Todd Young did not waste any time in proving his continued worthlessness

[Ingomike]

Which means that the government has usurped nothing.

In this country you are free to get married with a god's involvement or without one.

How so? This history indicates the church controlled marriage and government took it over much later.

State or church?

Marriages in the West were originally contracts between the families of two partners, with the Catholic Church and the state staying out of it. In 1215, the Catholic Church decreed that partners had to publicly post banns, or notices of an impending marriage in a local parish, to cut down on the frequency of invalid marriages (the Church eliminated that requirement in the 1980s). Still, until the 1500s, the Church accepted a couple's word that they had exchanged marriage vows, with no witnesses or corroborating evidence needed.

Civil marriage

In the last several hundred years, the state has played a greater role in marriage. For instance, Massachusetts began requiring marriage licenses in 1639, and by the 19th-century marriage licenses were common in the United States.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

How so? This history indicates the church controlled marriage and government took it over much later.

State or church?

Marriages in the West were originally contracts between the families of two partners, with the Catholic Church and the state staying out of it. In 1215, the Catholic Church decreed that partners had to publicly post banns, or notices of an impending marriage in a local parish, to cut down on the frequency of invalid marriages (the Church eliminated that requirement in the 1980s). Still, until the 1500s, the Church accepted a couple's word that they had exchanged marriage vows, with no witnesses or corroborating evidence needed.

Civil marriage

In the last several hundred years, the state has played a greater role in marriage. For instance, Massachusetts began requiring marriage licenses in 1639, and by the 19th-century marriage licenses were common in the United States.

What do you mean, "how so?" Americans can be married by a judge with no religious service of any kind.

 

[BigRed]

My answer to that is unchanged. I can only say that letting consenting adults marry who they choose is NOT among government actions that have harmed me, nor do I think that this has involved government overreach.

Government overreach generally entails curtailing the rights of Americans. Expanding marriage rights EXTENDS personal rights.

True.

"Marriage Rights" are not the state's to expand or contract.

My reference is towards the taxation of income, property, and other matters where state has inserted itself and become an arbitrator and judge of what is and what is not "marriage" while at the same time burdening the income and property of taxpayers differently based on a status over which state has no authority.

 

[Ingomike]

What do you mean, "how so?" Americans can be married by a judge with no religious service of any kind.

Yes, because government usurped what once was a function of the church. Once upon a time marriage was a contract between families, then the church administered marriage, long before government took it over.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

Yes, because government usurped what once was a function of the church. Once upon a time marriage was a contract between families, then the church administered marriage, long before government took it over.

And it's a good thing they did.

People who are married sometimes decide they need to be UNmarried, which inevitably involves disposition of property, custody of children, etc,. matters over which the church has zero authority.

 

[Ingomike]

And it's a good thing they did.

People who are married sometimes decide they need to be UNmarried, which inevitably involves disposition of property, custody of children, etc,. matters over which the church has zero authority.

Government did not need to take over marriage to settle domestic disputes, the courts are the correct place for that. If a couple wish to be unmarried they should consult with the entities that married them and if needed the courts can settle the disposition of assets and children.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Yes, because government usurped what once was a function of the church. Once upon a time marriage was a contract between families, then the church administered marriage, long before government took it over.

It sounds like the church did the usurping first.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

Government did not need to take over marriage to settle domestic disputes, the courts are the correct place for that. If a couple wish to be unmarried they should consult with the entities that married them and if needed the courts can settle the disposition of assets and children.

Some entities that marry people refuse to unmarry them.

 

[Ingomike]

It sounds like the church did the usurping first.

Possibly, what I have read, contract meant agreements between the families and I suspect back then the families themselves enforced the contract of marriage.

 

[Tombs]

"Two men engaging in sterile intercouse while destroying each others anuses is clearly not marriage."

I readily admit that I don't understand it. But as things stand now it is marriage, but more importantly, it does not harm me or anyone else here.

A personal philosophy of mine that has served me well for many years is that I mind my own business, and I do not harm anyone who is not trying to harm me.

Here's an important thing to understand that libertarians don't get.

It does directly harm you. It reinforces a more degenerate society that gives way to increasingly worse things until people are asking whether kids can consent. Then teachers are telling kids to take hormones and have mutilating surgeries, and it doesn't just become accepted and tolerated, but celebrated by society at large.

Unless the public baseline is kept relatively modest and people know what shame is, it's going to rip society apart. I don't think I need to make a hypothetical point here, as I believe it's being demonstrated very well right in front of you.

This doesn't mean I have a problem with gay people, but anything deviant needs kept out of the core of public values if we want to have a society worth living in.

 

[Ingomike]

Some entities that marry people refuse to unmarry them.

Right, probably better be sure one wants to keep their vows…

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Possibly, what I have read, contract meant agreements between the families and I suspect back then the families themselves enforced the contract of marriage.

Yep, I agree that the families themselves probably did the enforcement. But now contracts of all sorts are enforced through the state via lawsuits.

 

[DadSmith]

Yet their were divorces long before government took over. How did we survive so long without big brother controlling marriage?
Nowadays as seen from posts above big brother is a must need for marriage in some peoples opinion.

 

[Karl-just-Karl]

Hesitant to inject myself into this discussion, but wasn't "marriage" reduced to a legal contract (read governmental oversight) between two people a long time ago?

Furthermore, IIRC marriage between homosexuals was argued by the State to be necessary for reasons of legal oversight over property, insurance coverage/benefits and other financial responsibilities.

God and/or love has nothing to do with legally recognized marriage anymore.

 

[04FXSTS]

One more thing the government should stay out of. I do not remember seeing anything written in the Constitution about marriage. Jim.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Which means that the government has usurped nothing.

In this country you are free to get married with a god's involvement or without one.

IMHO, I think there's a piece of this debate being missed in this thread, which is that this so-called "Marriage protection act" is very likely to be used as a cudgel to start trying to force both individuals and religious organizations to recognize "same-sex marriages."

The supposed religious freedom protections in this bill are extremely shallow. The only thing they do is state that a Church or religious non-profit can't be forced to perform a wedding ceremony. There are no protections whatsoever for the religious freedoms of individuals, and nothing to stop a same-sex "couple" from suing a Church that refuses to recognize them as married.

This debate isn't about whether or not you are free to get married as you wish anymore. It's about whether or not you as an individual will be forced by the state to accept same-sex "marriages", or be sued for discrimination.

 

[Pepi]

Can you marry your brother? Just asking for a friend. Also, I don't have any brothers

 

[Creedmoor]

Can you marry your brother? Just asking for a friend. Also, I don't have any brothers

Nope, no marriage.
Incest is ok with the State, but no marriage.

 

[Denny347]

 

[Leo]

I always thought the marriage fixation among homosexuals was odd.

The whole marriage thing was designed by God Almighty and is the moral code for those that fear God. Since the homosexual lifestyle is forbidden in the scriptures, those who practice it clearly reject God's rule in life. Why would they want to participate in a marriage ritual created by the same God they reject?

I had a homosexual explain at great lengths about "legal" rights. Like medical decisions at the hospital and property rights. The claim is that without legal marriage those things cannot ba accomplished. The argument does not hold water. I have been power of attorney for an elderly person that was not related in any way. The car I am driving is from a power of attorney transaction. Lawyers know how to make that happen pretty easily. I have also been the executor of a will for a person who was not a relative. If those documents are too difficult, the homosexual marriage folks will really not like divorce court with alimony.