Gay Group Protest Palin Pick

[techres]

Originally Posted by 4sarge

Historically speaking, marriage licenses have never used the terminology of Party A & or Party B. Only a Government Bureaucrat or an attorney would think of changing the verbiage of Holy Matrimony between a man and a woman into Party A/PartyB or Party 1/Party2 to appease "Special Interest or Protected Groups"

And there-in lies the rub. IF marriage is a holy matrimony recognized &/or sponsored by the state then marriage lends itself to all the fun in the sun of politics. If marriage is a contract recognized and upheld by the state, then welcome to contractual language.

Personally, I go for the "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and give unto God that which is God's" approach. I.E. marriage is far too important to let the State have any part of it, and by doing so you protect it from any kind of redefinition.

Just like taking money from the Gov't as a religious group doing charity. You take the money, you take on the strings that always come from the gov
t! Personally, my synagogue voted to take no gov't funds, not because we could not make fine use of them, but because we did not want the gov't having anything to do with our faith, religion, etc. Better to keep ourself free of that potential intrusion or slavery.

The state gives with one hand and whallops with the other...

[4sarge]

Originally Posted by techres

And there-in lies the rub. IF marriage is a holy matrimony recognized &/or sponsored by the state then marriage lends itself to all the fun in the sun of politics. If marriage is a contract recognized and upheld by the state, then welcome to contractual language.

Personally, I go for the "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and give unto God that which is God's" approach. I.E. marriage is far too important to let the State have any part of it, and by doing so you protect it from any kind of redefinition.

Just like taking money from the Gov't as a religious group doing charity. You take the money, you take on the strings that always come from the gov
t! Personally, my synagogue voted to take no gov't funds, not because we could not make fine use of them, but because we did not want the gov't having anything to do with our faith, religion, etc. Better to keep ourself free of that potential intrusion or slavery.

The state gives with one hand and whallops with the other...

So are you saying marriages in your church are not recognized by the State. I'm saying that the politics (verbiage) changed in California because of the Government endorsed Special Interest Groups. Since the law defines and sanctions legal marriage then one would violate the law unless the law was followed (marriage license, blood test, etc)

[techres]

Originally Posted by 4sarge

So are you saying marriages in your church are not recognized by the State. I'm saying that the politics (verbiage) changed in California because of the Government endorsed Special Interest Groups. Since the law defines and sanctions legal marriage then one would violate the law unless the law was followed (marriage license, blood test, etc)

I am saying that a marriage should be controlled at the religious level. State should not get to require a singe thing of it because it is not their business. If the state wants to be in the business of some kind of contract that is fine. But my marriage, for instance, was a contract between me, my wife, and God. The state of Indiana should have had nothing to do with it.

But we went along with the certificate, etc., because we did not feel like fighting that war then.

State <-------------------- Apart --------------------> Marriage

Better that way.

Now to Indiana's credit, they do allow a wide variety of people to perform weddings, and I have even done one myself. But the fact that they need an "approved" person to do a religious deed is repulsive in and of itself.

Again, my

[Bazooka Joe71]

Sorry, I just couldn't resist.

[techres]

Originally Posted by Bazooka Joe71

Sorry, I just couldn't resist.

He could not look any more "questionable" metro sexual...

[Episcopus]

Originally Posted by 4sarge

Historically speaking, marriage licenses have never used the terminology of Party A & or Party B. Only a Government Bureaucrat or an attorney would think of changing the verbiage of Holy Matrimony between a man and a woman into Party A/PartyB or Party 1/Party2 to appease "Special Interest or Protected Groups"

Guilty of being a lawyer, sorry.

My view:
'Holy Matrimony' = My wife and I committing to each other in the eyes of God. A blessing by God, through a pastor, showing his hand in and approval of our relationship.

Marriage(tax benefits, property rights, etc) = a recognition of our living status, relationship and pooled resources, by the State/Fed who then gives us the legal benefits we receive.

You can have the church portion without the legal portion, and you can have the legal portion without the church portion. The state should have nothing to say at all about the church portion. The church should have nothing to say at all about the state portion. Due to convenience/tradition the ceremonies have been merged and one ceremony serves both purpose in most cases, but it is still two separate things.

[techres]

Yeah, until I get my wish which is jail for adulterers under some kind of "violation of marital contract" law, I just can't get too worked up about so many "marriage issues" other than just taking it out of the state's hands.

You give me adulterer's prisons and maybe I will get going on the "iron fist of the state" when it comes to their position in relation the sanctity of marriage.

[Episcopus]

Originally Posted by techres

Yeah, until I get my wish which is jail for adulterers under some kind of "violation of marital contract" law, I just can't get too worked up about so many "marriage issues" other than just taking it out of the state's hands.

You give me adulterer's prisons and maybe I will get going on the "iron fist of the state" when it comes to their position in relation the sanctity of marriage.

Adulterer's prison? Great idea! How do we get the ball rolling on this?

[Bill of Rights]

Originally Posted by techres

Then why am I not a Senator yet?

Same reason I'm not.

Blessings,
B

[4sarge]

Originally Posted by Bill of Rights

Same reason I'm not.

Blessings,
B

I'd Vote for You, Bill