- Joined
- Feb 19, 2012
- Messages
- 29,957
- Reaction score
- 14,683
- Location
- Netherlands
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
The "Taking our ball and going home" amendment.
Yes, angry over the defeat in the supreme court, some republican politicians have gone into crazy mode.
Representative Steve King says:
"So I'm calling upon the states, just abolish civil marriage, let's go back to holy matrimony the way it began, do that alone,". "In the next few days I'll be introducing legislation to do just that."
So what do we think? In a nation that is getting less religious, he wants to abolish the right of people to have a civil marriage purely because he wants to stop gays from marrying.
Here are a few problems with what he proposes (IMHO)
1. how is this going to play with the supreme court by discriminating against non-religious people who would be unable to marry anymore due to this fool's possible proposal
2. and this is a biggie some priests do marry gays and lesbians in a holy matrimony!!!!!!!!!!. So his big plan to make gay marriage impossible is in fact achieving nothing. He is just making a total ass of himself.
3. the republican party does at some time want another president from their party in the white house because attitudes like this will not go down well with the voters (who are largely in favor of gay marriage).
Steve King also said: "It's not the will of the people to have same sex marriage, now there's no point in having civil marriage in this country whatsoever,".
He does have internet right? He does know that the opinion polls show that a big majority of Americans support gay marriage? Or is he just totally out of touch with reality?
But here is the question, do you agree with republican Steve King, civil marriage has to be abolished in the US in favor of holy matrimony only?
As for Christian protestant beliefs: Martin Luther is the one that first said Marriage is a civil matter, and that it can be ordained by Christ in the church, but it is first of all a civil matter.
Jews get married. Muslims get married. Agnostics get married. Atheists get married. It isn't JUST a Christian union. People were getting married LONG before Christ was born.
Marriage is a civil contract between two people. People can live together and have children without getting married. The Marriage license guarantees that the civilian court will arbitrate any disagreements between the parties of the marriage. Unmarried people do not have the same protections in court that married people do.
Civil courts should have nothing to do with marriage. The entire concept of alimony is garbage. No adult should have to give another adult human being a weekly allowance.... the entire concept is so dated and sexist it's ridiculous.
A relationship is between two people and two people alone.... and, if they want, their church/synagogue/god/etc. The government really doesn't belong in the discussion.
I wish you were correct. Unfortunately, they do, because of children that are produced in the marriage and not everyone is honorable enough to take care of their kids.
And that's just one of many reasons why marriage is seen as a civil contract, and why even Martin Luther understood it needed to be so.
I still believe in child support. I don't believe in alimony. And Martin Luther was alive hundreds of years ago, times have clearly changed.
Alimony harkens back to a day when women couldn't work or take care of themselves. A divorced woman would move back in with her father. Today.... a woman is capable of taking care of herself just as a man is, so there is no reason for archaic and ancient civil marriage contracts
I wish you were correct. Unfortunately, they do, because of children that are produced in the marriage and not everyone is honorable enough to take care of their kids.
And that's just one of many reasons why marriage is seen as a civil contract, and why even Martin Luther understood it needed to be so.
I agree with you about alimony.
However, I've been with the same woman for going on 36 years now, so I don't think I'll be paying any alimony. Or at least... I hope not.
I want to vote "NO" but I can't decide which no response fits my reason.
I am not sure what is meant by "civil marriage" unless he means the issuing of marriage licenses. If that's the case then he is essentially advocating a position that would ultimately deny ALL couples the current privileges and immunities that are protected by law.
Sure, you could still go through with any ceremony you wish, religious or otherwise, and then begin to live with each other. I suppose that in the few states with "Common-law" marriage laws you could retain some rights. But otherwise you would just be two people living together calling yourself married.
It would literally be exactly the way it was for same-sex couples prior to the SCOTUS decision, only now in every state of the Union for opposite-sex couples too.
It wouldn't work.
Actually, I've been saying this for years. Civil marriage is ridiculous and should have no place in society.
My reasoning is different though..... I'm a single guy, and I pay taxes. If I were a married guy, I would pay less taxes. That, to me, isn't fair... and for that reason and that reason alone, I don't believe the government (especially the IRS) should be involved in marriage
Well, the powers that be have decided that "the family is the cornerstone of the country and needs tax breaks". And making it no longer civil marriage will not change the fact that married people will get tax breaks because the "holy matrimony" talked about here does not exclude that. King does not want to stop people getting tax breaks, he wants to stop gays getting married, that is the whole point of this proposal he wants to introduce in congress. Only church weddings are allowed in future to prevent gays from marrying in front of a judge or non-religious marriage service.
Yes, angry over the defeat in the supreme court, some republican politicians have gone into crazy mode.
Actually, I've been saying this for years. Civil marriage is ridiculous and should have no place in society. My reasoning is different though..... I'm a single guy, and I pay taxes. If I were a married guy, I would pay less taxes. That, to me, isn't fair... and for that reason and that reason alone, I don't believe the government (especially the IRS) should be involved in marriage
Civil courts should have nothing to do with marriage. The entire concept of alimony is garbage. No adult should have to give another adult human being a weekly allowance.... the entire concept is so dated and sexist it's ridiculous. A relationship is between two people and two people alone.... and, if they want, their church/synagogue/god/etc. The government really doesn't belong in the discussion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?