User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 3:32:09 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is a status that transcends US Law and borders. It did not come to exist via our legislatures. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
According to you, who is and is NOT married, is determined solely by the Government. No, according to me, in this country marriage is a legal status which is defined by the government. There is more to marriage than that. At its base level, it is a legal status. People can attach more to it if they wish, such as moral or religious significance. It is a status that transcends US Law and borders. It did not come to exist via our legislatures. May have been how it started, but in this country it is now a legal status which most people assign personal significance to. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 3:34:55 PM EDT
[#2]
Totally agree, OP.
If marriage is strictly a religious ceremony, there should be no license from the state. But marriage for thousands of years is also a legal contract. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 3:35:01 PM EDT
[#3]
Cincinnatus, answer me this.
If two people go to a church and perform a marriage ceremony, but don't have the state recognize it, would you consider them married? If a GI got a marriage certificate with someone he's met once because he thinks that'll get him a bigger paycheck, would you consider him married? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 3:43:03 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
May have been how it started, but in this country it is now a legal status which most people assign personal significance to. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It is a status that transcends US Law and borders. It did not come to exist via our legislatures. May have been how it started, but in this country it is now a legal status which most people assign personal significance to. You have it backwards. It is a status of tremendous personal and historic significance, to which the government now assigns a legal status. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 3:44:30 PM EDT
[#5]
This decision didn't teach me anything I didn't already know.
1. Liberals believe that the ends always justify the means. 2. Religious zealots are a PITA. 3. I don't give a fuck who, or what, other people "marry". 4. The government has no business being in the marriage business. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 3:45:56 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Cincinnatus, answer me this. If two people go to a church and perform a marriage ceremony, but don't have the state recognize it, would you consider them married? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Cincinnatus, answer me this. If two people go to a church and perform a marriage ceremony, but don't have the state recognize it, would you consider them married? I would also consider two people married if they went to the county clerk or Ship's Captain, or Mayor and had the ceremony performed, and failed to ever file the proper forms afterwards. If a GI got a marriage certificate with someone he's met once because he thinks that'll get him a bigger paycheck, would you consider him married? No. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 3:45:58 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Utter nonsense. There is nothing that has ever prohibited Gay people from going to THEIR churches or high priestesses or best friends or magic rocks, and declaring themselves to be married. Usually we see the Bill of Rights as protecting the People FROM the government and government intrusion. In THIS case we see a group of people are DEMANDING government intrusion and a government service AND a redefinition of the terms and parameters of that service. I always wondered why no one used this argument. Gay people were always waiting to be married. They never just got "married" and then complained about the gov not honoring their rights as a spouse. I heard something like this a little when this thing started to pick up steam. However, as a movement that's not how it happened. Which proves to me it wasn't about marriage, rights, or love to begin with. Before you try and refute that think about what you would do in a similar situation. Gov won't honor my marriage? So what I'm still married and will conduct myself as so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 3:47:16 PM EDT
[#8]
I've been saying it for years while the R.R. chest thumpers kept telling me that religion in government and government in religion was a great fucking thing.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 3:48:17 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You have it backwards. It is a status of tremendous personal and historic significance, to which the government now assigns a legal status. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It is a status that transcends US Law and borders. It did not come to exist via our legislatures. May have been how it started, but in this country it is now a legal status which most people assign personal significance to. You have it backwards. It is a status of tremendous personal and historic significance, to which the government now assigns a legal status. How do I explain this better.. The term has been co-opted. In this country, it now refers to a legal status. If two people go a to church and have a marriage ceremony, but never get legally married, you'll have a hard time finding many people who will say they were married. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 3:48:38 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes. I would also consider two people married if they went to the county clerk or Ship's Captain, or Mayor and had the ceremony performed, and failed to ever file the proper forms afterwards. No. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Cincinnatus, answer me this. If two people go to a church and perform a marriage ceremony, but don't have the state recognize it, would you consider them married? I would also consider two people married if they went to the county clerk or Ship's Captain, or Mayor and had the ceremony performed, and failed to ever file the proper forms afterwards. If a GI got a marriage certificate with someone he's met once because he thinks that'll get him a bigger paycheck, would you consider him married? No. I suspect you are an anomaly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 3:51:40 PM EDT
[#11]
It cost $30.00 for a license in Virginia plus you have to pay to have it filed.
No state is going to give-up that rice bowl. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 3:53:34 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
^ this. Wait until someone says that they "have a right to be free from gun violence." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You should care. They have established a very dangerous precedent with regards to the 14th Amendment trumping the other Amendments to protect non-enumerated "rights." ^ this. Wait until someone says that they "have a right to be free from gun violence." They have. To the greater point, I once got into a discussion with an attorney at my last command who was pretty lefty. She said tax law was her favorite class in law school, and remarked how much of it seemed to be intended to influence behavior. Government incentivizes certain things, and like water flowing downhill, we take the path of least resistance. She said this enthusiastically. And that's when the fight started. Government, and those who think that they are among that special class that knows best, will not relinquish that influence anytime soon. Christians shouldn't be blamed though- douchebags who want to control other people's behavior's are to blame. I'm not sure what that Venn diagram would look like, but I know it's not just a circle. When you try to control other people's behavior because it offends you, it will bite you in the ass. That pendulum will swing the other way eventually. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 3:57:38 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If two people go a to church and have a marriage ceremony, but never get legally married, you'll have a hard time finding many people who will say they were married. That's not true. I've been to many church weddings, and always considered the couple to be married after that ceremony, and I've never seen ANY of their legal documents. Nor have I refused to consider them "married" until legal proof was provided. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 3:59:04 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's not true. I've been to many church weddings, and always considered the couple to be married after that ceremony, and I've never seen ANY of their legal documents. Nor have I refused to consider them "married" until legal proof was provided. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If two people go a to church and have a marriage ceremony, but never get legally married, you'll have a hard time finding many people who will say they were married. That's not true. I've been to many church weddings, and always considered the couple to be married after that ceremony, and I've never seen ANY of their legal documents. Nor have I refused to consider them "married" until legal proof was provided. We'll have to agree to disagree there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 4:01:16 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We'll have to agree to disagree there. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If two people go a to church and have a marriage ceremony, but never get legally married, you'll have a hard time finding many people who will say they were married. That's not true. I've been to many church weddings, and always considered the couple to be married after that ceremony, and I've never seen ANY of their legal documents. Nor have I refused to consider them "married" until legal proof was provided. We'll have to agree to disagree there. Post a poll. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 4:04:00 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Post a poll. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If two people go a to church and have a marriage ceremony, but never get legally married, you'll have a hard time finding many people who will say they were married. That's not true. I've been to many church weddings, and always considered the couple to be married after that ceremony, and I've never seen ANY of their legal documents. Nor have I refused to consider them "married" until legal proof was provided. We'll have to agree to disagree there. Post a poll. Maybe in 6 months. It's going to be hard to word the poll without people immediately drawing a comparison with gay marriage and answering reflexively. I'd love to create that poll, though. The implications for the gay marriage argument don't even matter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 4:04:08 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sorry OP, you got that wrong in your zeal to bash Christians. Marriage laws were put on the books for inheritance purposes. Not everything is to keep the Back man down, sorry about that. This is a hilarious post. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 4:12:14 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We'll have to agree to disagree there. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If two people go a to church and have a marriage ceremony, but never get legally married, you'll have a hard time finding many people who will say they were married. That's not true. I've been to many church weddings, and always considered the couple to be married after that ceremony, and I've never seen ANY of their legal documents. Nor have I refused to consider them "married" until legal proof was provided. We'll have to agree to disagree there. How do you know that the people you consider to be married are actually married? Do you ask to see a notarized wedding certificate? If they stroll down the aisle after "I now pronounce you man and wife" I'm convinced they're married. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 4:12:26 PM EDT
[#19]
I learned that at least four of the supremies are nothing more than a black robed contingent of the dem. party....have always been and will always be.
    
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 4:14:55 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How do you know that the people you consider to be married are actually married? Do you ask to see a notarized wedding certificate? If they stroll down the aisle after "I now pronounce you man and wife" I'm convinced they're married. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If two people go a to church and have a marriage ceremony, but never get legally married, you'll have a hard time finding many people who will say they were married. That's not true. I've been to many church weddings, and always considered the couple to be married after that ceremony, and I've never seen ANY of their legal documents. Nor have I refused to consider them "married" until legal proof was provided. We'll have to agree to disagree there. How do you know that the people you consider to be married are actually married? Do you ask to see a notarized wedding certificate? If they stroll down the aisle after "I now pronounce you man and wife" I'm convinced they're married. Because I know people who were married in front of a clerk with no ceremony and those who had ceremonies and they all say they are married. If I attended a wedding and the couple informed me that they were not going to get a marriage certificate, I would not consider them married. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 4:15:14 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's not true. I've been to many church weddings, and always considered the couple to be married after that ceremony, and I've never seen ANY of their legal documents. Nor have I refused to consider them "married" until legal proof was provided. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If two people go a to church and have a marriage ceremony, but never get legally married, you'll have a hard time finding many people who will say they were married. That's not true. I've been to many church weddings, and always considered the couple to be married after that ceremony, and I've never seen ANY of their legal documents. Nor have I refused to consider them "married" until legal proof was provided. If the government doesn't recognize the marriage then neither do lawyers, insurance companies, hospitals, and just about every body else. Plenty of gay people got married in ceremonies. It didn't make any difference in the real world. We never should have invited the government to control us in the first place. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 4:19:03 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If the government doesn't recognize the marriage then neither do lawyers, insurance companies, hospitals, and just about every body else. Plenty of gay people got married in ceremonies. It didn't make any difference in the real world. We never should have invited the government to control us in the first place. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If two people go a to church and have a marriage ceremony, but never get legally married, you'll have a hard time finding many people who will say they were married. That's not true. I've been to many church weddings, and always considered the couple to be married after that ceremony, and I've never seen ANY of their legal documents. Nor have I refused to consider them "married" until legal proof was provided. If the government doesn't recognize the marriage then neither do lawyers, insurance companies, hospitals, and just about every body else. Plenty of gay people got married in ceremonies. It didn't make any difference in the real world. We never should have invited the government to control us in the first place. What I'm seeing with this conversation is this recent development is not the first time marriage has been redefined. Obviously it was previously redefined to tie it to government, which is kind of the point of the OP. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 4:34:44 PM EDT
[#23]
I'm just tired of the Christian sugar coating bullshit going on, love, don't judge, etc.
That's right, if the devil slaughters your children, don't fight, don't protest, invite him to your dinner table and let him fuck your wife afterwards. Jesus loves sinners, but at some point you gotta turn your life around to a certain degree or at least want to. Do gay Christians ever have a notion that they will some day go straight? Nope. Next thing you know, everyone will be telling us that Mary Magdelon continued to be a prostitute until the day she died and Peter pimped her out to all the disciples. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 4:45:39 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I suspect you are an anomaly. In the mid 90's I tended bar at a (relatively nice) restaurant in NY. The restaurant I worked at had at least a dozen same sex wedding ceremonies AND receptions because it wasn't legal. I think I worked 10 or 11 of them. Had fun working them and made great money. I remember a number of people cursing NY because there was no way for them to get civil unions, which meant they didn't have the legal rights of married couples. I don't remember anyone complaining about marriage rights. Perhaps that's because all had just been married. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 4:56:42 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The most important lesson? Incrementalism works. but what we are seeing is incrementalism that is increasing at such an increasing rate, that it appears to be more of a fluid transition. we fucked 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 5:02:22 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
^ this. Wait until someone says that they "have a right to be free from gun violence." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You should care. They have established a very dangerous precedent with regards to the 14th Amendment trumping the other Amendments to protect non-enumerated "rights." ^ this. Wait until someone says that they "have a right to be free from gun violence." Or New York style rules for weapons and carry. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 5:03:10 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
At its base level, it is a legal status. People can attach more to it if they wish, such as moral or religious significance. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
According to you, who is and is NOT married, is determined solely by the Government. No, according to me, in this country marriage is a legal status which is defined by the government. There is more to marriage than that. At its base level, it is a legal status. People can attach more to it if they wish, such as moral or religious significance. HOLD UP, so this is what I don't get. Did a civil union provide the same legal benefits/requirements to individuals as those in a marriage? why force another term to change in definition? why not just assign equal "rights" or benefits to the existing one? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 5:07:18 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
HOLD UP, so this is what I don't get. Did a civil union provide the same legal benefits/requirements to individuals as those in a marriage? why force another term to change in definition? why not just assign equal "rights" or benefits to the existing one? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
At its base level, it is a legal status. People can attach more to it if they wish, such as moral or religious significance. HOLD UP, so this is what I don't get. Did a civil union provide the same legal benefits/requirements to individuals as those in a marriage? why force another term to change in definition? why not just assign equal "rights" or benefits to the existing one? Because it's not about achieving a certain "legal status." This is about culture. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 5:12:26 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
HOLD UP, so this is what I don't get. Did a civil union provide the same legal benefits/requirements to individuals as those in a marriage? why force another term to change in definition? why not just assign equal "rights" or benefits to the existing one? Because that would have been easy, logical and almost universally accepted. The left can't have that. This is America where SCOTUS makes up rights and changes word's definitions and meanings. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 7:00:32 PM EDT
[#30]
The biggest effect of gay marriage is going to be gay divorce. These folks think they want to get married but so did a lot of straight people. In my lifetime I have concluded gays are not the most stable bunch anyway. Good luck to them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 8:45:54 PM EDT
[#31]
So could we stop issuing marriage licenses?
If you wanted to be "married" you could go to a lawyer or minister and draw up a contract. We don't treat marriage like a contract, but we do divorce. But move the whole thing into the private sector. Spell out the terms of your contract however you want, infidelity, spousal abuse, property, children, etc., all based on your preferences or religious beliefs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 9:06:02 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
Marriage licenses were not required in this country until some decades after its founding. Anyone could walk into a church, ask the preacher to marry them, and if he did, they were considered married. Done deal, no government involvement. Then came the overwhelming desire to keep black folks from marrying white folks. How do we do that? We have the state begin to require a license to get married. That way, the state government can control who can and who can't get married. Christian ministers went right along with this, welcoming this fantastic way to make sure we didn't mix the races. Fast forward to now. Thanks to Christian ministers going along with the idea of government-issued marriage licenses to make sure they got their way back then, we get to live with government's rules on issuing licenses today when someone else is in charge. In a nutshell, Christians stood by when folks invited the man into their lives by asking government to become involved in a social and religious transaction. Now, we get to live with the consequences of that choice. If the government was never invited into marriage, SCOTUS would not be able to rule on whether or not states have to issue licenses to any particular group. Rant = 6/10 You forgot the part where after the end of the Civil War southern churches would not marry black men to black women. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 10:45:08 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So could we stop issuing marriage licenses? If you wanted to be "married" you could go to a lawyer or minister and draw up a contract. We don't treat marriage like a contract, but we do divorce. But move the whole thing into the private sector. Spell out the terms of your contract however you want, infidelity, spousal abuse, property, children, etc., all based on your preferences or religious beliefs. You could do this right now, which is what I would think is the way to go. You wouldn't get the tax breaks, but things like hospital visitation rights, power of attorney, etc. could be handled via a contract, which I guess you could file down at Probate Court (or maybe not--I don't know). If you want a name change, that can be done down at the courthouse, too. And, since it's not a marriage in the eyes of the law, there goes the automatic screw-the-guy feature of divorce as there is no divorce in the absence of marriage. As you said, you could spell everything that would happen if the relationship ends in the contract, so it would act as a pre-nup, even though there's really no "nup"--at least not in the eyes of the law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 11:12:52 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's not true. I've been to many church weddings, and always considered the couple to be married after that ceremony, and I've never seen ANY of their legal documents. Nor have I refused to consider them "married" until legal proof was provided. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If two people go a to church and have a marriage ceremony, but never get legally married, you'll have a hard time finding many people who will say they were married. That's not true. I've been to many church weddings, and always considered the couple to be married after that ceremony, and I've never seen ANY of their legal documents. Nor have I refused to consider them "married" until legal proof was provided. One generally assumes that the people are smart enough to actually get the legal documents. If a spouse dies/is in the hospital/etc., the surviving spouse better have something more than the faded inkjet printed document from Uncle Jim Bob's Tent Church. Your arguments are so dull and shallow. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 11:43:10 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
One generally assumes that the people are smart enough to actually get the legal documents. If a spouse dies/is in the hospital/etc., the surviving spouse better have something more than the faded inkjet printed document from Uncle Jim Bob's Tent Church. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If two people go a to church and have a marriage ceremony, but never get legally married, you'll have a hard time finding many people who will say they were married. That's not true. I've been to many church weddings, and always considered the couple to be married after that ceremony, and I've never seen ANY of their legal documents. Nor have I refused to consider them "married" until legal proof was provided. One generally assumes that the people are smart enough to actually get the legal documents. If a spouse dies/is in the hospital/etc., the surviving spouse better have something more than the faded inkjet printed document from Uncle Jim Bob's Tent Church. Regardless, people who get married are considered married. If your point to is to render it as meaningless as a municipal permit, well...you've suceeded. Nice work. Your arguments are so dull and shallow. Yeah, but you're an avowed gay porn aficionado and admitted ARFCOM Troll, so, there's always that. It's creepy and unseemly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 11:46:08 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The most important lesson? Incrementalism works. It works like a mother fucker. There is no stopping it. Ever. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 11:48:01 PM EDT
[#37]
I'm sick and tired of hearing the argument "why do you care what happens in someone else's bedroom?"
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
.jpg)
