Regardless of whether one supports or opposes same sex marriage, the decision to recognize such unions or not ought to be a power each state exercises on its own, rather than imposition of a one-size-fits-all mandate by the federal government (as would be required by a Federal Marriage Amendment which has been previously proposed and considered by the Congress). The decision today by the Supreme Court of California properly reflects this fundamental principle of federalism on which our nation was founded.
“Indeed, the primary reason for which I authored the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 was to ensure that each state remained free to determine for its citizens the basis on which marriage would be recognized within its borders, and not be forced to adopt a definition of marriage contrary to its views by another state.
6 comments:
Marriage is a RELIGIOUS institution.
Why is it that liberals scream bloody murder about the separation of church and state when a judge puts the Ten Commandments in a courtroom, but say nothing when the state interjects itself in one of the holiest of sacraments?
The state deciding who can marry is like the state deciding who can get baptized.
Marriage has become a legal feMEnist trap now.
If any of you have ever been in court or faced our legal system...all they will tell you is that the law is the law and they don't give a damn if it makes any sense or not. You and they are both "powerless" to change that, no matter how unjust.
So, when you say I DO, you are allowing Uncle Sam and all the feMEnist lobbyists to legally dictate the terms of your relationship...NOT you, your partner or "God."
Therefore, I see no reason why any Man would choose to put himself in that compromised position anymore - with no tangible benefits. Which is why marriage rates are now dropping like it's hot...
Bird, I'm all for marriage. I'm also all for common sense...I think the Church...The State...The Feds...and anybody else should endorse the NATURAL order of things...marriage should be between a man and a woman..period....form fits function.
However (I did click on your links)...and I find this statistic phenomenal, "among college-educated couples, the percentages of divorces initiated by women is approximately 90."
I seriously wonder why there is such a large disparity. Any ideas?
^ Could be several. Here's just a few:
1) Our college campuses have become feMEnist-indoctrination training camps. So the more "educated" someone becomes, the more miseducated they actually become, in many ways... Remember, most uni profs are flaming liberals and any dissenters get ostracized fast. I know some, and they are afraid to even speak out. See Duke lacrosse farce. Did anyone employed there DARE speak out against the rabid, liberal lynch mob (and their long petition of signatures) and urge fair consideration of the actual facts??? Hell no...it's a self-selected group to begin with - and any dissenters face career suicide for opposing them, anyways.
2) Overall, 75% of divorces are initiated by WOMEN (college-educated or not). So, college is just an additional factor to a baseline trend already pointing in that direction.
3) Why? Probably just because they CAN. People often do as much as they can get away with. And not only that - but our feMEnist legislation (see no fault divorces, etc) has given women a financial incentive to do become serial divorcers. Remember, marriage magically redistributes all debts and wealth between you 2. So, unless you're marrying Paris Hilton, your loss becomes her gain in a divorce.
4) Women are particularly dopamine-driven. Hence, they love da emotional, dopamine-secreting drama. Which gets hard to keep finding in a stable household wth the same, responsible guy. See stage 2 here. You give them an inch, they get bored and want a foot. Nearly every adult woman I talk to these days is addicted to Sex In The City. A show about a bunch of vapid, aging tramps obsessed with shoe status and casual sex.
5) Legal marriage is ultimately all about money. If not, you could have the exact same loving & spiritual commitment...without the legal and financial contract. Why does it have to be synonymously tied to a contract, then? Therefore, any woman who wants to get that contract is a gold-digger, by definition (unless she happens to be wealthier than you).
Now, I don't necessarily blame them for that if they plan on having kids and need an insurance policy that you'll be forced to provide for that...but again, that denotes lack of trust. If she genuinely loves and trusts you - she wouldn't demand a legal contract holding you to your commitment.
Now, your woman might not be so mercenary to take advantage of all this leverage marriage now affords her...but the point is that she CAN. It becomes HER choice, not YORUS. And you thus become at her complete mercy - a bonafied slave, no less.
Most likely because college educated women have more economic resources to sustain themselves and their kids when relationships dissolve. And the men in these relationships are more likely to suffer adverse pecuniary effects of divorce. Unlike baptism or communion, marriage involves merging assets, therefore the state has seen fit to insert itself to regulate an economic transaction. Partisan religious symbols like the Ten Commandments or the crucifix don't enhance state control and legitimacy, so they are discarded as relics. Social and moral practices developed during the agrarian phase of human existence have less utility in the post-Industrial capitalist era.
By sluffing everything off to the ''New World Order'' any responsibility that it just could be that people can do what they please .. or be free ... is lost.
Scape goating fictitious groups that are mostly lame brained assortments of ignorant religious and economic people is kind of funny.
D.V. you really are a soldier for the Order... Ha. Lets face it man. You just hate gays. Your religion says so and you obey.
Post a Comment