Vote

What should be on the 2007 agenda for CHL's?

Moderator: Charles L. Cotton

Postby Diode » Mon May 22, 2006 8:30 am

carlson1 wrote:
KBCraig wrote:I understand the desire to protect the sanctity of marriage, but I think people are approaching it the wrong way. Instead of legally limiting marriage to one man and one woman, the real solution is to get government out of it altogether.

Think about it: marriage, for the vast majority of people, is a religious matter. And yet, we must pay a fee and ask the state's permission and blessing? Should we also have baptism licenses? Register bar mitzvahs at the county courthouse? Check that you've paid the government fee before taking communion?

Think about the phrase "sanctity of marriage": the word "sanctity" means sacred, holy, inviolable, and implies a religious and moral obligation. You want the government having a say in your deepest, most personal spiritual obligations?Kevin

:thumbsup:
Very good summation


:thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Diode
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1416
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 2:45 pm
Location: Spring Texas

Postby anygunanywhere » Mon May 22, 2006 6:50 pm

Keep Perry. I agree based on the reciprocity.

Besides, The last freak show we had for governor (goobernatorial wench?) was prune face Ma Richards. I still can't get her screaming voice out of my head.

I really don't want Texas to become brunt of all jokes with a governor named "Kinky". Willie Nelson heavily endorses him while singing his broke back mountain song.

Remeber what Jesse Ventura did for Minnesota?

Gray Davis for California?

Perry is proven.

/soapbox

Anygunanywhere.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. - Thomas Jefferson
III%
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/
User avatar
anygunanywhere
Senior Member
 
Posts: 5086
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 9:16 am
Location: La Grange, Texas

Postby Flatland2D » Mon May 22, 2006 11:29 pm

KBCraig wrote:I understand the desire to protect the sanctity of marriage, but I think people are approaching it the wrong way. Instead of legally limiting marriage to one man and one woman, the real solution is to get government out of it altogether.

Think about it: marriage, for the vast majority of people, is a religious matter. And yet, we must pay a fee and ask the state's permission and blessing? Should we also have baptism licenses? Register bar mitzvahs at the county courthouse? Check that you've paid the government fee before taking communion?

Think about the phrase "sanctity of marriage": the word "sanctity" means sacred, holy, inviolable, and implies a religious and moral obligation. You want the government having a say in your deepest, most personal spiritual obligations?

Don't outlaw gay marriage, nor polygamous marriage, nor interspecies marriage. Get government completely out of the marriage definition business.

Kevin


I understand your point, but I think you see the religious aspect from a different standpoint than myself. Without this getting into a huge religious debate, let me just say how I see it. I believe that marriage, among many things, is a gift from God and He had specific intentions for how this gift was to be used. As a Christian living under a democratic government, I will use my power as a voter to protect what I believe to be God's will. How's that for a stereotypical Christian response? :lol:

You say you understand the desire to protect marriage, but you think people are approaching it from the wrong way. I respectfully ask for your opinion on how you think people should protect marriage. I'm not following how getting government out of it would work. Open to suggestions here.

Btw, I've spent a few hours checking out your Free State Project link in your sig. Except for my few objections to the independent philosophy, I think it's a really cool idea. I'm very interested to see how it turns out. I don't think I'd ever be able to leave Texas though!
Flatland2D
Member
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 9:28 pm
Location: Hill Country

Postby KBCraig » Tue May 23, 2006 4:27 am

Flatland2D wrote:I understand your point, but I think you see the religious aspect from a different standpoint than myself. Without this getting into a huge religious debate, let me just say how I see it. I believe that marriage, among many things, is a gift from God and He had specific intentions for how this gift was to be used. As a Christian living under a democratic government, I will use my power as a voter to protect what I believe to be God's will. How's that for a stereotypical Christian response? :lol:


Fairly stereotypical. :grin:

That's why I tried to inject a different way of looking at the problem, to break people out of stereotypical thinking.


You say you understand the desire to protect marriage, but you think people are approaching it from the wrong way. I respectfully ask for your opinion on how you think people should protect marriage. I'm not following how getting government out of it would work. Open to suggestions here.


I'll return the challenge to you: what has government involvement fixed, exactly? And, what gives government any right to be involved in marriage at all?

Start with first premises: why does government need to be involved in a private contract between two people, especially one where a private arbitrator (the church) already exists? And especially one with a strong moral, religious, and ethical obligation?

The arguments in favor of "gay marriage" tend to focus on legal advantages given to married couples, such as tax filing status, automatic rights of survivorship, insurance regulations, etc. All of those arguments can already be cured by power of attorney and other private, civil arrangements.

Get the government out of marriage altogether, and the arguments in favor of "gay marriage" will vanish --poof!-- because the things they seek to cure will have also vanished.

Don't you have an inviolable right to make a commitment to someone you love, in accordance with the dictates of your religion (if any)?

How have we come so far down this road of accepting government involvement in everything, to the point that religious ceremonies require government licenses?

It's not so different from the absolute right to defend oneself, or to keep and bear arms: we argue about the minutiae of the law to make sure we stay on the right side of it, but seldom blink up and say, "Hey! What right does the Law have to tell me I can't carry here, or there?"


Btw, I've spent a few hours checking out your Free State Project link in your sig. Except for my few objections to the independent philosophy, I think it's a really cool idea. I'm very interested to see how it turns out. I don't think I'd ever be able to leave Texas though!


I appreciate that you've taken the time to read up on the FSP.

I'm a Southern boy, through and through. Emotionally, I never want to give up on my lifelong dream of retiring to 40+ acres in the Ouachita mountains of Arkansas, where I grew up.

But intellectually, I'm all too aware that Reconstruction is finally finding success in the South. Arkansas has outlawed smoking in public places, and in your car when children are present. Even with recent improvements to the Texas CHL law, the state is still a minefield of places you can and can't carry, with serious government sanctions if you exercise your right to carry without asking the government's position.

Yankees didn't do this: our own home-grown politicians keep seeking ways to make us seem more "progressive". By way of contrast, those New Hampshire Yankees are far more conservative, suspicious of big government, and jealous of their natural rights than anyone in the "New South".

I won't miss Texas summers. New Hampshire winters will be a fair trade-off. Liberty-loving activists are already making a difference there, just with the 400+ Free Staters who've made the move already.

If you love liberty, I encourage you to consider the move to New Hampshire.

Kevin
KBCraig
Banned
 
Posts: 5251
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 3:32 am
Location: Texarkana

Postby Flatland2D » Wed May 24, 2006 1:11 am

I have no idea why government is involved in marriage the way it is. I've never looked into that kind of thing. I've just always understood is as the way things are. I can't say there's any reason why they should be involved in it though.

I knew there was a really good point you were making about getting government out of marriage, I just wasn't educated enough to understand it. Thanks for explaining that. I must agree with you that I think removing government from marriage would be a good way to protect it.
Flatland2D
Member
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 9:28 pm
Location: Hill Country

Previous

Return to Goals for 2007

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest