by | July 4, 2015 · 4:41 pm

Marriage: It’s not in the Constitution

Marriage It's not in the Constitution

I did not know that the government didn’t used to have diddly to do with marriage! It was racist Democrats who invented marriage licenses as a means to prevent blacks and whites from marrying. Now anti-Christian Democrats are using it to put Christians out of business. These three guys explain why government shouldn’t be in the marriage business, period.

A Christian Argument: Getting Government Out of Marriage [7:28]

7 Comments

Filed under Christianity, Constitution, Democrats, Marriage & Family Life

7 responses to “Marriage: It’s not in the Constitution”

  2. zmalfoy
    July 5, 2015 at 10:12 am

    1) I’ve been saying this for years, but too many “social conservatives” wouldn’t hear of it. I’ve know that the arguments being made were loosing arguments, at least for this generation. The *only* possible winning argument has ever been the removal of gov’t from marriage.
    2) “The last time a gov’t saw Jesus, they killed Him.” LOL
    3) Bill Whittle is single?! Is he straight? Or at least Bi? I gotta go find my lipstick and do my hair . .. . 😉

    Liked by 1 person

  3. mindful webworker
    July 6, 2015 at 10:30 am

    Hiya, folks! Hope alla y’all had a good Independence Day weekend.

    I wrote about government and marriage once upon a time. (Shuffles through archives.) Ah, here ’tis.

    In 1980, my spouse and I married each other. We were not married by the State. We were not married by a pastor or a justice of the peace. We were not married “by” anybody. We did not even seek our families’ approval. As free people, we chose to marry one another, and quite intentionally chose to marry each other here because, despite so many other tyrannical notions, Oklahoma law permitted free people to marry one another (at least if they were heterosexual and monogamous). …

    That which it is unnecessary for the state to do should not be done. [We] have been married for over twenty [now 45] years, legally, without recourse to State or Church, and since such liberty is feasible, it is not our burden to suggest why it would be a “hardship” to register with the Gummint, but the Gummint’s impossible burden to prove why private marriage contract should not be valid without State approval. …

    Ex-urps from “Free to Marry,” 1997 Mar 7, written in response to a state rep who as much as called common-law marriages illegitimate.

    As with so many things, it is other bad laws which “require” State recognition of marriage. For recent example, Alabama has proposed getting out of the marriage business.

    …While leaving the complex matter of marriage up to two consenting adults and their community is undoubtedly the best option in a libertarian utopia, the unfortunate reality is that doing so in the American legal system today would put a couple at significant disadvantage. To be specific, the federal government has a number of tax and entitlement benefits earmarked specifically for married couples, and Alabama’s failure to recognize a couple’s nuptials — gay or straight — could lead to a bureaucratic headache.…

    Alabama’s marriage license abolition would be a bureaucratic nightmare by Casey Given, Rare
    (h/t TJ Martinell, Tenth Amendment Center)

    Like