Marriage as an Institution

[Adair19]

In Texas there has come up a new amendment regarding martial relationship. This is a very typical type of amendment that is hopefully going to make more rigid bonding between the spouses. This newly proposed amendment is on the verge of changing Article I, Texas Constitution. In the state of Texas it sees important to declare that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman. This union is exactly between the two and to prohibit this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage, is what the amendment stands for. There is a kind of joint resolution in which the amendment is proposed. This joint resolution also includes a non-amendatory provision that stands on the way of recognizing that persons may designate guardians, appoint agents, and use private contracts. The purpose of this appointment is for a kind of arranging rights. To adequately and properly appoint guardians and at the same time make specified arrangements for the rights relating to hospital visitation, property, and the entitlement. The entitlement is for proceedings of life insurance policies, without the existence of any legal status identical or similar to marriage. There is no doubt that many controversies followed it and it was also opposed by citizens and social group. In accordance to a town committee member David Disiere, ‘the idea of marriage seems to get related to other aspects of business community’. However in a way it still persists for a kind of social security of the newly married couple. The amendment stands to make their life more secure and more protected.

[Sidmen]

I would love to see this state amendment be tossed down in the federal court when Texas disrespects a legal marriage certificate from a state that does allow homosexual marriage. You see, this amendment in the Texas constitution would violate article 4 section 1 of the US constitution. Where all states are required to fully support eachother's legal documents.

[Rush Limbaugh]

You see, this amendment in the Texas constitution would violate article 4 section 1 of the US constitution. Where all states are required to fully support eachother's legal documents.

No it would not. Thats why they want it in their constitution. There are many exceptions already to this. You nave to show that the law violates the US constitution . A state cant make up any law it likes and force all the others to accept it.

[Confederate Jeb]

This looks like a good idea. And once again the South comes through.

[conon394]

This looks like a good idea. And once again the South comes through.

Umm why?

[Chlodwig I.]

its strange that a country thats so crazy about religous freedom
trys to only allow christian marriage buy putting it into its constitution and outlaws any other form of partnership.

Strange that America is not really a Union of States but a Confederation of States.

[Rush Limbaugh]

trys to only allow christian marriage buy putting it into its constitution and outlaws any other form of partnership.

To bad nothing you have said here is true.

[El Brujo]

Strange that America is not really a Union of States but a Confederation of States.

It was They were always intended to be a Confederation.

[Rush Limbaugh]

They were always intended to be a Confederation.

Well when they went to meet they were not supposed to be writing the constitution but amending the articles of confederation. Theres a good chance they never would have written the constitution had the people known. As it was the bill of rights was added to insure states rights . They were very clear that this was not , damn the term slips my mind, but its that it isnt a strong centrlal government and that the state reamain soverign. If the federalists didnt lie through thei teeth it never would have been signed. Jefferson quit and started the anti federalists. However today we fit the Hamilton mold Im afraid.

[Dunecat]

It was They were always intended to be a Confederation.

Until we drafted a new constitution, because confederations suck donkey dick.

Marriage is not an INSTITUTION. It is a SACRAMENT. It is a holy thing. Quite frankly anyone homophobic enough to cast a... homo... out of a church should speak to me, I'd give them a piece of my mind. Most, if not all, of the resentments and hesitation towards homosexuality in contemporary times is do to cultural and historical misunderstanding and corruption of tradition.

In any case, I don't give horse hockey about what the gov't thinks about my marriage. I don't go to them to seek moral guidance, and frankly churches will never be prosecuted for discrimination (although homosexuality should be discussed).

In any case, I'll talk with my wife if I get married, and if we want tax benefits, we'll do it. Thankfully we won't get divorced.

The whole controversy is a capitalist lie spread by the republican campaign machine to get ignorant jeb's to show up at the voting booth in between throwing racial slurs and going to camp meetings.

[Rush Limbaugh]

Marriage is not an INSTITUTION. It is a SACRAMENT

Only in the church. marriage was around well before christianity. Its a matter of the state not the church. That is if you want the legal benefits and responsibilty of a state recognized marriage. Some churches shun marriage licences for just that reason.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Rush the only other responsibility that I foresee is the responsibility of the man impregnating his wife in order to procreate. But a gay couple can raise children together.

Rush you were right about marriages being around long before Christianity but refusing to allow gay couples the same title is discrimination, and justifying it by claiming tradition has been between one man and woman is the wrong answer... Considering many marriages were formed to form family alliances and not out of love between the two.
________
Adellina

[Rush Limbaugh]

But a gay couple can raise children together.

Not this again. So can I a 60 year old man by myself. Thats no reason for them to marry.

allow gay couples the same title is discrimination,

Thats what laws are about.

LGBTH should still be allowed to marry.

What is LGBTH?

and justifying it by claiming tradition has been between one man and woman is the wrong answer.

And not the one I gave.

When the normal result of the sexual union of persons of the same sex has a chance of creating a baby then Im all for it. Until then its not the same thing. marriage is an insurance policy as far as children go and again most of the state laws concerning marriage are about the children.

[Gaius Flavius Belisarius]

I really feel that the state has no right to limit things such as gay marriage or abortion. These are personal choices that the individual person has the right to make for themselves. Religions can ban homosexual marriage within their own rites and traditions, but the state doesn't have the right to deny someone the ability to have a civil union with whomever they choose to love.

Is gay marriage more immoral than say some 25 year old stripper who marries an 88 year old man simply to receive his assets when he passes? That is totally and utterly legal, yet seems to me at least, to sully the institution of marriage more than two people who love each other, but just so happen to be the same gender.

[Dunecat]

Is gay marriage more immoral than say some 25 year old stripper who marries an 88 year old man simply to receive his assets when he passes? That is totally and utterly legal, yet seems to me at least, to sully the institution of marriage more than two people who love each other, but just so happen to be the same gender.

What are you, trying to destroy marriage? She loves him. The love of money has nothing to do with it.

[Gaius Flavius Belisarius]

What are you, trying to destroy marriage? She loves him. The love of money has nothing to do with it.

I really hope you're being sarcastic

[Dunecat]

I really hope you're being sarcastic

Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Phillip?

[RON JEREMY]

Is gay marriage more immoral than say some 25 year old stripper who marries an 88 year old man simply to receive his assets when he passes? That is totally and utterly legal, yet seems to me at least, to sully the institution of marriage more than two people who love each other, but just so happen to be the same gender.

What about Heather Mills and countless other gold diggers.
Marriage in the west is all about stealing money and assets off
the man and transfering this wealth to the lawyers/women.
A lawyer told me that the more marriages, the more divorces; hence,
I make more money. He called it the marriage/divorce/child support
wealth transfer industry.:hmmm: It's more cost effective to lease a women.

[Rush Limbaugh]

The framers were afraid that the rise of political parties would give them the ability to run the government as opposed to the people.

Because they feared that parties would be more concerned with the good of the party instead of the good of the people. And as usual they were right.

[Gaius Flavius Belisarius]

What about Heather Mills and countless other gold diggers.
Marriage in the west is all about stealing money and assets off
the man and transfering this wealth to the lawyers/women.
A lawyer told me that the more marriages, the more divorces; hence,
I make more money. He called it the marriage/divorce/child support
wealth transfer industry.:hmmm: It's more cost effective to lease a women.

Exactly, that's what I was saying. How is gay marriage for love more immoral than straight marriage merely for money?

I hate divorce attorneys, but that's neither here nor there.