Spine Doner List

[Jamie B]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/biden-gay-marriage-absolutely-comfortable-men-marrying-men-152035862.html

Biden on gay marriage: ‘Absolutely comfortable with men marrying men, women marrying women’

The president sets the policy. I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women, and heterosexual men and women marrying another are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties. And quite frankly, I don't see much of a distinction--beyond that.

If Biden is going to take this position, then that is fine.
He needs to stop claiming to be a Catholic, as this view does not reflect the RCC view of marriage.
I seem to recall him with ashes on his forehead during one of the State of the Union speeches several years ago.

He needs to decide which master he is going to serve - either the RCC of BHO. He cannot serve both.

[Regolith]

He needs to decide which master he is going to serve - either the RCC of BHO. He cannot serve both.

Really?

As an elected official of the United States, his oath is to the people and the constitution. THOSE are the masters he serves, NOT the church. And if RCC members are going to decide that their loyalty is to the Vatican over and above everything else, then they shouldn't be putting themselves in a place where their loyalty is going to at odds with their position and shouldn't be running for the office of dog catcher, let alone the Vice President.

[Ron]

There is no constitutional right to a government licensed marriage.

A human right to be granted a license is an oxymoron.

We've been conditioned to get governmental permission to exorcise "our rights" on a whole host of issues.

[Perd Hapley]

Really?

As an elected official of the United States, his oath is to the people and the constitution. THOSE are the masters he serves, NOT the church. And if RCC members are going to decide that their loyalty is to the Vatican over and above everything else, then they shouldn't be putting themselves in a place where their loyalty is going to at odds with their position and shouldn't be running for the office of dog catcher, let alone the Vice President.

   Oh the noes persident kinnedy scary catholic politicians will enslave us to the Vatican!!!

'S funny. We hear so much complaining about politicians with no consciences. Then every once in a while, somebody tries to make it a virtue.

[Fly320s]

There is no constitutional right to a government licensed marriage.

A human right to be granted a license is an oxymoron.

We've been conditioned to get governmental permission to exorcise "our rights" on a whole host of issues.

I agree, but that says to me that the government has no say in who weds who. Is that your position?

[Ron]

I agree, but that says to me that the government has no say in who weds who. Is that your position?

Get government out of the marriage business all together.

Why is it normal for citizens to ask for the governments permission to get married? Isn't that what a license is?  Asking permission to do what is otherwise not allowed or recognized as legal?

The reason there is even a battle over this issue is because folks invite the government into their bedroom when they ask the bureaucrats to put the governments blessing on their union.

My position is marriage is between a man and a woman, regardless of what judges, bureaucrats or the mob have to say.

Whatever the nature of the commitment between gay couples is, it is not marriage, by definition.

Get government out of marriage, gay folks should start their own institution and both groups would be served by not inviting the government as a legal party in their union.

I believe the idea of a marriage license should be done away with myself.


  

 

[RevDisk]

There is no constitutional right to a government licensed marriage.

Aye. Which means it is a state issue and none of the federal government's business.

[Regolith]

   Oh the noes persident kinnedy scary catholic politicians will enslave us to the Vatican!!!

Eh, I'm not the one who brought up the "needs to choose who his masters are".

I'd have said the same damn thing if he was talking about Mormons, protestants, Buddhists, Scientologists, environmentalists or what have you. Elected officials need to have their priorities straight and understand who they're serving.

[roo_ster]

Eh, I'm not the one who brought up the "needs to choose who his masters are".

I'd have said the same damn thing if he was talking about Mormons, protestants, Buddhists, Scientologists, environmentalists or what have you. Elected officials need to have their priorities straight and understand who they're serving.

I seem to recall something forbidding a religious test in teh COTUS?  But, with folks everywhere tearing out the bit they don;t like and pasting in crap at random, who knows, anymore.

[sumpnz]

Really?

As an elected official of the United States, his oath is to the people and the constitution. THOSE are the masters he serves, NOT the church. And if RCC members are going to decide that their loyalty is to the Vatican over and above everything else, then they shouldn't be putting themselves in a place where their loyalty is going to at odds with their position and shouldn't be running for the office of dog catcher, let alone the Vice President.

While you perhaps have a point on some level, I think Jaime B was referring to the following.

Personally I would argue that a person that has a true heart for Christ and submits to Him is probably more likely to leave the rest of us the heck alone (other than maybe trying to convince us to use our free will to choose as they have) than a busy-body liberal like Biden et al.

No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.

No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.

Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.

You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.

[Perd Hapley]

Eh, I'm not the one who brought up the "needs to choose who his masters are".

I'd have said the same damn thing if he was talking about Mormons, protestants, Buddhists, Scientologists, environmentalists or what have you. Elected officials need to have their priorities straight and understand who they're serving.

Yes, we all have to decide where our priorities lie. But religion, by its nature, out-ranks everything else. That's kind of the point. It makes no sense at all to put Uncle Sam, or one's constituents, above God. Even the non-religious person can't be expected to go against his conscience for the will of the majority. To expect that would be to elevate group-think over individual choice.

Besides, let's keep in mind that Biden is not a representative of any constituency. He is a member of the executive branch, not the House of Representatives.

And lastly, I would be amiss not to quote old St. Peter: "We must obey God rather than men."

[TommyGunn]

Get government out of the marriage business all together.

Why is it normal for citizens to ask for the governments permission to get married? Isn't that what a license is?  Asking permission to do what is otherwise not allowed or recognized as legal?

The reason there is even a battle over this issue is because folks invite the government into their bedroom when they ask the bureaucrats to put the governments blessing on their union.

My position is marriage is between a man and a woman, regardless of what judges, bureaucrats or the mob have to say.

Whatever the nature of the commitment between gay couples is, it is not marriage, by definition.

Get government out of marriage, gay folks should start their own institution and both groups would be served by not inviting the government as a legal party in their union.

I believe the idea of a marriage license should be done away with myself.

I hear that refrain over & over again.
It sounds good.
But what do you do about property -- and especially when divorce happens?  What about property acquired during marriage?  Before the couple was married?

Settle it in court like we always do with these proplems.

Ooooooops.  Government is right back into marriage ......again.

Government out of marrage?  Ain't gonna happen.  Sorry.

[MicroBalrog]

But what do you do about property -- and especially when divorce happens?  What about property acquired during marriage?  Before the couple was married?

Contracts.

Marriage existed, you know, even in societies with no government at all.

[griz]

Personally I would argue that a person that has a true heart for Christ and submits to Him is probably more likely to leave the rest of us the heck alone (other than maybe trying to convince us to use our free will to choose as they have) than a busy-body liberal like Biden et al.

Deciding who can marry is leaving people alone while letting people marry whoever they want is being a busy body?

[cordex]

But what do you do about property -- and especially when divorce happens?  What about property acquired during marriage?  Before the couple was married?

Using this logic should we be required to get government dating licenses?  What about breeding licenses?

[Ron]

Deciding who can marry is leaving people alone while letting people marry whoever they want is being a busy body?

I would contend that changing the meaning of marriage by legal decree and the legal consequences (not only possibly intended but also unintended) in relation to religious institutions is being a busy body.

For better or (as I contend) worse government is a party to modern marriage. Marriage is just another term that so called progressives and their institutional power are trying to redefine to mean the opposite of its original meaning. Look at the term "rights". Right to healthcare? right to a job? right to fair wage?  The concept is bastardized to where the avg Joe has no concept what the concept of a human right really means historically. Oh, that's right, the meaning of words change, good by rights as we knew them!  

Marriage has always been between males and females with the understanding that this is the foundation of the family unit.

Submitting to the government by asking for license to do something (marriage) relinquishes freedom. Submitting to government through incorporation (churches) relinquishes freedom.  

[sumpnz]

Deciding who can marry is leaving people alone while letting people marry whoever they want is being a busy body?

Altering multi-millenia cultural traditions is.

[TommyGunn]

Using this logic should we be required to get government dating licenses?  What about breeding licenses?

Listen, if you have some realistic suggestion about how property difficulties could be addressed without "govt. involvement," then fine, I'll listen.
Because I am cynical and question the idea that we can (or should?) keep government out of marriage is not license to infer we should enact dating or breeding licenses.  That's just silly.
Given how some parents are treating kids I'm sure there are people who think "breeding licenses" would be a good idea.
But even better would be to try to adopt some realistic and effective solution to these problems (if they indeed exist) rather than indulge in snide retorts.

[TommyGunn]

Contracts.

Marriage existed, you know, even in societies with no government at all.

How many of those have there been? 

[roo_ster]

How many of those have there been? 

Tens of thousands, in cannabis-smoke-filled dorm rooms across the globe.

Then, folks sober up and get on with their lives.

[Ron]

license   

The permission granted by competent authority to exercise a certain privilege that, without such authorization, would constitute an illegal act, a Trespass or a tort. The certificate or the document itself that confers permission to engage in otherwise proscribed conduct

The licensing process helps to control activity in a variety of ways. License application procedures allow government authorities to screen applicants to verify that they are fit to engage in the particular activity.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/license

Marriage used to be considered a type of covenant, or a type of legal contract.

[Tallpine]

License application procedures allow government authorities to screen applicants to verify that they are fit to engage in the particular activity.

Okay ... that could get "interesting" relevant to a "marraige license" 

[griz]

Ron and Sumpnz, while it would certainly be a change, I don't see how the government letting any two consenting adults marry each other would affect your tradition.  Thus I don't understand how it would be interfering with you.  If when you say "leave everybody alone" you mean "don't change tradition", I can understand your use of the busy body term but still disagree with your position.

Ron, I certainly agree that the our usage of the term "rights" has been abused.  But I don't understand your point.  If you believe their is a right to marry* then shouldn't gays have that right too?

*BTW, I don't believe that we have a right to marry.  I think marriage has three aspects: social, religious, and legal.  Personally I think the first two are the ones that should matter.  The living arrangements between people are their own, and it's up to their church and their community (however broad that may be) to accept or reject the "marriage.  Obviously the government controls the legal part.  In a perfect world it would not need a legal aspect, but in real life such matters as child custody, insurance, inheritence, etc need to be dealt with, so that will fall to the government.  For that reason it only seems fair to deal with same sex unions the same as we do straight ones.

[cordex]

Listen, if you have some realistic suggestion about how property difficulties could be addressed without "govt. involvement," then fine, I'll listen.

Of course property disagreements such as those surrounding the dissolution of a marriage require a dispute resolution.  This is sometimes done with non-governmental arbitration - even religious arbitration in some cases.  In many cases this is done by involving the government through the courts.  I'm not arguing against that, nor is anyone else in this thread that I'm aware of.

All of that is irrelevant.  The point is that the existence (or not) of a marriage license issued by a government can be entirely independent from the role of the government in hashing out what happens to the fine silver after a marriage fails.

Because I am cynical and question the idea that we can (or should?) keep government out of marriage is not license to infer we should enact dating or breeding licenses.  That's just silly.

You brought up the question of what happens to property after a marriage terminates and implied that the fact that government courts will get involved at that stage is some sort of defense of government licensing of marriage.  Since courts can be involved in property disputes when non-marital partnerships dissolve, or when children are brought into the equation I don't see it as that much of a stretch at all to apply the same rationale to those situations.

Or were you arguing against the (as yet unargued) concept that if a situation in any way involves marriage that the government should never intervene?  If so, I think you're missing the point about what most people mean when they say "get government out of marriage."

But even better would be to try to adopt some realistic and effective solution to these problems (if they indeed exist) rather than indulge in snide retorts.

Which problems are you specifically concerned with?  The disposition of communal property at the termination of a marriage?

[MicroBalrog]

How many of those have there been? 

Viking-era Iceland comes to mind.