MarAzul
LongShip
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 21,370
- Likes
- 7,281
- Points
- 113
What we have here is a few disingenuous people scamming society to wiggle their way into a tax break.
They now claim that they are discriminated against for not being allowed to marry and they further claim that this discrimination violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. But neither claim makes any sense, no one or any law prevented Gay people from marring therefore the 14th had not been violated in any sense.
There is no discrimination in the marriage laws until you "Change" the definition of marriage. It is currently defined in Oregon law in one of two ways:
1 In the solemnization of a marriage no particular form is required except that the parties thereto shall assent or declare in the presence of the clergyperson, county clerk or judicial officer solemnizing the marriage and in the presence of at least two witnesses, that they take each other to be husband and wife.
2 All marriages, to which there are no legal impediments, solemnized before or in any religious organization or congregation according to the established ritual or form commonly practiced therein, are valid. In such case, the person presiding or officiating in the religious organization or congregation shall deliver to the county clerk who issued the marriage license the application, license and record of marriage in accordance with ORS 106.170 (Report of marriage to county clerk). [Amended by 1979 c.724
Husband is the male partner, Wife is the female partner.
The law that the Attorney General of Oregon declined to defend was the line in the Oregon Constitution that marriage is between a Man and a Woman. I have not heard a word what the legislature will change in the Oregon Statutes to make Civil Marriage legal. It would seem several words need to be redefined in the dictionary to make it go. Such as Wife, Husband and Married.
Some ancient words to be changing, not for the benefit of the children in our society, but for the benefit of a vocal minority to gain some tax breaks that Congress never intended to bestow on them.
I think this whole issue is ridiculous. Marriage should be left to the Churches and the Tax law left to the government. Society will be better served with Churches in control the moral institutions of our Society, the government should have no role in this issue. The mission creep that has occurred via tax law to benefit families and children has been perverted and perversion seems to be gaining momentum without a gain for society in view. Even the origin of the ancient word married is being perverted, The word goes all the way back to the Indo-European language beginning. A Man joining with a Mari to be married. Mari was the original word for young woman. One can speculate that Mary a very common name came from Mari the term for a young woman of marriageable age. And then further speculate that there was a rather liberal translation the made Mary, the mother of Jesus a virgin.
It sure as hell takes some more liberal word smithing to get Jack and John married instead of Jack and Jill. But then, they produce no product and therefore, no need to marry, no doubt why they were never required to marry. Ah but now we have the tax break! Equal protection? Baloney!
They now claim that they are discriminated against for not being allowed to marry and they further claim that this discrimination violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. But neither claim makes any sense, no one or any law prevented Gay people from marring therefore the 14th had not been violated in any sense.
There is no discrimination in the marriage laws until you "Change" the definition of marriage. It is currently defined in Oregon law in one of two ways:
1 In the solemnization of a marriage no particular form is required except that the parties thereto shall assent or declare in the presence of the clergyperson, county clerk or judicial officer solemnizing the marriage and in the presence of at least two witnesses, that they take each other to be husband and wife.
2 All marriages, to which there are no legal impediments, solemnized before or in any religious organization or congregation according to the established ritual or form commonly practiced therein, are valid. In such case, the person presiding or officiating in the religious organization or congregation shall deliver to the county clerk who issued the marriage license the application, license and record of marriage in accordance with ORS 106.170 (Report of marriage to county clerk). [Amended by 1979 c.724
Husband is the male partner, Wife is the female partner.
The law that the Attorney General of Oregon declined to defend was the line in the Oregon Constitution that marriage is between a Man and a Woman. I have not heard a word what the legislature will change in the Oregon Statutes to make Civil Marriage legal. It would seem several words need to be redefined in the dictionary to make it go. Such as Wife, Husband and Married.
Some ancient words to be changing, not for the benefit of the children in our society, but for the benefit of a vocal minority to gain some tax breaks that Congress never intended to bestow on them.
I think this whole issue is ridiculous. Marriage should be left to the Churches and the Tax law left to the government. Society will be better served with Churches in control the moral institutions of our Society, the government should have no role in this issue. The mission creep that has occurred via tax law to benefit families and children has been perverted and perversion seems to be gaining momentum without a gain for society in view. Even the origin of the ancient word married is being perverted, The word goes all the way back to the Indo-European language beginning. A Man joining with a Mari to be married. Mari was the original word for young woman. One can speculate that Mary a very common name came from Mari the term for a young woman of marriageable age. And then further speculate that there was a rather liberal translation the made Mary, the mother of Jesus a virgin.
It sure as hell takes some more liberal word smithing to get Jack and John married instead of Jack and Jill. But then, they produce no product and therefore, no need to marry, no doubt why they were never required to marry. Ah but now we have the tax break! Equal protection? Baloney!
Last edited:
I didn't want to leave a thread with a question open to me, but I'm about done here.
