PDA

View Full Version : Marriage Licenses: The Real Truth




aGameOfThrones
08-05-2010, 08:51 PM
Marriage Licenses: The Real Truth

by Virgil Cooper


Enlightening Conversation with a Marriage License Bureau. . . .

About 15 years ago, my former wife of 26 years, filed for divorce. We had seven (7) children: five (5) daughters and two (2) sons. Our youngest at the time, our second son, was five years old. At the time, I prepared a counterclaim to the Petition for Dissolution her attorney filed in Domestic Relations (DR) court.

I met one afternoon with the head of the Maricopa County Superior Court, Marriage License Bureau, in downtown Phoenix. The marriage license bureau was headed by a young woman of about age 25. I asked her to explain to me the general and statutory implications of the marriage license. She was very cooperative, and called in an Assistant, a tall Black man who at the time was working on an Operations Manual for internal departmental use.

She deferred for most technical explanations to her Assistant. He walked through the technicalities of the marriage license as it operates in Arizona. He mentioned that marriage licensing is pretty much the same in the other states --but there are differences. One significant difference he mentioned was that Arizona is one of eight western states that are Community Property states. The other states are Common Law states, including Utah, with the exception of Louisiana which is a Napoleonic Code state.

He then explained some of the technicalities of the marriage license. He said, first of all, the marriage license is Secular Contract between the parties and the State. The State is the principal party in that Secular Contract. The husband and wife are secondary or inferior parties. The Secular Contract is a three-way contract between the State, as Principal, and the husband and wife as the other two legs of the Contract.

He said, in the traditional sense a marriage is a covenant between the husband and wife and God. But in the Secular Contract with the state, reference to God is a dotted line, and NOT officially considered included in the Secular Contract at all.

He said, if the husband and wife wish to include God as a party in their marriage, that is a "dotted line" they will have to add in their own minds. The state's marriage license is "strictly secular," he said. He said further, that what he meant by the relationship to God being a "dotted line" meant that the State regards any mention of God as irrelevant, even meaningless.

In his description of the marriage license contract, the related one other "dotted line." He said in the traditional religious context, marriage was a covenant between the husband and wife and God with husband and wife joined as one. This is not the case in the secular realm of the state's marriage license contract. The State is the Principal or dominant party. The husband and wife are merely contractually "joined" as business partners, not in any
religious union. They may even be considered, he said, connected to each other by another "dotted line."

The picture he was trying to "paint" was that of a triangle with the State at the top and a solid line extending from the apex, the State, down the left side to the husband, and a separate solid line extending down the right side to the wife, a "dotted line" merely showing that they consider themselves to have entered into a religious union of some sort that is irrelevant to the State.

He further mentioned that this "religious overtone" is recognized by the State by requiring that the marriage must be solemnized either by a state official or by a minister of religion that has been "deputized" by the State to perform the marriage ceremony and make a return of the signed and executed marriage license to the State.

Again, he emphasized that marriage is a strictly secular relationship so far as the State is concerned and because it is looked upon as a "privileged business enterprise" various tax advantages and other political privileges have become attached to the marriage license contract that have nothing at all to do with marriage as a religious
covenant or bond between God and a man and a woman.

By way of reference, if you would like to read a legal treatise on marriage, one of the best is "Principles of Community Property," by William Defuniak. At the outset, he explains that Community Property law descends from Roman Civil Law through the Spanish Codes, 600 A.D., written by the Spanish juris consults.

In the civil law, the marriage is considered to be a for-profit venture or profit-making venture (even though it may never actually produce a profit in operation) and as the wife goes out to the local market to purchase food stuffs and other supplies for the marriage household, she is replenishing the stocks of the business. To restate: In the civil law, the marriage is considered to be a business venture, that is, a for-profit business venture. Moreover, as children come into the marriage household, the business venture is considered to have "borne fruit."

Now, back to the explanation by the Maricopa County Superior Court, Marriage Bureau's administrative Assistant. He went on to explain that every contract must have consideration. The State offers consideration in the form of the actual license itself - the piece of paper, the Certificate of Marriage. The other part of consideration by the State is "the privilege to be regulated by statute." He added that this privilege to be regulated by statute includes all related statutes, and all court cases as they are ruled on by the courts, and all statutes and regulations into the future in the years following the commencement of the marriage. He said in a way the marriage license contract is a dynamic or flexible, ever-changing contract as time goes along - even though the husband and wife didn't realize that.

My thought on this is can it really be considered a true contract as one becomes aware of the failure by the State to make full disclosure of the terms and conditions. A contract must be entered into knowingly, intelligently, intentionally, and with fully informed consent. Otherwise, technically there is no contract.

Another way to look as the marriage license contract with the State is as a contract of adhesion, a contract between two disparate, unequal parties. Again, a flawed "contract." Such a contract with the State is said to be a "specific performance" contract as to the privileges, duties and responsibilities that attach.

Consideration on the part of the husband and wife is the actual fee paid and the implied agreement to be subject to the state's statutes, rules, and regulations and all court cases ruled on related to marriage law, family law, children, and property. He emphasized that this contractual consideration by the bride and groom places them in a definite and defined-by-law position inferior and subject to the State. He commented that very few people realize this.


He also said that it is very important to understand that children born to the marriage are considered by law as "the contract bearing fruit" -meaning the children primarily belong to the State, even though the law never comes out and says so in so many words.

In this regard, children born to the contract regarded as "the contract bearing fruit," he said it is vitally important for
parents to understand two doctrines that became established in the United States during the 1930s. The first is the Doctrine of Parens Patriae. The second is the Doctrine of In Loco Parentis.

Parens Patriae means literally "the parent of the country" or to state it more bluntly - the State is the undisclosed true parent. Along this line, a 1930s Arizona Supreme Court case states that parents have no property right in their children, and have custody of their children during good behavior at the sufferance of the State. This means that parents may raise their children and maintain custody of their children as long as they don't offend the State, but if they in some manner displease the State, the State can step in at any time and exercise its superior status and take custody and control of its children - the parents are only conditional caretakers. [Thus the Doctrine of In Loco Parentis.]

He also added a few more technical details. The marriage license is an ongoing contractual relationship with the State. Technically, the marriage license is a business license allowing the husband and wife, in the name of the marriage, to enter into contracts with third parties and contract mortgages and debts. They can get car loans,
home mortgages, and installment debts in the name of the marriage because it is not only a secular enterprise, but it is looked upon by the State as a privileged business enterprise as well as a for-profit business enterprise. The marriage contract acquires property through out its existence and over time, it is hoped, increases in value.


Also, the marriage contract "bears fruit" by adding children. If sometime later, the marriage fails, and a "divorce" results the contract continues in existence. The "divorce" is merely a contractual dissolution or amendment of the terms and conditions of the contract. Jurisdiction of the State over the marriage, over the husband and wife, now separated, continues and continues over all aspects of the marriage, over marital property and over children brought into the marriage.

That is why family law and the Domestic Relations court calls "divorce" a dissolution of the marriage because the contract continues in operation but in amended or modified form. He also pointed out that the marriage license contract is one of the strongest, most binding contractual relationships the State has on people.

At the end of our hour-long meeting, I somewhat humorously asked if other people had come in and asked the questions I was asking? The Assistant replied that in the several years he had worked there, he was not aware of anyone else asking these questions. He added that he was very glad to see someone interested in the legal implications of the marriage license and the contractual relationship it creates with the State.

His boss, the young woman Marriage Bureau department head stated, "You have to understand that people who come in here to get a marriage license are in heat. The last thing they want to know is technical, legal and statutory implications of the marriage license."

I hope this is helpful information to anyone interested in getting more familiar with the contractual implications of the
marriage license. The marriage license as we know it didn't come into existence until after the Civil War and didn't become standard practice in all the states until after 1900, becoming firmly established by 1920. In effect, the states or governments appropriated or usurped control of marriages in secular form and in the process declared Common Law applicable to marriages "abrogated."

More here: http://www.usavsus.info/MarriageLicenses-TheRealTruth.htm

QueenB4Liberty
08-05-2010, 09:05 PM
Interesting. Most of that stuff I already knew. I just skimmed in, will read the rest tomorrow but thanks for posting.

aGameOfThrones
06-25-2011, 02:00 AM
Decided to bump since marriage license is being discuss.

Sola_Fide
06-25-2011, 02:53 AM
Great article. Thanks.

It really shows how secularization is the prerequisite to statism. Secularism ALWAYS preceedes statism.

When God is removed as the basis for societal contracts (covenants as opposed to contracts), the tyranny of the State takes His place. And the State is a cruel master. Jesus said His yoke is easy and His burden light. How different it is with the State. God is not a respecter of persons, the State is.

amy31416
06-25-2011, 05:20 AM
Great article. Thanks.

It really shows how secularization is the prerequisite to statism. Secularism ALWAYS preceedes statism.

When God is removed as the basis for societal contracts (covenants as opposed to contracts), the tyranny of the State takes His place. And the State is a cruel master. Jesus said His yoke is easy and His burden light. How different it is with the State. God is not a respecter of persons, the State is.

I disagree. They could throw "God" in the contract and it wouldn't make one bit of difference--in fact, it's an option.

Yieu
06-25-2011, 05:24 AM
The marriage license has no meaning except for legal purposes. The religious ceremony is the real union, and that is all that matters.

Sola_Fide
06-25-2011, 06:06 AM
I disagree. They could throw "God" in the contract and it wouldn't make one bit of difference--in fact, it's an option.

Did you read the article? It's really good, I'd read it.


He then explained some of the technicalities of the marriage license. He said, first of all, the marriage license is Secular Contract between the parties and the State. The State is the principal party in that Secular Contract. The husband and wife are secondary or inferior parties. The Secular Contract is a three-way contract between the State, as Principal, and the husband and wife as the other two legs of the Contract.

This is evil and wrong. And like I said, in the absence of the understanding of God as the head of the marriage covenant, the State has taken His place and wreaked havok.

There is no way secularism is going to win this argument. Secularism, in this instance and in others, is not conducive to Liberty. Christianity is.

Schifference
06-25-2011, 06:48 AM
[QUOTE=aGameOfThrones;2827781]Marriage Licenses: The Real Truth

by Virgil Cooper

Parens Patriae means literally "the parent of the country" or to state it more bluntly - the State is the undisclosed true parent. Along this line, a 1930s Arizona Supreme Court case states that parents have no property right in their children, and have custody of their children during good behavior at the sufferance of the State. This means that parents may raise their children and maintain custody of their children as long as they don't offend the State, but if they in some manner displease the State, the State can step in at any time and exercise its superior status and take custody and control of its children - the parents are only conditional caretakers. [Thus the Doctrine of In Loco Parentis.]


It would be my guess that even if children were born out of wedlock that the state would impose these powers over you and your children.

Kylie
06-25-2011, 07:10 AM
[QUOTE=aGameOfThrones;2827781]Marriage Licenses: The Real Truth

by Virgil Cooper

Parens Patriae means literally "the parent of the country" or to state it more bluntly - the State is the undisclosed true parent. Along this line, a 1930s Arizona Supreme Court case states that parents have no property right in their children, and have custody of their children during good behavior at the sufferance of the State. This means that parents may raise their children and maintain custody of their children as long as they don't offend the State, but if they in some manner displease the State, the State can step in at any time and exercise its superior status and take custody and control of its children - the parents are only conditional caretakers. [Thus the Doctrine of In Loco Parentis.]


It would be my guess that even if children were born out of wedlock that the state would impose these powers over you and your children.


This would be lent credence by the observation of what they did to that lady in PA who kept her children from the State's interference.

Guess that was a warning shot to us all. If you want to keep those kids that you made(but the state claims as their own) then you'd better follow the rules of the state.

Man, I'm getting more sick of the state every day.

amy31416
06-25-2011, 07:13 AM
Did you read the article? It's really good, I'd read it.



This is evil and wrong. And like I said, in the absence of the understanding of God as the head of the marriage covenant, the State has taken His place and wreaked havok.

There is no way secularism is going to win this argument. Secularism, in this instance and in others, is not conducive to Liberty. Christianity is.

Yes, I read the article. Did you? God could be thrown in as a "...." It wouldn't make a bit of difference if the couple chooses to include god. And here's the issue with your argument--it was "godfearing" Christians who came up with these state licenses for marriage in order to prevent blacks (or other minorities) from marrying whites. So no, it wasn't secularism that brought this on, it was fear and racism--also the source of many gun control laws.

You seem to think that there's absolutely no issue with religion and how it's used/abused to shape laws in this country. You are sticking your head in the sand when it comes to these things, and that only makes you (and many others) more susceptible to manipulation by those who use religion to gain support for garbage laws.

flightlesskiwi
06-25-2011, 07:29 AM
[QUOTE=Schifference;3362401]


This would be lent credence by the observation of what they did to that lady in PA who kept her children from the State's interference.

Guess that was a warning shot to us all. If you want to keep those kids that you made(but the state claims as their own) then you'd better follow the rules of the state.

Man, I'm getting more sick of the state every day.

you and me both.

my first thought when i read this: crap. and then i thought about the family in PA. we are pretty much in a lose-lose situation.

Sola_Fide
06-25-2011, 07:51 AM
Yes, I read the article. Did you? God could be thrown in as a "...." It wouldn't make a bit of difference if the couple chooses to include god.And here's the issue with your argument--it was "godfearing" Christians who came up with these state licenses for marriage in order to prevent blacks (or other minorities) from marrying whites. So no, it wasn't secularism that brought this on, it was fear and racism--also the source of many gun control laws.

You seem to think that there's absolutely no issue with religion and how it's used/abused to shape laws in this country. You are sticking your head in the sand when it comes to these things, and that only makes you (and many others) more susceptible to manipulation by those who use religion to gain support for garbage laws.

Who cares if someone says they are "god-fearing". President Obama and every socialist in this country says they are "god-fearing". The issue is: which god are they fearing? It is clear that it is the idol of the State.



There is a clear philosophical difference between:

1. A marriage covenant where God is the head of the covenant in whose laws never change

And

2. A secular contract where the State is head and arbiter, in which laws change by whim


I don't care which statist comes along and says he is "God-fearing", yet promotes state sanctioning of marriage. There is a clear philosophical difference between the two. One is private and liberty-oriented, and the other is socialized and statist.

The 1920's was an era of the SOCIAL GOSPEL. The social gospel was a progressive movement that use state-moralism as a means to socialism. It was NOT a Christian movement. The Christians of the founding generation who fought and died for true Liberty would have been horrified at the way the government was used to strip personal liberties in the 20's.

The social gospel is completely opposite from the Liberty that the Christians of the founding fought for, but yet I see this misunderstanding posted all the time on this forum. Sad, but just another way in which Americans don't understand the history of theological and social movements in their own country.


And Christianity was the basis for gun-control laws?????????? Where on earth do you get something like that? Uh. Sam Adams and Patrick Henry would probably disagree.

Napoleon's Shadow
06-25-2011, 07:55 AM
The marriage license as we know it didn't come into existence until after the Civil War and didn't become standard practice in all the states until after 1900, becoming firmly established by 1920. In effect, the states or governments appropriated or usurped control of marriages in secular form and in the process declared Common Law applicable to marriages "abrogated."

And from my understanding marriage laws were part of jim crow laws designed to keep inter-racial marriages from taking place. In otherwords they started out as government instituted racism.

There is a lot more I'd like to discuss about this, but I just don't have the time.

amy31416
06-25-2011, 07:57 AM
Who cares if someone says they are "god-fearing". President Obama and every socialist in this country says they are "god-fearing". The issue is: which god are they fearing? It is clear that it is the idol of the State.



There is a clear philosophical difference between:

1. A marriage covenant where God is the head of the covenant in whose laws never change

And

2. A secular contract where the State is head and arbiter, in which laws change by whim


I don't care which statist comes along and says he is "God-fearing", yet promotes state sanctioning of marriage. There is a clear philosophical difference between the two. One is private and liberty-oriented, and the other is socialized and statist.

The 1920's was an era of the SOCIAL GOSPEL. The social gospel was a progressive movement that use state-moralism as a means to socialism. It was NOT a Christian movement. The Christians of the founding generation who fought and died for true Liberty would have been horrified at the way the government was used to strip personal liberties in the 20's.

The social gospel is completely opposite from the Liberty that the Christians of the founding fought for, but yet I see this misunderstanding posted all the time on this forum. Sad, but just another way in which Americans don't understand the history of theological and social movements in their own country.


And Christianity was the basis for gun-control laws?????????? Where on earth do you get something like that? Uh. Sam Adams and Patrick Henry would probably disagree.

I said RACISM was the basis of gun-control laws. And you still have your head in the sand about how social conservatives are part of the problem when they choose to try to use religion to force others to live the way they want them to live, but I give you much credit that you're not a Huckabee/Palin/Bachmann supporter.

Sola_Fide
06-25-2011, 08:05 AM
I said RACISM was the basis of gun-control laws. And you still have your head in the sand about how social conservatives are part of the problem when they choose to try to use religion to force others to live the way they want them to live, but I give you much credit that you're not a Huckabee/Palin/Bachmann supporter.

Oh, sorry I misread it.

flightlesskiwi
06-25-2011, 09:57 AM
Oh, sorry I misread it.


I said RACISM was the basis of gun-control laws. And you still have your head in the sand about how social conservatives are part of the problem when they choose to try to use religion to force others to live the way they want them to live, but I give you much credit that you're not a Huckabee/Palin/Bachmann supporter.

if i may offer up my humble opinion: i think you two are reaching the same conclusion, just using a different way to get there.

Sola_Fide
06-25-2011, 10:43 AM
if i may offer up my humble opinion: i think you two are reaching the same conclusion, just using a different way to get there.

True, and Theocrat just posted a great article by Chuck Baldwin explaining that although Christianity provides the firm philosophical foundation for Liberty, too many Christians today have statist mindsets, and he finds that he would support an atheist for office if they were firm Constitutionalists.

What we have had for a long time in this country is a cultus, or state-religion, that sometimes uses Christian-sounding words but worships at the altar of the State.

Obama, Huckabee, Bush, Clinton, Bachmann, Romney, etc. all worship this state-religion. The Christians of the founding generation, the patriot-preachers, looked on this statism with disgust. There was no state-religion at the time of say, the Articles of Confederation, because there was no centralized government. Religion back then was there to RESTRAIN government, not feed it.

PaulConventionWV
06-25-2011, 11:10 AM
Did you read the article? It's really good, I'd read it.



This is evil and wrong. And like I said, in the absence of the understanding of God as the head of the marriage covenant, the State has taken His place and wreaked havok.

There is no way secularism is going to win this argument. Secularism, in this instance and in others, is not conducive to Liberty. Christianity is.

I agree with you here. If you think about it with any depth at all, it seems pretty clear to me that God as an authority stands in the way of a strong state because people are not recognizing the state as the source from which their rights are derived. Marriage licenses are an agreement that the state is the maker and breaker of your bonds, and yes, it does matter whether or not God is in the contract.

PaulConventionWV
06-25-2011, 11:15 AM
[QUOTE=aGameOfThrones;2827781]Marriage Licenses: The Real Truth

by Virgil Cooper

Parens Patriae means literally "the parent of the country" or to state it more bluntly - the State is the undisclosed true parent. Along this line, a 1930s Arizona Supreme Court case states that parents have no property right in their children, and have custody of their children during good behavior at the sufferance of the State. This means that parents may raise their children and maintain custody of their children as long as they don't offend the State, but if they in some manner displease the State, the State can step in at any time and exercise its superior status and take custody and control of its children - the parents are only conditional caretakers. [Thus the Doctrine of In Loco Parentis.]


It would be my guess that even if children were born out of wedlock that the state would impose these powers over you and your children.

Wow, so much good information here.

I would just like to add that this makes a lot of sense and holds a lot of significance for me, since my little sister is having her child out of wedlock, and it is ridiculous the amount of government welfare programs these parents need just in order to support the child. As a result, the mother is forced to cede ownership of her child to the state. We've decided that adoption is the best option as of now.

flightlesskiwi
06-25-2011, 11:15 AM
True, and Theocrat just posted a great article by Chuck Baldwin explaining that although Christianity provides the firm philosophical foundation for Liberty, too many Christians today have statist mindsets, and he finds that he would support an atheist for office if they were firm Constitutionalists.

What we have had for a long time in this country is a cultus, or state-religion, that sometimes uses Christian-sounding words but worships at the altar of the State.

Obama, Huckabee, Bush, Clinton, Bachmann, Romney, etc. all worship this state-religion. The Christians of the founding generation, the patriot-preachers, looked on this statism with disgust. There was no state-religion at the time of say, the Articles of Confederation, because there was no centralized government. Religion back then was there to RESTRAIN government, not feed it.

Absolutely and +rep to Chuck B. this is something that has bothered me for a long time. obviously i don't feel that this applies to all who are in the body of Christ, but i have found myself doubting who, really, is part of that body, in spite of their profession and church attendance/activity. especially so with those who profess we can legalize morality, thus we have an obligation to do so, and with those who profess that government is the answer to anything- no matter what the issue, be it "large" or "small."

edit: but perhaps my observations come down to the "weaker in the faith" and "items of conscience" issues. i can see how one would argue that way. not that i agree.

PaulConventionWV
06-25-2011, 11:25 AM
True, and Theocrat just posted a great article by Chuck Baldwin explaining that although Christianity provides the firm philosophical foundation for Liberty, too many Christians today have statist mindsets, and he finds that he would support an atheist for office if they were firm Constitutionalists.

What we have had for a long time in this country is a cultus, or state-religion, that sometimes uses Christian-sounding words but worships at the altar of the State.

Obama, Huckabee, Bush, Clinton, Bachmann, Romney, etc. all worship this state-religion. The Christians of the founding generation, the patriot-preachers, looked on this statism with disgust. There was no state-religion at the time of say, the Articles of Confederation, because there was no centralized government. Religion back then was there to RESTRAIN government, not feed it.

I am indebted to you a thousand rep!

erowe1
06-25-2011, 11:29 AM
And you still have your head in the sand about how social conservatives are part of the problem when they choose to try to use religion to force others to live the way they want them to live.

I come across this charge a lot. But I haven't seen much evidence for it. Can you give an example?

Guitarzan
06-25-2011, 11:40 AM
I come across this charge a lot. But I haven't seen much evidence for it. Can you give an example?

I would say that drug policy could have significant pressure from so-cons. Also, the gay thing...I don't believe that most so-cons oppose gay marriage from a policital philsophical point of view, but rather because of what the Bible tells them. Also, our foreign policy comes to mind as having somewhat of a biblical aspect to it.

nbhadja
06-25-2011, 11:42 AM
I come across this charge a lot. But I haven't seen much evidence for it. Can you give an example?

By believing the states have the "right" to tell people what to put in their bodies (drugs) as if somehow the state telling you what to put in your body is better than the federal government telling you want to do. Social conservatives would probably oppose a federal bill legalizing drugs.

Or by making the excuse the freedom is hurt by the government allowing churches to do gay marriages (if they want, it is not forced). The excuses for opposing drug legalization and gay marriage are telling proof of social conservatives shoving their religion down other people's throats.

erowe1
06-25-2011, 11:53 AM
I would say that drug policy could have significant pressure from so-cons. Also, the gay thing...I don't believe that most so-cons oppose gay marriage from a policital philsophical point of view, but rather because of what the Bible tells them. Also, our foreign policy comes to mind as having somewhat of a biblical aspect to it.


By believing the states have the "right" to tell people what to put in their bodies (drugs) as if somehow the state telling you what to put in your body is better than the federal government telling you want to do. Social conservatives would probably oppose a federal bill legalizing drugs.

Or by making the excuse the freedom is hurt by the government allowing churches to do gay marriages (if they want, it is not forced). The excuses for opposing drug legalization and gay marriage are telling proof of social conservatives shoving their religion down other people's throats.

So two different things: the war on drugs, and gay marriage.

I don't really see the war on drugs as a big part of Christian social conservatism.

The gay marriage issue is definitely one of the main lynchpins of today's Christian social conservatism. But that's not an issue where they're forcing anyone else to live any particular way. Gay people have been living together, having sexual relations, calling themselves "married," and having weddings in every state for years and years, without anybody preventing them from doing those things or punishing them for them. The only problem I have with so-called "gay marriage bans" is that people insist on calling them "bans" when they don't actually ban anything.

nbhadja
06-25-2011, 12:03 PM
So two different things: the war on drugs, and gay marriage.

I don't really see the war on drugs as a big part of Christian social conservatism.

The gay marriage issue is definitely one of the main lynchpins of today's Christian social conservatism. But that's not an issue where they're forcing anyone else to live any particular way. Gay people have been living together, having sexual relations, calling themselves "married," and having weddings in every state for years and years, without anybody preventing them from doing those things or punishing them for them. The only problem I have with so-called "gay marriage bans" is that people insist on calling them "bans" when they don't actually ban anything.


The war on drugs is a huge issue for social conservatives, just as big if not bigger than gay marriage. It is also a perfect example of why they try to cram religion down everyone's throats. You asked for a example and you got one.

Everyone knows the drug war is a HUGE issue for social conservatives.

erowe1
06-25-2011, 12:07 PM
The war on drugs is a huge issue for social conservatives, just as big if not bigger than gay marriage. It is also a perfect example of why they try to cram religion down everyone's throats. You asked for a example and you got one.

Everyone knows the drug war is a HUGE issue for social conservatives.

I don't know this. I get emails from the Family Research Council all the time, and I don't think I've ever seen one about the war on drugs, although it seems like every other one is about gay marriage.

The same thing goes for when I listened to James Dobson on the radio, or watched the 700 Club, or read World Magazine, or compared candidates using the scorecards of the Christian Coalition. Fighting to keep drugs illegal just doesn't seem to be on their radars.

Maybe this is one of those things that a lot of people think they know, just because it's supposedly the case that "everyone knows it."

Edit: For those who don't want to take my word for it, please try to find anything about the war on drugs in the following web pages that list the issues that are important to three major Christian right organizations today.
http://www.eagleforum.org/topics/
http://www.frc.org/issues
http://www.cc.org/2011_legislative_agenda

silentshout
06-25-2011, 12:07 PM
The marriage license has no meaning except for legal purposes. The religious ceremony is the real union, and that is all that matters.

Really? So for non-religious people who get married, it is meaningless then? I am sure many religious people wouldn't mind if the State forbade non-religious people from marrying. Just like they don't want gays to marry and how they didn't want inter-racial marriage, and so on.

I'd prefer if the state was not in the marriage business, but please. It doesn't mean that religious institutions have any authority on who marries or enters into a contract with someone else. I don't get it. If churches are allowed to bar whoever they want from marrying in their church (which is fine with me), why do they care if people get married by someone else or another institution that doesn't share their beliefs?

erowe1
06-25-2011, 12:10 PM
I am sure many religious people wouldn't mind if the State forbade non-religious people from marrying.

What would that entail? Going around house to house and arresting people if they find a non-religious man and woman living together. You really think a lot of religious people want that?

LibertyEagle
06-25-2011, 12:12 PM
The war on drugs is a huge issue for social conservatives, just as big if not bigger than gay marriage. It is also a perfect example of why they try to cram religion down everyone's throats. You asked for a example and you got one.

Everyone knows the drug war is a HUGE issue for social conservatives.

How do you come up with this? What does the War on Drugs have to do with religion?

nbhadja
06-25-2011, 12:23 PM
I don't know this. I get emails from the Family Research Council all the time, and I don't think I've ever seen one about the war on drugs, although it seems like every other one is about gay marriage.

The same thing goes for when I listened to James Dobson on the radio, or watched the 700 Club, or read World Magazine, or compared candidates using the scorecards of the Christian Coalition. Fighting to keep drugs illegal just doesn't seem to be on their radars.

Maybe this is one of those things that a lot of people think they know, just because it's supposedly the case that "everyone knows it."

They why do most people in very religious states vote to keep drugs illegal? Not just the politicians but the citizens as well.

Heck we had many social conservatives on here the other day say "It was bad for Ron Paul to back that bill with Barney Frank since the conservatives will be opposed to it".

Are you really gonna deny that most republicans support the drug war? Go to hannity forums and see what they say- most support the drug war and hannity forums represents the most common type of republican today.

nbhadja
06-25-2011, 12:24 PM
How do you come up with this? What does the War on Drugs have to do with religion?

Well it's the religious ones who oppose the legalization of drugs and their holy books oppose drugs so they want to ban it for everyone .

YumYum
06-25-2011, 12:25 PM
If the state stays out of marriage, should men be allowed to practice polygamy? It was practiced in the Bible, God had no problem with it.

erowe1
06-25-2011, 12:28 PM
They why do most people in very religious states vote to keep drugs illegal? Not just the politicians but the citizens as well.

Heck we had many social conservatives on here the other day say "It was bad for Ron Paul to back that bill with Barney Frank since the conservatives will be opposed to it".

Are you really gonna deny that most republicans support the drug war? Go to hannity forums and see what they say- most support the drug war and hannity forums represents the most common type of republican today.

Most people, Republican and Democrat, Christian and nonchristian, support the drug war. I don't think it's a religious issue the way gay marriage and abortion are.

But the support for the drug war is a mile wide and an inch deep. Most of these people who instinctively support the drug war, whether they're Christians or not, don't really rank it very highly in importance as an issue to them.

The reason we have the drug war isn't because the populace (religious or otherwise) actively cries out and demands it. The reason we have it is because certain other interests who represent a much smaller portion of the population have a great deal at stake in the issue, groups like pharmaceutical companies, private prisons, prosecuting attorneys, police departments, and so on.

erowe1
06-25-2011, 12:31 PM
If the state stays out of marriage, should men be allowed to practice polygamy? It was practiced in the Bible, God had no problem with it.

I don't know if God had no problem with it. But the state shouldn't stop people from doing it.

You could have a situation where some guy had multiple wives but made explicitly monogamous marriage vows with them. In that case his actions would violate his contracts with them. So people who see the state as having a role in contract enforcement could still see a place for it there. But I assume you're talking about something where all the parties get into it with knowledge of what they were doing.

heavenlyboy34
06-25-2011, 12:32 PM
If the state stays out of marriage, should men be allowed to practice polygamy? It was practiced in the Bible, God had no problem with it.IMO, yes-assuming all parties consent to it.

YumYum
06-25-2011, 12:39 PM
I don't know if God had no problem with it. But the state shouldn't stop people from doing it.

You could have a situation where some guy had multiple wives but made explicitly monogamous marriage vows with them. In that case his actions would violate his contracts with them. So people who see the state as having a role in contract enforcement could still see a place for it there. But I assume you're talking about something where all the parties get into it with knowledge of what they were doing.

Why is our country, as a Christian nation, opposed to polygamy? The Mormons practiced it up until the early 1890's with no problems. It was a Christian movement that put pressure on our federal government to crack down on the Mormons to end polygamy. I guess my question is: Why are Christians against polygamy?

erowe1
06-25-2011, 12:48 PM
Why is our country, as a Christian nation, opposed to polygamy? The Mormons practiced it up until the early 1890's with no problems. It was a Christian movement that put pressure on our federal government to crack down on the Mormons to end polygamy. I guess my question is: Why are Christians against polygamy?

There are several arguments against polygamy, both from the Bible and from reason. I don't think the Bible ever does explicitly forbid it. But it does have several negative statements about it. It was prohibited to the king of Israel (of course all the kings did it, but they weren't supposed to). It is also prohibited to church elders in 1 Timothy and Titus. I also think that it would be hard to reconcile polygamy with a lot of passages that are primarily directed against adultery. The places in the Bible you're talking about that describe polygamous marriages are narratives that generally don't say anything either good or bad about them, just that they happened. And I think you could make a good case that a lot of those narratives illustrate ways that polygamy resulted in problems for those who practiced it.

Also, monogamy fits with a population in which the number of men and the number of women are nearly equal. If we take as a given that most people want to get married, and probably ought to get married (which I don't mean to say has to be the case, but for many Christians that's part of it), then if you had a population with roughly equal numbers of men and women, and 90% of the people wanted to get married, and the men had an average of 2 wives each, that would only allow for 45% of the men to get married by the time 90% of the women were taken. I think it's the case that polygamy tends to happen in situations where something like war has caused there to be much fewer men than women. When there are extenuating circumstances like that, I'm honestly not sure if I could say that it's definitely wrong, even though I thing it normally is.

erowe1
06-25-2011, 12:54 PM
Go to hannity forums and see what they say- most support the drug war and hannity forums represents the most common type of republican today.

If you're looking for a website that exemplifies social conservatism as an expression of Christianity, do you really think the Hannity forums are a better example than the ones I gave in post #27?

amy31416
06-25-2011, 01:07 PM
I come across this charge a lot. But I haven't seen much evidence for it. Can you give an example?

Pretty much any law having something to do with sex, drugs, entertainment and music.

Specific examples:

prostitution
drug war
censorship of music, movies, television, news, etc.

There's also the big fearmongering movement about Sharia law, while promoting the 10 commandments in public courts. Not saying that I think it's all bad or even avoidable, but it's certainly there. It's a nanny-state mindset to demand that the gov't censor what your children see on TV...

AFPVet
06-25-2011, 01:26 PM
The marriage license has no meaning except for legal purposes. The religious ceremony is the real union, and that is all that matters.

I agree.

LibertyEagle
06-25-2011, 02:05 PM
Pretty much any law having something to do with sex, drugs, entertainment and music.

Specific examples:

prostitution
drug war
censorship of music, movies, television, news, etc.

There's also the big fearmongering movement about Sharia law, while promoting the 10 commandments in public courts. Not saying that I think it's all bad or even avoidable, but it's certainly there. It's a nanny-state mindset to demand that the gov't censor what your children see on TV...

Are you talking about FCC public decency regulations?

Sola_Fide
06-25-2011, 02:23 PM
Pretty much any law having something to do with sex, drugs, entertainment and music.

Specific examples:

prostitution
drug war
censorship of music, movies, television, news, etc.

There's also the big fearmongering movement about Sharia law, while promoting the 10 commandments in public courts. Not saying that I think it's all bad or even avoidable, but it's certainly there. It's a nanny-state mindset to demand that the gov't censor what your children see on TV...

The biggest censorship people have always been liberal Democrats. Check them out in action:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3TjSRzV3Ao&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Liberals also advocate the "fairness doctrine" for radio. Even "religious" neocons are against that.

There is nothing wrong with promoting the 10 commandments in public, since our country has a basis in those laws. Ron Paul just said at the last debate that no Christian should be barred from advocating for their religion in a public place.

erowe1
06-25-2011, 02:45 PM
At the end of the link in the OP it says this:

If there is a license, terminate the contract with the state
based on not having full disclosure at the time of signing.

Does anybody know what "terminate the contract" means?

erowe1
06-25-2011, 02:48 PM
The claim that Abraham Lincoln didn't have a marriage license is false.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14663/14663-h/images/442.jpg

amy31416
06-25-2011, 02:58 PM
Are you talking about FCC public decency regulations?

Partially (and yes, I know Tipper Gore played a part as well.) Social conservatives are notorious for trying to force people (like Howard Stern and other "shock jocks") off the air.


The biggest censorship people have always been liberal Democrats. Check them out in action:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3TjSRzV3Ao&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Liberals also advocate the "fairness doctrine" for radio. Even "religious" neocons are against that.

There is nothing wrong with promoting the 10 commandments in public, since our country has a basis in those laws. Ron Paul just said at the last debate that no Christian should be barred from advocating for their religion in a public place.

Didn't say that liberals had nothing to do with it, however, to try to say that social conservatives are not for censorship is not true. (And if you'll notice, I didn't say that I thought that all of it, like the 10 commandments, was necessarily a bad thing.) The "Ground Zero Mosque" craptoversy was mostly pushed by social conservatives.

I'm not trying to argue that liberals are great on the issue, because that'd be untrue. But it's just as untrue that social conservatives are great on the issue, and I don't understand why anyone would argue otherwise when it's so obvious.

GunnyFreedom
06-25-2011, 04:11 PM
I disagree. They could throw "God" in the contract and it wouldn't make one bit of difference--in fact, it's an option.

I don't think you understood his point. at all. adding one three letter monosyllable to a statutory licensing contract is as good (or meaningless) as another three letter monosyllable, say "toy." It's the statutory licensing contract itself that is fundamentally wrong. Take marriage away from the state altogether and give it back to God under the sole authority of the church, and pretty much all of this angst goes away.

amy31416
06-25-2011, 04:12 PM
I don't think you understood his point. at all. adding one three letter monosyllable to a statutory licensing contract is as good (or meaningless) as another three letter monosyllable, say "toy." It's the statutory licensing contract itself that is fundamentally wrong. Take marriage away from the state altogether and give it back to God under the sole authority of the church, and pretty much all of this angst goes away.

I understood his point. Thanks though.

GunnyFreedom
06-25-2011, 04:17 PM
I understood his point. Thanks though.

so it's just the mention of 'god' in and of itself that made the volcano explode?


God

God

God

God

God

God

God

God


:D

:D

purplechoe
06-25-2011, 09:16 PM
censorship of music, movies, television, news, etc.

I forget the name but I've heard that the agency that provides rating for movies, PG, PG-13, R, etc. has a priest as one of the decision makers on what the rating of a movie will be. If they don't like something (mostly sex, violence is ok) they can give it a NC-17 rating making sure the movie won't make any money...

heavenlyboy34
06-25-2011, 09:18 PM
I forget the name but I've heard that the agency that provides rating for movies, PG, PG-13, R, etc. has a priest as one of the decision makers on what the rating of a movie will be. If they don't like something (mostly sex, violence is ok) they can give it a NC-17 rating making sure the movie won't make any money...

That would be the MPAA.

aGameOfThrones
05-10-2012, 03:54 PM
A lot of marriage talk... Bump.

aGameOfThrones
07-26-2013, 11:41 AM
Bump for Jew divorce thread

Czolgosz
07-26-2013, 11:48 AM
lol @ licenses from the State.

catfeathers
07-26-2013, 08:55 PM
[QUOTE=Schifference;3362401]

Wow, so much good information here.

I would just like to add that this makes a lot of sense and holds a lot of significance for me, since my little sister is having her child out of wedlock, and it is ridiculous the amount of government welfare programs these parents need just in order to support the child. As a result, the mother is forced to cede ownership of her child to the state. We've decided that adoption is the best option as of now.

I hope your sister is the one getting to make the decision. If she does place the baby for adoption I'm sure she'll make the new parent(s) very happy. We'd like to adopt but we really can't afford it right now.

heavenlyboy34
07-26-2013, 09:33 PM
Bump for Jew divorce thread
pretty good necro-bump there. :cool:

aGameOfThrones
06-27-2015, 04:41 PM
Bump for gay marriage

Ender
06-27-2015, 06:15 PM
Bump for gay marriage

OP is

On. The. Nose.

Warrior_of_Freedom
06-27-2015, 10:51 PM
I really hate how the marriage argument is all about gays getting married, but never questions why most states require you to apply for a marriage license, and get married by an "AUTHORIZED" individual. I guess yes gays are discriminated against if they can't get a government-sanctioned permission slip to be married, but for anyone with at least two marbles in their head, actually being with somebody and exchanging vows is enough. The way some of these gay people describe not being able to get a government marriage license makes it sound like any day they can go to jail for being gay. Stupid.

heavenlyboy34
06-27-2015, 11:14 PM
Bump for gay marriage
a winning necro-bump if I ever saw one! :)

Sola_Fide
06-27-2015, 11:18 PM
I really hate how the marriage argument is all about gays getting married, but never questions why most states require you to apply for a marriage license, and get married by an "AUTHORIZED" individual. I guess yes gays are discriminated against if they can't get a government-sanctioned permission slip to be married, but for anyone with at least two marbles in their head, actually being with somebody and exchanging vows is enough. The way some of these gay people describe not being able to get a government marriage license makes it sound like any day they can go to jail for being gay. Stupid.


That's what every true libertarian's argument should be. There are many people even on this website that are getting exposed as statists on this issue.

heavenlyboy34
06-28-2015, 04:40 PM
That's what every true libertarian's argument should be. There are many people even on this website that are getting exposed as statists on this issue.


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Sola_Fide again.
:( Sorry, bro. Can't +rep ya ATM.

Danke
06-28-2015, 04:50 PM
:( Sorry, bro. Can't +rep ya ATM.

Surprised to see you posting, figured you'd still be out and about celebrating.

heavenlyboy34
06-28-2015, 05:39 PM
Surprised to see you posting, figured you'd still be out and about celebrating.

I don't celebrate the legal victories of your people, sorry.

Danke
06-28-2015, 10:58 PM
I don't celebrate the legal victories of your people, sorry.

My "people" as in my friends that are men, don't like your kind of hugz from an "adult male?"

Origanalist
06-28-2015, 11:12 PM
:( Sorry, bro. Can't +rep ya ATM.

covered