Author Topic: Talking gubmint and marriage (Read 1229 times)

Leftoverdj · « **on:** February 27, 2004, 03:07:12 PM »

As a real old fashion small gubmint individual freedom conservative, I don't see what gubmint is doing in marriage, anyway. It's a private matter. If two (or more) individuals choose to enter into a contract, the gubmint can and should enforce that contract, but it has no business trying to dictate the terms of the contract. It sure has no business changing the terms of an existing contract. (Changes in divorce law, alimony, child support, custody law, etc.)

Anything gubmint does, it does stupidly. I got a great example. I have known three different couples who got married legally who would not have been permitted to marry if the subsequent marriages of three OTHER couples had taken place previously.

In all three cases, a parent of one of the couple married a parent of the other of the couple, making the first couple step sibs. Since the first couple was already married, their marriage remained legal, but step sibs are forbidden to marry in my state although there may be no blood kinship.

Does this make a lick of sense to you?

While we are at it, there has been a great deal of nonsense talked lately about the "full faith and credit" clause of the constitution. It has been settled law for the last 75 years that a marriage not permitted by law in the home state of the couple is invalid if they journey to another state with more lenient laws to have the marriage performed and then return to their home state. Most of this case law involves minors, but some involved kinship rules and laws forbidding the marriage of epilectics.

(In the case of minors, the marriage becomes valid when the minor attains the legal age if the marriage has not been challenged before then.)

Dali Llama · « **Reply #1 on:** February 27, 2004, 05:00:19 PM »

Quote from: Leftoverdj

If two (or more) individuals

Do that mean Leftoverdj be in favor of polygamy, ask Dali Llama?

Leftoverdj · « **Reply #2 on:** February 27, 2004, 05:27:36 PM »

Meant what I said, and said what I meant, Dali. I am against gubmint meddling in private matters in the absence of proof of harm. Don't need an opinion one way or the other on plural marriage to know that.

Dali Llama · « **Reply #3 on:** February 29, 2004, 06:18:59 AM »

Dali Llama say several posts seem to missing in this thread??? :?

Leftoverdj · « **Reply #4 on:** March 03, 2004, 04:02:08 AM »

Quote from: Dali Llama

Dali Llama say several posts seem to missing in this thread??? :?

Yeah.

And mine were brilliant, too.

Dali Llama · « **Reply #5 on:** March 03, 2004, 07:28:27 AM »

Quote from: Leftoverdj

Quote from: Dali Llama
Dali Llama say several posts seem to missing in this thread??? :?

Yeah.

And mine were brilliant, too.

:roll: :roll: :-D

mag41vance · « **Reply #6 on:** March 04, 2004, 08:33:55 AM »

These folks who have been trying to change the stautes concerning marriage, are doing it for no other reason except wanting the benefits that Normal people are morally intitled to. Homosexual couples generally have High risk life-styles that insurance companies would rather not have to cover. (or hear about)
If it was about the "love" then the closet dwellers would choose to stay closet dwellers, and not subject the ones they love to the fight that they will never win. We all know someone that has "come out" and most of the time, we knew it before they "came out", and "coming out" gained them nothing.
As far as the Government getting involved; Insurance companies by far have the most powerful lobby in the halls of congress. For that reason alone, I would not look for our government to ever allow something as contraversial as Gay married Couples to gain the same status as Normal people.
And I do mean Normal!
DJ, I think you would fart in Church if you thought the government would be disturbed by it! :wink:

:lol: I need to get you out shooting more I guess! :lol:
vANCe

Leftoverdj · « **Reply #7 on:** March 04, 2004, 02:01:34 PM »

Never fear, Vance, I ain't likely to BE in a church.

Dali Llama · « **Reply #8 on:** March 05, 2004, 01:59:40 AM »

Quote from: Leftoverdj

Never fear, Vance, I ain't likely to BE in a church.

Dali Llama say he assert that be nothing to brag about. :shock:

Leftoverdj · « **Reply #9 on:** March 05, 2004, 04:59:00 AM »

Quote from: Dali Llama

Quote from: Leftoverdj
Never fear, Vance, I ain't likely to BE in a church.
Dali Llama say he assert that be nothing to brag about. :shock:

Going ain't neither, Dali.

You feel the need, do it.

Dali Llama · « **Reply #10 on:** March 05, 2004, 12:06:53 PM »

Quote from: Leftoverdj

Quote from: Dali Llama
Quote from: Leftoverdj
Never fear, Vance, I ain't likely to BE in a church.
Dali Llama say he assert that be nothing to brag about. :shock:

Going ain't neither, Dali.

:roll: Dali Llama say he think it readily apparent which be preferable for long haul, as in eternity. :lol:

parkinsonsd · « **Reply #11 on:** March 06, 2004, 05:12:10 AM »

Goin' to church don't insure nothin' Dali. You got to walk the walk.

Ownin' a gun don't make you a hunter. Don't even make you a good shot. You know that and I ain't sayin' you ain't a good hunter or a good shot. I'm sure you burned up lots of ammo practicin' and lots of boot rubber in the woods. Walkin' the walk.

Goin' to church in itself ain't nothin'. It's what you get out of it and what you do with it that counts.

I'd ruther hang with a guy who never went to church but was a good neighbor than hang with a guy who always goes to church but don't give a dam' 'bout his fellow man.

Leftoverdj · « **Reply #12 on:** March 06, 2004, 06:13:45 AM »

"And the second is like unto it, love thy neighbor as thyself."

tubbythetuba · « **Reply #13 on:** March 06, 2004, 06:27:31 AM »

Leftover, couldn't agree more! Mostly.......At some point laws are needed when the Golden Rule stops working (ie: someone or group decides to say to hell with respecting others). When Moore defied law to keep the 10 Commandments, the Libs were all over it, for once seemingly embracing law :roll: Now, when law is in their way, wellsir, law just doesn't matter anymore does it? Perhaps govn't/private benefits or considerations need to be doled out equally to singles and their "other"....."other" could be an aging parent, sick adult child or even best friend. Just don't call it "marriage", please. Also, given the sick depths some pervs will go to, we (they) need to throw in some protection for minor children so some wacko doesn't "give" his kid ( or other incompetent) in "marriage" to some other perv. It's easy to talk Libertarian, but the results are far reaching and the unprotected still need consideration.

jaycocreek · « **Reply #14 on:** March 06, 2004, 07:16:32 AM »

I don't agree with all the post but I do agree that the gubmit has know place in marriage or free radio.Even old Howard has the right.If you don't like it,don't watch or listen.

After seeing Janet's breast,everything just went crazy.I hope it stop's soon.

Just my opinion.Jayco.

MINNESOTA DICK · « **Reply #15 on:** March 06, 2004, 07:39:02 AM »

Leftoverdj:

"As a real old fashion small gubmint individual freedom conservative, I don't see what gubmint is doing in marriage, anyway. It's a private matter."

Except:

Part of our gubmint is the IRS and Social Security.

How will these gay marriages effect how these systems operate??? :?

Leftoverdj · « **Reply #16 on:** March 06, 2004, 07:45:41 AM »

Dick, I don't understand the question.

How is the existence of nitwit government programs relevent to the right of all citizens to equal treatment under the law?

Leftoverdj · « **Reply #17 on:** March 06, 2004, 07:56:09 AM »

Tubby, as I see it, Moore and the gay activists have done the same thing. They publicly defied a law they felt to be unconstitutional to get it into court. Moore lost. Remains to be seen whether the gays will win or lose.

I certainly have no objection to prosecution of Newsome. He took that chance. Imho, the sole reason prosecution has not commenced is that those who know the California Constutution and courts better than I fear he may win.

tubbythetuba · « **Reply #18 on:** March 06, 2004, 08:18:12 AM »

Quote from: Leftoverdj

Tubby, as I see it, Moore and the gay activists have done the same thing. They publicly defied a law they felt to be unconstitutional to get it into court. Moore lost. Remains to be seen whether the gays will win or lose.

.

Again, Leftover, I agree. I think we "dusted up" on this issue before and I agree that the law was broken, but with just cause (which was where we had the problem, I think). The difference , in my view, is that the majority agreed with Moore and the minority agree with the gays vis-a-vis marriage. A vocal minority are trying to equate values/morality with hate/acceptance. Contrary to the popular saying, morality does indeed need to be codified; the Golden Rule would not exist in a vacuum. Gays just about had it made acceptance-wise. Re-defining marriage will be a non-removable wedge in society foisted on us by the gays.

Dali Llama · « **Reply #19 on:** March 06, 2004, 10:43:49 AM »

Quote from: Leftoverdj

"And the second is like unto it, love thy neighbor as thyself."

:roll: Dali Llama say he find it rather amusing that Leftoverdj quote scripture when it suit his fancy... :lol: :lol: :lol:

Leftoverdj · « **Reply #20 on:** March 06, 2004, 10:51:17 AM »

Quote from: Dali Llama

Quote from: Leftoverdj
"And the second is like unto it, love thy neighbor as thyself."
:roll: Dali Llama say he find it rather amusing that Leftoverdj quote scripture when it suit his fancy... :lol: :lol: :lol:

Wouldn't want you to think I was ignorant of the Bible. Dali. Just don't think religious beliefs are any basis for civil law.

Dali Llama · « **Reply #21 on:** March 07, 2004, 05:11:45 AM »

Quote from: Leftoverdj

Quote from: Dali Llama
Quote from: Leftoverdj
"And the second is like unto it, love thy neighbor as thyself."
:roll: Dali Llama say he find it rather amusing that Leftoverdj quote scripture when it suit his fancy... :lol: :lol: :lol:

Wouldn't want you to think I was ignorant of the Bible. Dali. Just don't think religious beliefs are any basis for civil law.

Dali Llama say he certainly not think Leftoverdj be "ignorant" of many subject, just of wrong persuasion vis-a-vis homosexuality and some other controversial topics. :-) :-) :-)

Leftoverdj · « **Reply #22 on:** March 07, 2004, 07:14:50 AM »

"Wrong persuasion", Dali?

Now how can that be? I'm straight down the line in favor of individual freedom and limiting government to the powers expressly granted it.

What's wrong with that?

Dali Llama · « **Reply #23 on:** March 07, 2004, 01:54:19 PM »

Quote from: Leftoverdj

"Wrong persuasion", Dali?

What's wrong with that?

Dali Llama say Leftoverdj apparently subscribe to belief that homosexuality be acceptable "alternative lifestyle"; Dali say that be wrongheaded to him.