From threads like this: www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=444535
and many more stories like it, I'm almost 100% behind the idea that government should get out of the business of marriage. Their involvement in it has been a disaster.

In the gay marriage debate, people argued that marriage (and families) are the cornerstone of society, and that the sanctity of that institution should be preserved. They're right, but government is not the party to do it.They screw up almost everything they touch. Seriously, other than the military under conservative administrations, exactly what does the government make better instead of worse?

From men gettings screwed in divorces, child custody, etc, the government has done nothing to make people actually want to get and stay married. Instead they've created millions of horror stories that have many people saying 'screw that".

Ideally, Marriage should be handled by the churches.  It would return to your vow between you, your spouse, and God. That way maybe people would go back to having respect for their vows. Now that marriage is essentially viewed as a government function, it receives just about as much respect as the government does- which means very little.

You want a legal agreement on joint ownership of property, inheritance rights, medical powers, power of attorney, etc??? Just have the government handle the forms, witness the signatures, and keep them on file. Make them easily dissolvable by both parties. Make it so any two consenting parties can enter into the agreement - man and wife, boyfriend and girlfriend, two brothers, etc. Kill the giant Divorce industry that puts more emphasis on employing lawyers than doing what's best for the couple and the children.

The institution of marriage survived just fine without government intrusion when it was a church matter. Now that the government is completely involved, it has gone downhill.

Marriage is a business contract.  It always has been.

We've just gussied it up in that past 100 years or so with "love is all you need" crap.

It should only be recognized as a religious ceremony and nothing more.

I wish gov't would get out of our lives totally, save national defence.

Quoted: government...screw up almost everything they touch. Seriously, other than the military under conservative administrations, exactly what does the government make better instead of worse?

Hard to argue with that.

Quoted: Quoted: government...screw up almost everything they touch. Seriously, other than the military under conservative administrations, exactly what does the government make better instead of worse? Hard to argue with that.

+1

I voted yes.

I can't believe it's 18 to 3 in favor of the government getting out of handling marriages...I thought for sure there would be many who want to hang onto that tradition.

the gov't should get out of EVERYTHING they are not constitutionally mandated to do.  that's IT

it will NEVER happen.

for the most part, government is controlled by lawyers (and some big businessmen).

the lawyers make a fortune from doing nasty divorces.

Quoted: It should only be recognized as a religious ceremony and nothing more.

+1,000,000

Everything should be a "civil union" as far as the govt. is concerned.  You want to marry a head of lettuce named Ralph, go right ahead and find a church to marry you.  You want legal recognition of your union for tax, lending/debt, and health insurance purposes, file for a civil union.

This whole gay marriage thing wouldn't be an issue then.

Quoted: the gov't should get out of EVERYTHING they are not constitutionally mandated to do.  that's IT

+ 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

The federal government doesn't issue marriage licenses.

"sanctity of marriage"

what a joke. Marriages are like "first long term relationships" these days... Men who get mid life crises usually get new wives along with the sports cars, hence the aggressive marketting by lawyers to that market segment

Quoted: Quoted: It should only be recognized as a religious ceremony and nothing more. +1,000,000 Everything should be a "civil union" as far as the govt. is concerned.  You want to marry a head of lettuce named Ralph, go right ahead and find a church to marry you.  You want legal recognition of your union for tax, lending/debt, and health insurance purposes, file for a civil union. This whole gay marriage thing wouldn't be an issue then.

DING DING DING.

We got a winner here.

I agree 100%.

But between the lawyers, feminazis, and the religous nutjobs this will never happen.

Quoted: I can't believe it's 18 to 3 in favor of the government getting out of handling marriages...I thought for sure there would be many who want to hang onto that tradition.

The tradition of marriage is great.  Seriously, I think it is a very important institution.  It increases the overall wealth of the people involved, their happiness in general, ability to sucessfully raise children, and bouyes the individuals responsibility.  

We don't want to get rid of the tradition, just the governments involvment.

Quoted: The federal government doesn't issue marriage licenses.

The fact that marriage is a religous institution, a religous sacriment, is enough for the governemt to not have a place in it. Catholics get married to raise a catholic family, Jews for a Jewish one, Mormons for a Mormon one. Marriage is about religon.

State marriage licenses and regulations into the marital lives of conseting adults is the establishment of a state religon.

In the Mormon church and in the Christian Bible there are no prohabitions on polygamy, yet there are under state law. Which goes to show that marriage licenses and regulations are there to impose a state standard of moraltiy outside of what a persons religous practices may be.

The government has no business regulating baptisms and circumcisions so they have no business in marriage.

Quoted: Quoted: I can't believe it's 18 to 3 in favor of the government getting out of handling marriages...I thought for sure there would be many who want to hang onto that tradition. The tradition of marriage is great.  Seriously, I think it is a very important institution.  It increases the overall wealth of the people involved, their happiness in general, ability to sucessfully raise children, and bouyes the individuals responsibility.

Your joking right!!!!!!???

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It should only be recognized as a religious ceremony and nothing more. +1,000,000 Everything should be a "civil union" as far as the govt. is concerned.  You want to marry a head of lettuce named Ralph, go right ahead and find a church to marry you.  You want legal recognition of your union for tax, lending/debt, and health insurance purposes, file for a civil union. This whole gay marriage thing wouldn't be an issue then. DING DING DING. We got a winner here. I agree 100%. But between the lawyers, feminazis, and the religous nutjobs this will never happen.

+1

All marriage is.. is a legal document, nothing more.

Vows...values...ethics...etc... are just horseshit.

You don't change the way you view things.. when you become "hitched".

Its what happens in the relationship, that counts.

My copy of the BOR doesn't mention marriage.

Therefor, they shouldn't be involved with it.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I can't believe it's 18 to 3 in favor of the government getting out of handling marriages...I thought for sure there would be many who want to hang onto that tradition. The tradition of marriage is great.  Seriously, I think it is a very important institution.  It increases the overall wealth of the people involved, their happiness in general, ability to sucessfully raise children, and bouyes the individuals responsibility.   Your joking right!!!!!!???

See this is another reason why government has no reason in the religous institution of marriage.

Yossarians view from his religous prospective gives different value to a marriage than yours does Stoner.

Not bad or not good, just different.

A secular humanist may not give a damn about children, just benifit to the adult parties involved. A Catholic may want there marriage to raise aa large Catholic family.

The gov't is involved for financial reasons...single people pay more taxes...marrieds have more  excemptions .  Then there is Medicare and Soc. Sec. to spouses that two single guys would not collect if the other died.    It would be a very expensive drain ...we would have to take money from the military and perhaps we would have to stop paying planned parenthood $400 billion a year to do abortions...

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I can't believe it's 18 to 3 in favor of the government getting out of handling marriages...I thought for sure there would be many who want to hang onto that tradition. The tradition of marriage is great.  Seriously, I think it is a very important institution.  It increases the overall wealth of the people involved, their happiness in general, ability to sucessfully raise children, and bouyes the individuals responsibility.   Your joking right!!!!!!???

No, I could not be more serious.  If I were not married I would not have all the "material" things I do, I would not have a great family, I would not be as happy, and I would not be as responsible.

Why would I not be serious?

Edit:  Just read Sparky's reply, and while what he said about the religious perspective may be true for some, it is not in my case.  I am not particularly religious, but I do agree with him I know some folks who are who feel that way because they are.

Quoted: Quoted: The federal government doesn't issue marriage licenses. The fact that marriage is a religous institution, a religous sacriment, is enough for the governemt to not have a place in it. Catholics get married to raise a catholic family, Jews for a Jewish one, Mormons for a Mormon one. Marriage is about religon. State marriage licenses and regulations into the marital lives of conseting adults is the establishment of a state religon. In the Mormon church and in the Christian Bible there are no prohabitions on polygamy, yet there are under state law. Which goes to show that marriage licenses and regulations are there to impose a state standard of moraltiy outside of what a persons religous practices may be. The government has no business regulating baptisms and circumcisions so they have no business in marriage.

I've neve read the bok of Mormon but I have read the Bible and it says a man should be the husband of one wife.

And no, marriage licences are not a state mandate of religion.  Marriage licenses issued by states are recognition of the BUSINESS component that is marriage.  Marriage is mostly a financial and legal arrangement.  That license is a legal contract, not a holy see.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I can't believe it's 18 to 3 in favor of the government getting out of handling marriages...I thought for sure there would be many who want to hang onto that tradition. The tradition of marriage is great.  Seriously, I think it is a very important institution.  It increases the overall wealth of the people involved, their happiness in general, ability to sucessfully raise children, and bouyes the individuals responsibility.   Your joking right!!!!!!??? No, I could not be more serious.  If I were not married I would not have all the "material" things I do, I would not have a great family, I would not be as happy, and I would not be as responsible. Why would I not be serious? Edit:  Just read Sparky's reply, and while what he said about the religious perspective may be true for some, it is not in my case.  I am not particularly religious, but I do agree with him I know some folks who are who feel that way because they are.

And you needed government involvement to get married?  Don't confuse the issue.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The federal government doesn't issue marriage licenses. The fact that marriage is a religous institution, a religous sacriment, is enough for the governemt to not have a place in it. Catholics get married to raise a catholic family, Jews for a Jewish one, Mormons for a Mormon one. Marriage is about religon. State marriage licenses and regulations into the marital lives of conseting adults is the establishment of a state religon. In the Mormon church and in the Christian Bible there are no prohabitions on polygamy, yet there are under state law. Which goes to show that marriage licenses and regulations are there to impose a state standard of moraltiy outside of what a persons religous practices may be. The government has no business regulating baptisms and circumcisions so they have no business in marriage. I've neve read the bok of Mormon but I have read the Bible and it says a man should be the husband of one wife. And no, marriage licences are not a state mandate of religion.  Marriage licenses issued by states are recognition of the BUSINESS component that is marriage.  Marriage is mostly a financial and legal arrangement.  That license is a legal contract, not a holy see.

Give me a book, chapter and verse buddy. I bet you can't find it. There is nothing that states you can not have more than one wife.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, Paragraph 1623, "the spouses as ministers of Christ's grace mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony by expressing their consent before the Church"

In the Catholic church it is a sacrament, just like communion and baptism.

"...For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." Matthew 19: 5-6

Notice that god joins you together, not the law, nor fear of losing half of your possesions should keep you together.

Maybe you want the governemt in your marriage. But as a Christian the government has defiled my marriage by requireing a license.

It's not about gay marriage, it's about taxing. If we'd had a fair tax system, we wouldn't care, but since the politicians are in charge, it's an issue. Let the churches decide and if two guys want to get married in the court room, fine, it's only paper work.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I can't believe it's 18 to 3 in favor of the government getting out of handling marriages...I thought for sure there would be many who want to hang onto that tradition. The tradition of marriage is great.  Seriously, I think it is a very important institution.  It increases the overall wealth of the people involved, their happiness in general, ability to sucessfully raise children, and bouyes the individuals responsibility.   Your joking right!!!!!!??? No, I could not be more serious.  If I were not married I would not have all the "material" things I do, I would not have a great family, I would not be as happy, and I would not be as responsible. Why would I not be serious? Edit:  Just read Sparky's reply, and while what he said about the religious perspective may be true for some, it is not in my case.  I am not particularly religious, but I do agree with him I know some folks who are who feel that way because they are. And you needed government involvement to get married?  Don't confuse the issue.

Yeah, I needed a license and all that to get married.  Just because I think it is an important and valuable, dare I say an invaluable institution, does not mean that I think the government should be involved.  

I would still like to be married to my current spouse, I just don't think we should have needed to involve the government in that decision.

Yes, the .gov should go back being unintrusive as possible.

D@mn, did a libtard write the poll?  A bit skewed toward your bias?

The traditional family is the cornerstone of western civilization.  It is in the best interest of the US and our culture for the .gov to give it preferential treatment to encourage it.

The problem is not marriage, it is the lack of marriage and family.  Look at what the .gov has done to the black family in the last 50 years by replacing the father with Uncle Sam.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I can't believe it's 18 to 3 in favor of the government getting out of handling marriages...I thought for sure there would be many who want to hang onto that tradition. The tradition of marriage is great.  Seriously, I think it is a very important institution.  It increases the overall wealth of the people involved, their happiness in general, ability to sucessfully raise children, and bouyes the individuals responsibility.   Your joking right!!!!!!??? No, I could not be more serious.  If I were not married I would not have all the "material" things I do, I would not have a great family, I would not be as happy, and I would not be as responsible. Why would I not be serious? Edit:  Just read Sparky's reply, and while what he said about the religious perspective may be true for some, it is not in my case.  I am not particularly religious, but I do agree with him I know some folks who are who feel that way because they are.

Yossarian:
            I was not try to make light of your marriage ....just the belief that a piece of paper from Uncle Sugar or the blessing of a minster does anything you mentioned.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I can't believe it's 18 to 3 in favor of the government getting out of handling marriages...I thought for sure there would be many who want to hang onto that tradition. The tradition of marriage is great.  Seriously, I think it is a very important institution.  It increases the overall wealth of the people involved, their happiness in general, ability to sucessfully raise children, and bouyes the individuals responsibility.   Your joking right!!!!!!??? No, I could not be more serious.  If I were not married I would not have all the "material" things I do, I would not have a great family, I would not be as happy, and I would not be as responsible. Why would I not be serious? Edit:  Just read Sparky's reply, and while what he said about the religious perspective may be true for some, it is not in my case.  I am not particularly religious, but I do agree with him I know some folks who are who feel that way because they are. Yossarian:             I was not try to make light of your marriage ....just the belief that a piece of paper from Uncle Sugar or the blessing of a minster does anything you mentioned.

I understand.  No offense taken.  I agree, it is not the paper, it is the fact that two people working together for a common goal(s), exampled by the 4 things I mentioned, make those things more easily obtainable, at least in my case.

And like I said in another post, I don't think the .gov should be involved.  In fact, I resent the fact they they think they need to be involved in marriage in the first place.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I can't believe it's 18 to 3 in favor of the government getting out of handling marriages...I thought for sure there would be many who want to hang onto that tradition. The tradition of marriage is great.  Seriously, I think it is a very important institution.  It increases the overall wealth of the people involved, their happiness in general, ability to sucessfully raise children, and bouyes the individuals responsibility.   Your joking right!!!!!!??? See this is another reason why government has no reason in the religous institution of marriage. Yossarians view from his religous prospective gives different value to a marriage than yours does Stoner. Not bad or not good, just different. A secular humanist may not give a damn about children, just benifit to the adult parties involved. A Catholic may want there marriage to raise aa large Catholic family.

Well actually I do care about children and the other reasons he stated....and in general my belief on what marriage should be are about 80% inline with most religous prospectives [except the one man one women thing of course]. But the State or the Church have little to do with a good or bad marriage or the raising of children for that matter. All they do is give you a licence and a guide book [Bible].

This thread was started by a Teh Ghey Troll.      

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The federal government doesn't issue marriage licenses. The fact that marriage is a religous institution, a religous sacriment, is enough for the governemt to not have a place in it. Catholics get married to raise a catholic family, Jews for a Jewish one, Mormons for a Mormon one. Marriage is about religon. State marriage licenses and regulations into the marital lives of conseting adults is the establishment of a state religon. In the Mormon church and in the Christian Bible there are no prohabitions on polygamy, yet there are under state law. Which goes to show that marriage licenses and regulations are there to impose a state standard of moraltiy outside of what a persons religous practices may be. The government has no business regulating baptisms and circumcisions so they have no business in marriage. I've neve read the bok of Mormon but I have read the Bible and it says a man should be the husband of one wife. And no, marriage licences are not a state mandate of religion.  Marriage licenses issued by states are recognition of the BUSINESS component that is marriage.  Marriage is mostly a financial and legal arrangement.  That license is a legal contract, not a holy see. Give me a book, chapter and verse buddy. I bet you can't find it. There is nothing that states you can not have more than one wife. Catechism of the Catholic Church, Paragraph 1623, "the spouses as ministers of Christ's grace mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony by expressing their consent before the Church" In the Catholic church it is a sacrament, just like communion and baptism. "...For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." Matthew 19: 5-6 Notice that god joins you together, not the law, nor fear of losing half of your possesions should keep you together. Maybe you want the governemt in your marriage. But as a Christian the government has defiled my marriage by requireing a license.

First Timothy 3:2.  Titus 1:6.  Also note the scripture you just mentioned.

If you really beleived that getting that license was a defilement of your marriage, why did you get it?

Marriage is not a peice of paper.  Marriage is one man and one woman.

the LEGAL document of a marriage license is only used for tax and other legal purposes.

Quoted: Marriage is not a peice of paper.  Marriage is one man and one woman. the LEGAL document of a marriage license is only used for tax and other legal purposes.

Yep.....and Kacer and I could get married , screw anybody we wanted and adopt as many children as we could afford. Yep that works out doesn't it....and no one could stop us.

Great system you got there.

Quoted: This thread was started by a Teh Ghey Troll.

Okay Newb.

Seems like 6 times as many people agree with my premise as disagree with it.

Quoted: D@mn, did a libtard write the poll?  A bit skewed toward your bias?

"Yes, they've screwed it up. It's too important to be ruined." And
"No, The government is doing a fine job handling the institution of marriage."
So, should I have said that government is doing a 'super' job of handling marriage on order to bolster their perceived performance?

The traditional family is the cornerstone of western civilization.  It is in the best interest of the US and our culture for the .gov to give it preferential treatment to encourage it.

And what a wonderful job the government has done with marriage in the last 50 years.

It's the same arguement people make, and it is basically meaningless. It fails to take into account the EFFECT of the all-encompassing involvement of the government in marriage. Instead, it takes the liberal POV - argue INTENT, not effect.

While the intent may be good, the effect isn't. Inviting government to control marriage has ceeded control of the institute of marriage to government. Once you do that, it will twist it according to political agendas.

You can't dance with the devil and expect to lead.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I can't believe it's 18 to 3 in favor of the government getting out of handling marriages...I thought for sure there would be many who want to hang onto that tradition. The tradition of marriage is great.  Seriously, I think it is a very important institution.  It increases the overall wealth of the people involved, their happiness in general, ability to sucessfully raise children, and bouyes the individuals responsibility.   Your joking right!!!!!!???

Ummm, he happens to be entirely correct.

The various points he's made are borne out by many studies.

Here's the problem--the state needs families.

The basic building block of any society is the family. Organized many different ways in the past (multiple wives, multiple husbands, etc) due to different pressures (agricultural, economic, and religious), the family does three things:

- Establishes a way to pass on property and accumulated wealth to the next generation
- Provides protection and sustainment for women and children, who are traditionally subject to starvation and being preyed upon, by both four-legged and two-legged predators
- Provides a continuation of the society, by teaching the language, arts, literature, customs, religion, etc. of that culture, in a framework legally established by the society itself.

As the needs for the second function have dropped (i.e., as the world becomes safer, death during childbirth less common and food more available), the need for multiple wives and lots of children has fallen to the current standard of one man, one wife.

Now, you'll notice that the three functions of the family are NOT focused on the man or the woman....instead, they are focused on the NEXT generation. Passing on wealth & property, protection and sustainment, and education are all what we are to do NOW, to ensure the society survives TOMORROW.

The society, therefore, needs to legitimize the family in order to continue itself.  It starts by recognizing the covenant between a man and a woman (the basic building blocks of a family) in legal and moral terms--otherwise called marriage.

Interesting you should bring up the gay marriage issue.  The gay marriage debate has got NOTHING to do with the three purposes of families; that, amongst other reasons, is why I'm against it.  

In my mind, the gay marriage "debate" isn't a debate at all.  Gays aren't being discriminated against; they have EXACTLY the same rights and options to marry as everyone else, they simply choose not to exercise those rights to marry someone of the opposite sex.  Instead, they are upset that the marriage contract isn't tailored to their desires; sort of like going into a McDonald's and throwing a fit that they don't serve lasagna, because that's what you really really wanted, or sueing a company for damages because they don't make a pair of shoes in the color you want.

The government didn't screw up the marriage construct, the people of America did.  We were the ones who wanted no-fault divorce, we were the ones who voted politicians into office who passed laws penalizing dads in the divorce proceedings, we (or our parents' generation) were the ones who voted the welfare system that actually encourages out-of-wedlock children.  

All because we forgot what the basic purpose of marriage was for.

Quoted: Interesting you should bring up the gay marriage issue.  The gay marriage debate has got NOTHING to do with the three purposes of families; that, amongst other reasons, is why I'm against it.   In my mind, the gay marriage "debate" isn't a debate at all.  Gays aren't being discriminated against; they have EXACTLY the same rights and options to marry as everyone else, they simply choose not to exercise those rights to marry someone of the opposite sex.  Instead, they are upset that the marriage contract isn't tailored to their desires; sort of like going into a McDonald's and throwing a fit that they don't serve lasagna, because that's what you really really wanted, or sueing a company for damages because they don't make a pair of shoes in the color you want.

Ok but where is it a State requirement that heterosexual couples must comform to those three purposes of families?.... nowhere

And

Instead, they are upset that the marriage contract isn't tailored to their desires; sort of like going into a McDonald's and throwing a fit that they don't serve lasagna, because that's what you really really wanted, or sueing a company for damages because they don't make a pair of shoes in the color you want.

No it's more like......Heterosexuals making up "rules" that only apply to homosexuals and not to them. Homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry because they can't produce childern...of course there no where in the rules that say hetero's have to produce childern to be married.

Bastiat, I couldn't agree more. You nailed it.

Quoted: Quoted: Interesting you should bring up the gay marriage issue.  The gay marriage debate has got NOTHING to do with the three purposes of families; that, amongst other reasons, is why I'm against it.   In my mind, the gay marriage "debate" isn't a debate at all.  Gays aren't being discriminated against; they have EXACTLY the same rights and options to marry as everyone else, they simply choose not to exercise those rights to marry someone of the opposite sex.  Instead, they are upset that the marriage contract isn't tailored to their desires; sort of like going into a McDonald's and throwing a fit that they don't serve lasagna, because that's what you really really wanted, or sueing a company for damages because they don't make a pair of shoes in the color you want. Ok but where is it a State requirement that heterosexual couples must comform to those three purposes of families?.... nowhere

Absolutely right--nowhere.  And since I only discussed the historical purpose of marriage within a SOCIETAL as opposed to individual construct, I don't understand where your question is coming from.

I'm speaking of the historical purpose and results of the marriage contract as it applies to society.  there's no rule that says anyone HAS to get married, but when they do, the society grants that relationship certain privileges, because of what that relationship COULD do for the society, not MUST do for the society.

And Instead, they are upset that the marriage contract isn't tailored to their desires; sort of like going into a McDonald's and throwing a fit that they don't serve lasagna, because that's what you really really wanted, or sueing a company for damages because they don't make a pair of shoes in the color you want. No it's more like......Heterosexuals making up "rules" that only apply to homosexuals and not to them. Homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry because they can't produce childern...of course there no where in the rules that say hetero's have to produce childern to be married.

You're both right and wrong in this paragraph.

Absolutely right, there is no rule saying heterosexual couples have to produce children....notice I said the basic building block of a family is a man and a woman.  You become a family when you say "I do," not when you have your first child. But families USUALLY lead to children, which leads to the continuation of the society, which is why society grants that relationship special status.

And you're wrong, the rules apply to heterosexuals AND homosexuals--you simply choose not to avail yourself of that option.  You can very easily get married, under the same rules I did........you just choose not to.  Sort of like those people who chose not to own firearms.  The 2d Amendment grants them the same rights it grants the rest of us, they simply choose not to exercise them.

Quoted:  Sort of like those people who chose not to own firearms.  The 2d Amendment grants them the same rights it grants the rest of us, they simply choose not to exercise them.

To be fair, this is not even remotely the same. If the bill of rights said "The right of the people to keep and bear Ruger 10/22's shall not be infringed" you'd be a lot closer to having made an accurate statement.

Wow, we have way more libertarians in the making than I even realized here.

Remember folks, government is not the solution, government is the problem.

Taxes are theft.  If .gov wants our money, they can ask the states.

Quoted: Yes entirely! A 10% flat rate tax would suit me fine.  I could then could give a shit if bubba wants to wed his sheep or two guys want to play house.   Tj

Yup. Don't care who wants to marry what or have sex with who. As long as it's consensual (and not pederastic/pedophiliac) and I don't have to pay for it, I don't give a shit.

The .gov doesn't care about the passing on of accumulated wealth--they want the estate tax--free money for them.  As for the child tax credit, a guy I worked with ended up getting back MORE THAN HE PAID IN thanks to that particular idiocy. You want kids, great. Now pay your share and your kid's share--I don't want Uncle Sam's hand in my wallet to make up the difference.

Marriage has been a wonderful institution here in the United States over the past 400 years.

Don't let a bunch of asshat homos and their liberal-assed supporters tear down yet another American Institution.

BTW, if you think as they do....I've got some very bad news for y'all.

You will lose on this one.

Trust me.

Eric The(Trustworthy)Hun