California wants to ban marriage

[Kathy30]

Inspired by Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie California politicians want to ban marriage altogether.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/politicalmuscle/

It will make us just like China!

My half brother recent got married in China. He and his bride went down to the city hall, filled out papers and walked out what passes for married there.

[Wolfcounsel]

Migden made the mistake of saying she introduced the domestic partnership bill after reading a newspaper article about Brad Pitt (http://www.playfuls.com/news_0003758_Brad_and_Angelina_Getting_Married_Bef ore_Gays_Can.html), who considered getting married to Angelina Jolie only when everyone had the right. --from Kathy30's link

Another Hollywood asswipe who thinks normal people care about the crap coming out of his mouth.

[DesertFox]

Pretty Boy Brad's just trying to clear the road for when he ditches Angelina and takes up with a boyfriend. :limp:

[Kathy30]

More to the truth is that Angelia Jolie is making room for her girlfriend. She's bisexual you know, but perhaps a bit more lesbian than straight.

[MrSanity]

Fortunately, it's only a very small minority who would actually support the destruction of marriage altogether.

[Beowulf]

And common folk still live in Mexifornia because............:rolleyes:

[Maggie_T]

California wants to ban marriage


What, gay marriage too? Aw, homosexuals will be so disappointed. Ah, well. Typical liberalism. If we can't have it, neither can you.

[gnome]

If the governmental involvement in marriage became nothing more than a legal matter of domestic partnership, would a church marriage lose any of its meaning? The religious significance is provided by the church, not the government.

[d'urville]

Migden made the mistake of saying she introduced the domestic partnership bill after reading a newspaper article about Brad Pitt (http://www.playfuls.com/news_0003758_Brad_and_Angelina_Getting_Married_Bef ore_Gays_Can.html), who considered getting married to Angelina Jolie only when everyone had the right. --from Kathy30's link

Another Hollywood asswipe who thinks normal people care about the crap coming out of his mouth.

Migden has been tampering with this issue for at least seven years now. This is an almost-perfect example of a valid slippery-slope argument.

She tried to get this passed back in 1999, but had to agree to a compromise bill to allow "civil unions" for "heretosexual couples" if and only if one of them was over 62. She sees in the Constitution that a right "to determine your relationship", and, when asked about polygamy, Migden answered that she is not focusing on "people that live in the frontiers with their animals." This one's a keeper.

[DeclinetoState]

http://www.seiu415.org/political_action/endorsement%20page/migden.jpg

Carole Migden

[DeclinetoState]

Migden's a crook:

September 03, 2005


California Democratic State Senator Carole Migden was on the state House floor lobbying for her Senate Bill 484 this past Wednesday. It's a measure to require cosmetics manufacturers to disclose the presence of carcinogens in their products. Here's what happened, according to the Sacramento Bee's local section front page story "'Ghost vote' spooks the Assembly," dated Sept. 2 (online version here (http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/ca/story/13507712p-14348275c.html), free reg. req.):
Nobody was surprised that...Migden voted in favor of her own...bill. The problem was she did it in the wrong legislative house...Migden, a San Francisco Democrat, pushed the voting button of a GOP assemblyman who was temporarily away from his desk. Her action violated Assembly rules and drew an angry response from Repulicans...Migden, chairwoman of the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee, declined to comment Thursday...'There's no story there,' she said. The bill later passed, in another vote taken without her engaged assistance, and awaits the Governor's approval. She later apologized, according to The Bee. Her arrogance is stunning, even for a San Francisco Democrat. If a private citizen is found to have fraudulently impersonated another individual while voting, he or she is subject to criminal prosecution. In the California legislature, a lawmaker gets off Scott-free.
Matt Rosenberg (http://www.rosenblog.com/2005/09/03/carole_migden_perpetrates_legislative_vote_fraud.h tml)

[USPatriot8320]

I dont think the government should have any hand in marriage. It's a spiritual thing, not a governmental thing. The government should dissolve the laws for marriage and leave it up to the church.

[Eagle1]

If the governmental involvement in marriage became nothing more than a legal matter of domestic partnership, would a church marriage lose any of its meaning? The religious significance is provided by the church, not the government.


i really would agree with you on that if it were not for those churches that would gladly marry seme-sex peoples

[Eagle1]

and Jesus flipped over the tables of the crooks outside the temple, imagine what he would do in this case

[CzechPrince]

From the article:

Ithaca Journal: "Let's get government out of the wedding business and have everyone, equally, have a civil arrangement," she said. The proposal Lifton supports would replace the word 'marriage' with 'civil commitment' in state laws, creating a legal contract she said would be accessible to everyone, while leaving the religious aspect of the union to religious institutions."

Michael Kinsley (http://www.slate.com/id/2085127/) likes the idea as well:
"If marriage were an entirely private affair, all the disputes over gay marriage would become irrelevant. Gay marriage would not have the official sanction of government, but neither would straight marriage. There would be official equality between the two, which is the essence of what gays want and are entitled to. And if the other side is sincere in saying that its concern is not what people do in private, but government endorsement of a gay 'lifestyle' or 'agenda,' that problem goes away, too."



Sounds good to me, and even Homeschool agrees with this. I don't understand why more people on here don't share this view.

[DoctorDoom]

This bullshit is 100% about militant queers perverting the definition of marriage. Eventually the 98%-plus of us who are not queer are going to be sick of it to the point of rebellion. Heads will roll.

[USPatriot8320]

Bring it!

[LightHorseman]

I've never understood exactly what place government has in legislating marriage anyway

[Kathy30]

Stable families make for a stable and productive society. There is a good reason why China does not have marriage, only a filing with the government. The children all belong to the government. The people all belong to the government. It's not much different that the slaves in the old south. Plantation owners didn't recognize marriage either, that allowed them to buy and sell the property (people) without feeling like they broke up a family.

Anthropologists and sociologists in studying the development of civilizations use markers to judge development. At what point did they develop marriage and recognition of children as legitimate heirs. At what point did they develop religious rituals, honor of the dead, and burial practices, mourning of the dead and the concept that life has value. Once these markers were reached the stability allowed other building blocks, agriculture, rudimentary medicine, building structures or even defined routes in nomadic cultures and patters of building temporary shelter like tents.

It's an exciting time to be an anthropologist today because you can observe the de-evolution of culture following the same path that it used develop. If anyone can write in the future, they might write books charting at which point a devolving culture abandoned marriage and legitmacy of heirs, (of course if all property belongs to the state, there are no heirs), honoring the dead, religious rituals and burial practices. At which point did mankind of the 21st century and beyond abandon the concept that life itself has a value.

We are already well on our way to societal de-evolution and return to barbarisim. Many of our cities in the United States itself have de-evolved to the point where the concept of cooperative living in cityhood is gone. There is only cooperative living in tribalism and of course the concurrent conflict between tribes. Not for the good of all, but the good only of the tribe.

Liberalisim takes us to some very interesting places on its way out of civilization.

[gnome]

i really would agree with you on that if it were not for those churches that would gladly marry seme-sex peoples

And you would be free to consider them not properly married according to your beliefs, the same situation as for other churches that baptize people the wrong way or follow some other fundamental ceremony incorrectly by your reckoning. What would be the purpose of any more government involvement?

[Beowulf]

I've never understood exactly what place government has in legislating marriage anyway

The same place they have legislating civil rights...they don't! Problem is here in America, people want their race, sexual preference, skin color and religion to be deciding factors in everything, not qualifications or character. If you have ever lost out on a job because of these things, they would piss you off even more.

[Maggie_T]

On a related subject, has anyone caught the film Wedding Wars on TV? It's all about homosexuals going on strike because they can't get married. Something along those lines, anyway. Hubby and I saw the trailer last night. The propaganda was so blatantly obvious, it was almost childish. We had a laugh, I can tell you.

Oh, and one little interesting detail. It stars Mr. James Streisand Brolin, too. I leave the rest to you. ;)

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

On a related subject, has anyone caught the film Wedding Wars on TV? It's all about homosexuals going on strike because they can't get married. Something along those lines, anyway. Hubby and I saw the trailer last night. The propaganda was so blatantly obvious, it was almost childish. We had a laugh, I can tell you.

Oh, and one little interesting detail. It stars Mr. James Streisand Brolin, too. I leave the rest to you. ;)

USP actually started a thread about it in FlameWars:

What If Homosexuals Went on Strike? - FreeConservatives (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=42363)

[d'urville]

I dont think the government should have any hand in marriage. It's a spiritual thing, not a governmental thing. The government should dissolve the laws for marriage and leave it up to the church.

It's not as if the government arranges marriage now. But if marriage was privatized, "spiritual" only, it would not be able to regulate legal or contractual disputes that arise from the "religious" ceremony because of that pesky First (and Tenth) Amendment.

In other words, the RCC does not recogonize divorce, the marriage would be considered a religious, undissolvable contract between two willing participants.

It could get even worse, Islam approves of "physically disciplining" the wife at the husband's discretion, and the legal recourse under your system would be..............?

[heikediguoren]

But if marriage was privatized, "spiritual" only,


...


In other words, the RCC does not recogonize divorce, the marriage would be considered a religious, undissolvable contract between two willing participants.

If two children promise to be "best friends forever", one of them cannot sue the other for ending their friendship after a fight over a favorite toy, because the promise has no judicial weight, only spiritual. Legal authority supercedes religious authority.

In the RCC case, If the marriage only has spiritual merit and no legal merit, then it has no legal authority to bind its participants, and they may marry and divorce each other at will. The law will have no relevance to them unless one or the other commits a crime in the process of practicing their religion.

The same applies to the concern about the Muslim man beating his wife. She will have him arrested for battery, and he cannot defend himself with their marriage contract because the contract will have no legal power.

[d'urville]

Might as well just go ahead and outlaw it.

...

If two children promise to be "best friends forever", one of them cannot sue the other for ending their friendship after a fight over a favorite toy, because the promise has no judicial weight, only spiritual. Legal authority supercedes religious authority.

Yes, because two children can't have a valid legal contract. Marriage is and should be taken more seriously than some "pinky-swear".


In the RCC case, If the marriage only has spiritual merit and no legal merit, then it has no legal authority to bind its participants, and they may marry and divorce each other at will. The law will have no relevance to them unless one or the other commits a crime in the process of practicing their religion.

? Sounds more like an abolishment of any public acknowlegement of marriage.


The same applies to the concern about the Muslim man beating his wife. She will have him arrested for battery, and he cannot defend himself with their marriage contract because the contract will have no legal power..

Only if any public acknowlegement of marriage was abolished, an unenforcable contract is worthless, kind of like a pinky swear between little children.

[Kathy30]

The government gets involved in marriage because it is invited if not demanded. A marriage without the force of law means just the same as "I'll love you forever or as long as it lasts". The minute you want a right, you also need someone to enforce that right, and that's the government.

[gnome]

The government gets involved in marriage because it is invited if not demanded. A marriage without the force of law means just the same as "I'll love you forever or as long as it lasts". The minute you want a right, you also need someone to enforce that right, and that's the government.

That's the purpose of the formalized domestic union--it specifies the legal obligations that the two parties agree to. They're held to that like a legal contract. What is the governmental interest in the character of that union, be it a religious sacred union or a secular convenience between, say, roommates who find the agreement advantageous? Why not leave it up to the respective churches?

[Kathy30]

They already have that. No one is fooled, no one. The progressives want to get rid of marriage completely. If you think for one minute that the liberals will LET the churches conduct marriages for its "spirituality" (a liberal saying the word "spiritual" makes it a curse word) don't imagine anyone else is equally as foolish.

If libs get their way, churches will enjoy the same latitude as the falon gong in Beijing.

[Lazarus]

Marriage IS a civil function because it is a Divine Institution that applies to all people, regardless of one's spirirtual beliefs... That means it was established by God for the stability of the human race, not just for those who believe in Christ and adhere to God's doctrines...

That does not negate the established definition that marriage is strictly the union between a man and a woman only... It still functions under the authority of God, but God has delegated the responsibility of authorizing marriage to the institution of government...

Many of us celebrate our marriages with religious ceremonies, but that is not the established requirement of God - God has delegated government with the resposnsibility of authorizing and presiding over marriage... All the way back to the oldest Biblical passages, marriage has always been the province of government because it applies to believers and unbelievers alike... But it also is, and has always been, strictly the union between a man and a woman...

Mrs Laz and I were married by a county magistrate in the office of his business - we never had a church ceremony - and we are just as married in the eyes of God as the Baptist debutant who spends $50,000 of daddy's money on a glorious church ceremony...

Now, having said all that, California has for years rejected and violated practically every institution that God has established, and have also lived on borrowed time because of their apostacy... If indeed the State of California discards the Divine Institution of marriage, it will be just one more brick in the wall between that twisted society and the will of God... There is only so much grace period that God will allow these people to return to his will... When the clock runs out, California is going to feel the full weight of the wrath of God on their backs...

And no doubt when that day comes, there will still be those who shake their fists in his face... Some people are beyond reclamation...

[Kathy30]

I can't say that marriage was ordained by God. Marriage of some sort exists in the most primitive cultures those without any knowledge of the Bible.

Marriage seems to be a universal building block of cultural development. Marriages are recorded as part of the earliest development, it's not only a building block, but a foundational building block. Just as some sort of belief in a diety is a foundational building block. Take away all these foundations and what happens? We'll find out.

[Lazarus]

I can't say that marriage was ordained by God. Marriage of some sort exists in the most primitive cultures those without any knowledge of the Bible.

Marriage seems to be a universal building block of cultural development. Marriages are recorded as part of the earliest development, it's not only a building block, but a foundational building block. Just as some sort of belief in a diety is a foundational building block. Take away all these foundations and what happens? We'll find out.:D Dont forget, my dear Kathy... God established marriage between Adam and Eve... And as such it was established into human society many many generations before Moses recorded the event... IOW, it was established by God long before any of the Bible was recorded into a written record... But make no mistake, marriage is not some social invention of human thought - It was established from the beginning by God, long before the Bible began to be recorded...

Just because the Bible had not yet been recorded does not mean that God was not communicating with mankind... All the events of the Book of Genesis occurred before the Bible was ever recorded - ie, God spoke with Adam, Eve, Noah, Abraham, etc., and established his will and institutions with them long before he instructed Moses to begin to record those events... In fact, the Book of Job is the oldest book of the Bible - it predates Moses' writings - and still it records that marriage was an established institution even at its time...

[Maggie_T]

They already have that. No one is fooled, no one. The progressives want to get rid of marriage completely. If you think for one minute that the liberals will LET the churches conduct marriages for its "spirituality" (a liberal saying the word "spiritual" makes it a curse word) don't imagine anyone else is equally as foolish.

If libs get their way, churches will enjoy the same latitude as the falon gong in Beijing.


Abso-bloody-lutely! :claps: :claps: :claps:

What I love about our Kathy is that she does not mince words. You go, girl!

[Air-Warrior]

Wow, this is more evidence that people create their own misery with twisted logic--when they start establishing their own ground rules for decency and upstanding behavior.

"Dissolve the institution of marriage so that people will stay together longer..."
--Brad Pitt, the highest voice of reason on the subject

That's totally empty of logic. Brad, you're on my movie boycott list now ya jerk!

[Air-Warrior]

I can't say that marriage was ordained by God. Marriage of some sort exists in the most primitive cultures those without any knowledge of the Bible.
You can't say or won't say?

It's in the Bible.

[Maggie_T]

"Dissolve the institution of marriage so that people will stay together longer..."
--Brad Pitt, the highest voice of reason on the subject

That's totally empty of logic.


I know, it sounds so childish. "I will only stay with my significant other if you don't tell me to. So there!"

It's not the piece of paper or the institution that binds you, but your love for the other party as well as your sense of responsibility and decency. And if you've got all that, then you wouldn't care how many papers you had to sign.

Some people have some quick growing up to catch up with. They've been postponing it long enough. :rolleyes:

[DesertFox]

Please don't talk that way about poor Brad. The boy's so sensitive, so delicate, so, so, I don't know, just so, freakin' faggoty.

[DoctorDoom]

I submit that America needs to ban Mexifornia. And Massholechusetts.

[USPatriot8320]

What about New York?

[USPatriot8320]

Please don't talk that way about poor Brad. The boy's so sensitive, so delicate, so, so, I don't know, just so, freakin' faggoty.



He's overly sensitive to gay issues.... But he needs to tone it down... I'm not sure I'd want him on my team, its bad enough we have a backstreet boy.. Its time to start having an application process.... :limp:

[Republican_Legion]

He's overly sensitive to gay issues.... But he needs to tone it down... I'm not sure I'd want him on my team, its bad enough we have a backstreet boy.. Its time to start having an application process.... :limp:

I thought Lance Bass was from Nsuck(N-sync) or whatever it was called.

[USPatriot8320]

All the same.....