I tortured myself today, and forced myself to listen to Sean Hannity, to listen to what he was saying about the gay marriage debate before the US supreme court.
The whole theme made me sick. Mr. Small government, is so afraid of this that he wants, and is advocating, BIG government. "The government needs to regulate", "The government should have a say in who can be married", "It's in the governments best interest to decide what kinds of marriages should be allowed".
No doubt Sean. But is it in our best interest?
"What next, will we allow"...blah blah blah.
Stupid conservatives, do you realize what you are saying, what you are advocating? Don't you see in your zeal to deny same sex marriage, sanctified by the State, that you are ultimately giving the State the power to decide on ANY marriage? One of the arguments for the same sex marriage advocates was that the "Right to marriage" was a Constitutional Right. Sean says "no it is not!!"
Marriage isn't a Right? You really want the State's involvement in this? Are you such a fool?
I hope I am not the only one to see how stupid this is.
While I do not think that getting married is a Constitutional Right, I do think it is a Right that man has given by God, sanctified by Him. Constitution be hanged.
What business is it for a third party, namely the State, to be involved with it?!
As a Christian, I do not agree with the homosexual lifestyle.
But I also do not think the State should be in the business of marriage. Advocating for the State to regulate marriage is so stupid and ANTI Liberty, I don't know how else to explain it.
If you don't want homosexuals to be permitted to get a marriage license, and that's all this is about anyway, getting State sanctification for it, then you should be fighting against the State claiming the right to be involved with marriage period!!!
If the State didn't have the authority, no let's not say it has that, the POWER to regulate marriage, this issue would be mute, over, done.
Marriage licenses were originally issued because conservatives didn't want whites marrying blacks. Is that the legacy you wish to continue to fight for?!
The proper argument is this, the State has no business granting or refusing marriage, and granting the benefits that it gives to a married couple with It's marriage license.
Take away the States involvement in marriage, and the bogus "benefits" the States license creates, and this whole issue is over.
Wake up!
The whole theme made me sick. Mr. Small government, is so afraid of this that he wants, and is advocating, BIG government. "The government needs to regulate", "The government should have a say in who can be married", "It's in the governments best interest to decide what kinds of marriages should be allowed".
No doubt Sean. But is it in our best interest?
"What next, will we allow"...blah blah blah.
Stupid conservatives, do you realize what you are saying, what you are advocating? Don't you see in your zeal to deny same sex marriage, sanctified by the State, that you are ultimately giving the State the power to decide on ANY marriage? One of the arguments for the same sex marriage advocates was that the "Right to marriage" was a Constitutional Right. Sean says "no it is not!!"
Marriage isn't a Right? You really want the State's involvement in this? Are you such a fool?
I hope I am not the only one to see how stupid this is.
While I do not think that getting married is a Constitutional Right, I do think it is a Right that man has given by God, sanctified by Him. Constitution be hanged.
What business is it for a third party, namely the State, to be involved with it?!
As a Christian, I do not agree with the homosexual lifestyle.
But I also do not think the State should be in the business of marriage. Advocating for the State to regulate marriage is so stupid and ANTI Liberty, I don't know how else to explain it.
If you don't want homosexuals to be permitted to get a marriage license, and that's all this is about anyway, getting State sanctification for it, then you should be fighting against the State claiming the right to be involved with marriage period!!!
If the State didn't have the authority, no let's not say it has that, the POWER to regulate marriage, this issue would be mute, over, done.
Marriage licenses were originally issued because conservatives didn't want whites marrying blacks. Is that the legacy you wish to continue to fight for?!
The proper argument is this, the State has no business granting or refusing marriage, and granting the benefits that it gives to a married couple with It's marriage license.
Take away the States involvement in marriage, and the bogus "benefits" the States license creates, and this whole issue is over.
Wake up!
The state taking over marriage was the mistake.
ReplyDeleteNo fault divorce was the chance to fix the mistake by Christians. It fundamentally changed marriage from a sacrament to state licensed fornication.
This is the fruit.
Jim in Kenai
Hannity, LOL.
ReplyDeleteI quit listening to Hannity, Beck, Levin, Savage, Schlesinger (sp?) a while back. They are not small government folks by any means, much less do they care about the crown rights of King Jesus.
Marriage? All the government can do is charge money in exchange for a license and tax benefits, as well as some other minor allowances.
Marriage, however, most certainly exists outside the State. Marriage is ordained by God, in clear and unequivocal terms, throughout all of scripture.
So, just as the State cannot in any real, meaningful, moral sense (other than merely legally) have any effect or power over the joining together under God of a man and a woman, neither can it join together (other than in legal terms, offering tax benefits and a shallow sense of legitimacy) two men in marriage, who cannot, by definition, be married.
It is merely another instance of attempted state-as-god usurpation and idolatry.
A one-man-and-one-woman marriage cannot be diminished or abolished by human institutions, likewise a perversion of this union cannot be legitimized by human institutions.
No matter what those institutions might do or say to the contrary.
Oops. Meant Laura Ingraham. I quit listening to "that other Laura" years earlier, when she started dispensing unbiblical "advice."
DeleteSo - Separation of State & Marriage. Sounds good to me.
ReplyDeleteThis nation was built on the notion that everyone is born deserving the same rights as the next. As an American not under any established religion, it is my understanding that I have the right to my pursuit of happiness and equality as long as I'm not harming anyone. Many of the first Americans, as we all know, fled here to pursue their own religious beliefs and to not be forced to live under a government that told them which religion was the right one. If you want to express your opinion based on your religion than thats your constitutional right. But don't do it for the intent of denying another freedom-loving American their right to pursue happiness. Religion doesnt have a place in our system if you believe in justice and liberty. Throughout history religion is used in government to supress, outcast, dictate, and manipulate the lives of those who dont fit their mold. Why would God create so many people who aren't heterosexual if it wasn't apart of his grand design for the world? And if he truly loves us all, then why wouldn't he give his blessing to a
ReplyDeletemarriage between those of the same gender? The notion that god has any opinion on the matter is sparsley mentioned at all in the bible. Also take into consideration that the bible was written by MEN. And generally, men always seem to be the ones speaking out against marriage equality. Interesting how men are usually the ones either taking away rights to something or supressing one group or another at any given time. There is no single obvious reason why, but clearly we all need a lesson in compassion. well anyways i have digressed from the main topic.. We all feel that the purpose for marriage isn't procreation. Those who believe you can only marry for the intent to make a baby, clearly don't believe the elderly can make the choice to marry. If you look up the definition of marriage, it is a word with simple meaning: a union. Different cultures and legal systems have attached their own additions and opinions for a variety of reasons. So to the people wanting to use the arguement, 'marriage by definition is between a man and woman'... I'm sorry but you are mistaken. Most people in this era make the decision to marry because they have found someone they want to commit to sharing the rest of their lives with. And usually love is involved, but not always. Is it the government's job to allow or deny this union to occur? No. If the government gives privilages for married couples, than it is charged with the responsibility in expanding, changing, or eliminating these benefits in accordance to constitutional law and the voice of its people. This freedom-loving, pro-liberty, justice-defending, truth-slinging, and awakened American is done ranting for the day.. Hope that I was able to reach some people out there...