility (or smoke and mirrors), seems the other is better in my opinion.My suspicion is that the push for same sex “marriage” is because these couples want the same financial benefits as traditional married couples (1 man + 1 woman,) and MOST specifically for tax breaks, since many corporations and insurance companies extend insurance benefits to same sex partners of established couples, and there doesn’t seem to be any rule that they go through a ceremony or buy some kind of license. Just sharing the same address for a certain period of time will do.
As far as all the other things married couples can do, that is pretty limitless. You can, for example, appoint anyone at all as an heir, a health care proxy, purchase property jointly with anyone you choose, and you can even adopt a child as a single person, no partner needed. Lest we forget, you can even incorporate yourself and another person: A corporation, for the purposes of law, is considered “a person.”
Since the government is whining about a lack of incoming revenue, I’d think they’d want to make the marriage tax benefit as narrow as possible, rather than open it up to a couple of million people who wouldn’t otherwise be entitled to it.
I don’t disagree, I just think the problem is that the government is marrying people. If they were out of the business, they could just create a new license for same sex couple with some name they choose (other than marriage) since they established it. Then the authorities at the lower level (i.e. priest, minister, etc.) who has the authority to enact unions can then determine which licenses to administer or not administer and the government remains neutral which is closer to their ideal role.Marriage is for the good of society. So is government in its ideal form. There is no conflict of interest when government regulates and documents valid marriages.
Yes, and the National Organization for Women, a radical, Marxist, tear down the family and gender means nothing organization wants women to abort, get artificial contraceptives paid for by our employers (if not, it’s a War on Women!). Can you imagine women telling other women to act like men, to ignore their own biology, and to become female chauvenist pigs who have “just sex” with men. like using a toilet, and walking away?I believe you are correct. I have a niece that is a gay rights agita… err… activist and her stated agenda is to normalize homosexuality as just another way of living. But listening to her she wants to ultimately show that marriage means nothing and to tear it down to “free women from the oppression of marriage and children.” Is she a wackadoo? Maybe, but there are plenty of ssm supporters that see marriage as archaic and seek to tear it down.
Isn’t that the question Eve asked before she bit into the apple?Why does anybody need anybody else’s permission to live how they want?
Actually no. While the Bible does not specify a particular fruit, it does describe it in tangible terms as being good for food (edible). The serpent beguiled her and basically told her God was not telling the truth.Isn’t that the question Eve asked before she bit into the apple?
The priest needs a valid marriage license from the State in order to marry a couple, so he acts as an agent of the State and of the Church at the same time.I don’t disagree, I just think the problem is that the government is marrying people. If they were out of the business, they could just create a new license for same sex couple with some name they choose (other than marriage) since they established it. Then the authorities at the lower level (i.e. priest, minister, etc.) who has the authority to enact unions can then determine which licenses to administer or not administer and the government remains neutral which is closer to their ideal role.
God Bless.
As a gay marriage advocate, I’ve been suggesting this course of action for several years. The government should stop licensing ‘marriages’ entirely. They should only be dealing in civil unions, with across-the-board equal benefits for all. Anyone who wants to be “married” would need to find a religious authority willing to perform such a ceremony (probably not an overly difficult task, even for a gay couple).Why is this a government question? They are not a capable body to make such a definition. I think the government should get out of the marriage business and let competent bodies make the call. They can use another word for what same sex couples want to do. If you agree, consider signing the petition linked below.
wh.gov/UwiP
All gays have stated this? Universally? That’s a very bold claim you have there.It has nothing to do with the government. Gays have stated they don’t want civil unions or domestic partnerships. Why? Because it would make them “second-class citizens.”
Marriage Equality USAAll gays have stated this? Universally? That’s a very bold claim you have there.
It’s always been here. A vocal minority post the same things over and over using different words and/or questions. Yes, and the teachings of the Church encompass more than “because God said so.”Government has an interest in the promotion of the common good and the maintenance of the moral consensus, so why in the world would it bow out of the marriage business? It has already done enough harm withdrawing what protections it once offered.
I am deeply alarmed by what I see as a rise in libertarianism on these forums. Do you people not realize that libertarianism is one particular strain of the same Enlightenment cancer that’s killed Catholics by the millions over the last few centuries? I suspect it’s well-meaning in that libertarianism seems to be a virile alternative to the leftism of the day (mainstream “conservatism” being a shallower and less principled form of that leftism), but for Heaven’s sake, it’s clearly at odds with the real and concrete teachings of the Church.