“Civil Unions” visited

I agree with this take on marriage. In my opinion it doesn’t condone homosexual unions. It simply gets govt out of religion’s domain, leaving civil unions as a legal property contract.

Conservative Calmversation

Good Morning!

Friends, this will be brief.

I’m catching a lot of hell for recent remarks I made regarding repealing DOMA on a social media thread. As many of you already know, DOMA  (Defense of Marriage Act) is a United States federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman for federal and inter-state recognition purposes in the United States. The law passed both houses of Congress by large majorities and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996. Under the law, no U.S. state or political subdivision is required to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state. Section 3 of DOMA codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriages for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, Social Security survivors’ benefits, immigration, and the filing of joint tax returns. In my opinion, this is unconstitutional because the Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to define marriage in any way. It is also important to note that former…

View original post 424 more words

Advertisements

6 thoughts on ““Civil Unions” visited

  1. teemtwo March 15, 2013 / 6:20 AM

    Thanks for sharing & you’re right. In noway does it condone same sex marriage but you wouldn’t believe how many times I’ve been accused of promoting same sex marriage by right-wingers.

    • Talon's Point March 15, 2013 / 10:56 AM

      The irony is I’m far right of right wingers but one of the few that get the reality that the power we give govt to control such things as this, and drug use, is the power that govt turns against us with, including those of us of faith. Rocky times ahead.

      • teemtwo March 15, 2013 / 3:30 PM

        Very rocky times! I totally agree. This is the only thing we can do that both sides should be able to agree on. That’s what it’s bout for me – fairness w/o compromise on either side.

      • Talon's Point March 15, 2013 / 4:53 PM

        Thanks for comments. I’ll have to pass on the “fairness” part as it requires an arbiter which ends up govt, which empowered to be arbiter eventually become oppressor which brings us back full circle 😉

        I much prefer liberty and true liberty cannot oppress another without creating the setting for it’s own demise.

      • teemtwo March 16, 2013 / 8:24 PM

        Awesome quote regarding liberty!

Toss in your "two cents" if you care to. Fair warning, you might get change ;-)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s