A very timely move on Obama's part, considering how many "social-issue liberal" voters are ready to flush him down the toilet on account of NDAA and every other acronym he signed into law that flushed our civil liberties down the toilet. As a matter of fact, several friends that were on the fence have decided today that they will vote for him just because of this.

Karl:

Quote:

There's no solution to this problem found within state and federal government control.

Bravo.

My thoughts exactly, and it's a non issue for me. But then, when in recent memory have politicians been about substance?

Grumpygirl wrote..

As a matter of fact, several friends that were on the fence have decided today that they will vote for him just because of this.

Imagine that.

And we laughed about Clinton governing by polls...

Now, if we could just rig a few dozen focus groups to get the White House people to believe that it's in Barry's best political interest to "come out" as a gay Muslim just before the election...

And hope that Mittens comes out as a crypto-socialist pretend-conservative from Massachusetts just before the election. Oh, wait...

That is hilarious grumpy, so long as more people are special under the law, it matter naught that they can all goto the gulags.

This country is fukked. There is nothing worth saving, nothing

Karl, I'm running low on posts, but a point of clarification on banns, licenses, government involvement, etc may be in order. Banns were historically posted on the doors to the Church attended by the couple, or to the Court House doors of the municipality the couple were domiciled in (or posted to both). Governors of the colonies dating back to the 17th Century were involved in authorizing marriages through licensing, nullifying marriages because couples did not post their banns for 3 weeks in a public location for 3 weeks prior in their location of domicile, etc.

The Marriage Act of 1795 in New Jersey expressly granted Justices of the Peace (along with every stated and ordained minister) to solemnize marriages.

Here's my source info, to keep from getting my own ban posted (ha ha)
http://archive.org/stream/marriagerecord....

Great damned Ticker.

Quote:

The 10th Amendment says if it's not explicitly in The Constitution it's none of the government's damn business.

Ah, but you're forgetting the Everything is Our Damn Business Act of Whenever.. We really ought to repeal that, come to think of it.

(edit)Can I also advocate the pinning of this Ticker? Ron Paul may throw out a one-liner to this effect when asked directly, but this is the first time I've seen the real substance of the marriage "debate" thoroughly discussed from a libertarian perspective. I'm sure someone has done it before (edit2: For that matter Karl likely has), but apparently not Gary Johnson.. So I say this could stand to be pinned.

Gen, any good references for the marriage license historical info?

It's excellent politics as far as Obama is concerned. Republicans much prefer talking "morality" than economics. So he gets to distract them from the economics while energising an increasingly socially liberal younger generation of his supporters. Win, win.

Who is Jonathan Lewis for $1000, Alex!
Seems money was the primary reason for the 'Change'!
http://www.hillaryis44.org/
Who is Jonathan Lewis and why is he so important? Well for one thing Jonathan is the son of Peter Lewis and Peter Lewis is a very wealthy man. Peter Lewis (of “Flo” and Progressive Insurance) along with George Soros has been one of the rivers of money for the democratic left. This campaign season Peter Lewis has not been contributing money to help the Obama cause. Lewis’s money distributor Michael Vachon, has been dripping disdain on Obama’s pleas for Superpac money. Peter’s gay activist son Jonathan has been a thorn on Barack Obama’s side.

The first laws banning plural marriage was out of bigotry against the Mormons. The mobs wanted an excuse to be cruel to them, so it came up as the perfect excues.

Quote:

Their signatures on state documents which explicitly conform to the idea of a "marriage" that is valid only until one of the two doesn't want to be married any more is a public and outrageous fraud both before man and before God.

I agree fully on the original point of this thread - that the government should not be involved in this or make laws on this, except for providing a venue where contracts could be enforced.

However, "until death do us part" thing is a different issue. If you force someone to remain in marriage even after that person does not want it any longer (and it would be force.... you can't call it any other way) it's the next thing to slavery.

Then again, I guess in that way I could call enforcing any contract as tantamount to slavery, which is again wrong.

So perhaps the "until death" part is wrong. If you remember, the religion you talk about (Christianity) was one and the same with Judaism, and then Jesus and apostles relaxed some rules. And Judaism allowed divorce, and allows it to this day.

The "until death" part is based mostly on Bible quoting that Jesus said that, while Moses allowed divorce, if one divorces a woman for any reason other than adultery, he is influencing her to commit adultery.

Oh, and there was the part in the Old testimony, goes approx like "what God put together, let Man not separate" (my words, I can't remember the exact wording off the top of my head).
Note however, that we rarely see God himself coming to a church, leading a man and a woman by their hands and telling them that they should marry; if I see that, then yes, indeed God had put them together. But if two people decide on their own that they will be together, and some sort of ecclesiastical or government official goes through a ceremony.... no, that's something that Man put together, and should not be considered on the same level as something that God did.

So on what, exactly, do you base these words?

Quote:

"outrageous fraud both before man and before God. "

If you mean that those two people promised before God that they will stay together for the rest of their lives, and now they changed their mind, yes, that's not a good thing. But I would say that the original issue is in giving promises that are hard to maintain (and do you seriously expect a 20-25 year old person to be wise enough to give a correct promise for the rest of his/her life, a promise that will be the best choice?), and in forcing people to give such promises (again, government/church intervention in how the people choose to live, which should be none of their business)

As you said, let them make a contract, and let them specify their terms and how can they separate. Maybe offer them some pre-made templates for the contract, not as a must but as a guideline, for example a 10-year term contract with option of renewal and clauses for care of children... just so they could see what should be defined in a well-written contract, again, not as a law.

As it is today, even an 18-year old can give a promise before church and God for the rest of his or her life. What percentage of human population is wise enough, at that age, to make such a decision and guarantee that it will stay the most correct decision for the next 60, 70, 80 years? I'd say, very small. And in order to make it a law for everyone, you would need close to 100% of the population to be at such a mature level that they are wise enough for that even at that age (of 18). No way on this Earth that this can happen.

People make mistakes. In anything, and thus, also in the choice of a life partner. To say that this choice cannot ever be reversed, would be to enforce continuing that mistake for the rest of one's life.

Any reasonable system must account for the fact that humans will err, and that if a mistake is recognized, it needs to be corrected somehow.

I'm not talking about careless marrying and divorcing in a month; that's outrageous and makes the entire system pointless. But if after 10 years someone sees that he or she tried and tried and tried but it simply doesn't work, how much more would you ask of him, and for what purpose? God is not a terrorist or a tyrant; He does not have any joy in seeing people go through suffering, and only allows that when it's necessary for the people to learn what they need to learn. Nor is He a bureaucrat, to enforce rules for the sake of rules, without any consideration of the actual purpose.

So, if you're going biblical, I'd rather consider the case when they brought a before Jesus a woman who sinned, and he told them that one (among them) who has no sins should throw the first stone. At least at that time, those people were honest enough that they left without casting any stones at her.
These days, I'm afraid, a number of them would throw stones anyway, and would tell Jesus to prove their sins in court, with lawyers and all.

Aethor, the Catholic Church (and some other Christian sects) recognize both annulment and separation (although still married before God) for cause.

The State recognizes neither and further it forcibly imposes terms on the original contracting parties they did not consent to.

For the Church to sign such a document from the State is open and notorious fraud both upon the state and upon God -- they're well-aware that the State's "deal" is not what they just got done saying was in fact their ceremony. Intentional misrepresentation, when someone relies on that misrepresentation to their detriment, is fraud.

Think people didn't? Go ask someone who got ****ed in the 1970s after marrying in the 50s and 60s.

So... the State forcibly inserted a no-fault divorce clause into people's contract. Hmm.

I agree it's wrong of Church to sign on that; either they should consider it against God's will, in which case they should show the State the middle finger, or it's not against God's will, in which case they (the Church) should admit that they were wrong all along.

They can't have their cake and eat it too. Or, as Jesus said, you can't serve God and gold at the same time. ("mammon" = material riches)

For the record, my opinion is that a no-fault divorce should be possible, after people have made a serious effort (a number of years) at making the marriage work; and then marrying someone else should also be possible, since while making a mistake should have consequences, it should not be to the extent of never being able to try again.

Not allowing it is tantamount not only to casting a stone at that person, but also to first putting a dollop of superglue on that stone so it sticks on that person's back for the rest of their life. I would rather not be the one who threw it.

Jesus also said "judge not, lest ye be judged".

In the spirit of that, the government should completely get out of the way and not try to codify marriages, and the Church should try to lead with love, not with laws and proscriptions.

And yes, I'm aware that people may have gotten married while believing that their spouse will stay with them forever. This is prone to abuse on both sides of the argument.
There were spouses who left for no good reason (and asked in the court for half of everything, which in many other countries would be laughed at, but it's a separate issue). So people got ****ed, as you said.
There were also people who mistreated their spouses (both genders are guilty of that) in assorted ways, counting on the fact that this spouse cannot leave, and even if he or she leaves, they cannot remarry (separation while still married), so they will rather stay.

So what would you have such a spouse do? IMO, let them go their separate ways, and do what they will in their lives; and God will be the judge for everyone, since He knows best. But turn neither State nor Church into instruments of abuse, as that would truly be a fraud in the eyes of Man and God, respectively.

There is no space for the State in the word "marriage", other than as a means of enforcing voluntarily-entered into contracts.

Civil contracts do not permit slavery for breach, but they do permit allocation of damages and transfer of assets as a consequence.

That is the sole legitimate role for government in the context of marriage.

In short, if you wish to be married, go see a Priest.

He lost more voters than he gained by backing the ******s and lezzies

I bet he loses Ohio because of this move. It's not the lib states that matter.

Only positive is for him is that he will raise more funds.

------

Grumpy - Why do you have Lib friends? Thats the equivalent of being friends with mass murders or child molesters.

Quote:

Grumpy - Why do you have Lib friends? Thats the equivalent of being friends with mass murders or child molesters.

Hope you're being sarcastic, if not you could be the poster boy for my sig..

Make me your poster child Morla.

Libs want to steal your money and spend it on their personal desires (check)

Libs want to steal your children and indoc them and use it against you (check)

Libs " " steal your right to protect yourself (check)

and on and on...

These people disgust me and they have a right to vote that they didn't even earn and will continue to take away your right/s as they have been over the past 150 years.

Libs are not the only group that disgust me, I include bankers, child molesters, violent rapist, mass murders, etc...

..And because liberals are such a dire threat, you're left with no choice but to vote for whoever the GOP puts forward?

Have you considered the possibility the majority of liberals believe that they are doing the right thing? You and I know that gun control elevates criminals and increases violence, but *most* rank-and-file Liberals don't understand that.. One shouldn't attribute to malice that which can easily be explained by stupidity, or even attribute to stupidity that which can easily be explained by ignorance or misinformation.

Calling liberals evil when they might merely be wrong poisons the entire discussion, making you as effective a bogeyman for propagandizing and polarizing the left as Obama et al seem to have been for propagandizing and polarizing you. Consider that being right on any given issue doesn't automatically make you constructive or helpful to either your ideological group or to your country, especially when it leads to well-poisoning categorical hatred toward those on the wrong side of said issue.

'He was an evil bully... it was like Lord Of The Flies': Former classmates reveal the 'real' Mitt Romney and how he 'held down gay taunt student and chopped off his hair'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-....

LOL! This is why the Demopublican/Republicrat one-party system is a total joke.

The political Establishment has undoubtedly known about this little story for YEARS. So, what do we get?

Mitt Romney Clinches: What We Learned From 2012 Republican Race
by Michelle Cottle Apr 24, 2012 9:52 PM EDT
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20....

So, then Obama comes out in support of gay marriage around May 8-9, two weeks later (his media had to get all their ducks in a row, and everything coordinated with the White House), and then A DAY LATER, it's "Bombs Away!" on this 47-year-old "incident". All Obama's media allies are suddenly clucking about "homophobia" and "bullying", and Romney's grovelling and licking their boots for forgiveness

Quote:

The incident supposedly happened in the summer term in 1965

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-....

What it tells me is that "Mittens" Romney was unelectable from the get-go.

This is why I don't bother with politics much anymore.

Disclosure: Some of you guys might see me roughing up our fearless leader Obobo the Fool from time to time, and think that I'm being "partisan". Actually, I just hate the media. I don't like the way they paint the ignorant buffoon as "brilliant". I know brilliant, and that affirmative action plant isn't.

Uppity, I thought something was up. I guessed wrong about what (or maybe not) but it was obvious something was about to happen. Karl is right, though, it's a diversion from what they really need to be talking about.

Morla

i'm not a repub either, I'm independant but my voice is drowned out by the drones, uneducated and libs/repubs, etc.

I voted for Ross Perot in '94 and he was the best chance for our nations future. I realized after that my vote had been wasted. 3rd parties have no chance in the big elections but can make a difference in the smaller ones.

Just checking, usually hatred like that is enough to motivate someone to vote for anyone else.. But then that's how they get ya. Good call on Perot.

Uppity wrote..

Romney's grovelling and licking their boots for forgiveness

Apparently, the "Romney Apologizes" story is a Big Fat Main Slime Media lie. The headline is out there, but there's no beef in that burger.

Looks like a full-court press by the White House-MSM Obama Re-Election Committee:



Barney Frank loses composure in ‘This Week’ appearance [VIDEO]
May 13, 2012
http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/13/barney....

Quote:

On this weekend’s broadcast of ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” outgoing Democratic Rep. Barney Frank locked horns with Tennessee Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn, who wanted to focus on economic issues instead of gay marriage.

Frank, an openly gay member of Congress, claimed that Blackburn was relying too heavily on talking points.

“I do know — George, I have to say and I — you know, this is a good political science lesson for people about what a political party’s talking points are,” Frank said. “My colleague, Ms. Blackburn, has been instructed to talk about the economics first. And, while I would prefer to answer your questions, I do have to note that this Republican talking point, that women have lost jobs — the job losses came about because of the terrible recession … brought about under George Bush.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/13/barney....

Barney Frank is a lowlife scumbag Bankster enabler.