- 18 Jul 2015 16:40
#14583993
This is quite true. The problem is that under US law, marriage is a state licensed institution. The states have reserved to themselves the right to regulate the legal aspects of marriage. There is nothing under US law to prohibit two people to live as a married couple in all but name only. They only thing they can't do is avail themselves of the governmental "advantages" of marriage. They can construct a legal document to resolve all of the issues surrounding property, medical permissions, etc.
Before this supreme court decision, churches could conduct "blessing" ceremonies but the minister conducting the ceremony could not call it marriage because that is a secular and regulated civil state. So the irony is that the reason the first amendment religious protection does not apply to marriage is that it is not a religious institution in the eyes of the law.
Ponder this. 'You can get married in the eyes of a church but you can't get divorced without the state'.
There have been poly organizations practicing Polyfidelity for quite some time. I had a good friend who worked for Abacus in San Francisco. It was the largest Apple reseller (until apple stopped that practice) in the country. It also offered technical support, peripherals and the like. It employed well over 200 people at its height. It was owned by a polyamorus church called Kerista. Members agreed to have sex only within the church group and on a strict rotating schedule and to practicing only heterosexual acts. This stuff is not new.
I thought the USA's constitution protects freedom of religion. Surely that denies the gov't the right to restrict people's ability to marry whomever they wish.
This is quite true. The problem is that under US law, marriage is a state licensed institution. The states have reserved to themselves the right to regulate the legal aspects of marriage. There is nothing under US law to prohibit two people to live as a married couple in all but name only. They only thing they can't do is avail themselves of the governmental "advantages" of marriage. They can construct a legal document to resolve all of the issues surrounding property, medical permissions, etc.
Before this supreme court decision, churches could conduct "blessing" ceremonies but the minister conducting the ceremony could not call it marriage because that is a secular and regulated civil state. So the irony is that the reason the first amendment religious protection does not apply to marriage is that it is not a religious institution in the eyes of the law.
Ponder this. 'You can get married in the eyes of a church but you can't get divorced without the state'.
There have been poly organizations practicing Polyfidelity for quite some time. I had a good friend who worked for Abacus in San Francisco. It was the largest Apple reseller (until apple stopped that practice) in the country. It also offered technical support, peripherals and the like. It employed well over 200 people at its height. It was owned by a polyamorus church called Kerista. Members agreed to have sex only within the church group and on a strict rotating schedule and to practicing only heterosexual acts. This stuff is not new.
To believe in God is impossible not to believe in Him is absurd.
Voltaire
God is a comedian playing to an audience that is afraid to laugh.
Voltaire
Voltaire
God is a comedian playing to an audience that is afraid to laugh.
Voltaire