29 votes

*Marriage Has Been Perverted!*

Since 1215... when the Government of the United Kingdom (such a likable bunch!), created the requirement for a *public* announcement in a Christian parish (no longer recognizing private marriages) as requested by the Roman Catholic Church, setting the stage for our modern day definition of marriage.

Before this point "marriage" was a *private* binding contract often between clans (families) to form alliances. A "dowry" (cattle, land, precious metals, soft toilet paper or whatever else was considered to be valuable at the time) was passed between the clans. Marriages "of love"(gay or straight)have existed for thousands of years as well(more so in prosperous times/areas where alliances between families were not needed to survive brutal times).

What was done in 1215 represents the *real* perversion point in the whole marriage saga, even on a day like today, because this is when it became a public/state issue. Whether you are gay or straight inviting the government into people's private lives is always bad.

Let's face it, even after today's ruling, gays will *still* not enjoy the same rights or protections as straight people do but they may start enjoying the same tax breaks and other benefits that marriage affords everyone else, ( you know...like the benefit of being next to your partner while they're lying on their deathbed and such).

The fact is that, the day that the 14th amendment and the 1st amendment are upheld to protect *ALL* citizens will be a great day for this nation regardless of any superficial differences anyone of us share.

Comment viewing options


In all fairness, happens to

In all fairness, it happens to us Christians all the time. Generalizing is just a common way to think with everyone now.

Could be that you need help understanding my point.

I have no problem at all with gay people on an individual basis. I'm talking about trends and norms.

Behaviors and dynamics for the species, developed over hundreds of thousand of years and bred into us for survival, don't just go away overnight. A certain small percentage of gay people, like any abnormality, could naturally occur. But overpowering gay tendencies, since they have serious survival disadvantages, would logically be self-limiting in some kind of direct relationship with how powerful the tendencies were....The more overtly gay, or the more attracted one was to the same sex, the less likely procreation would be....Likewise, the people powerfully attracted to the opposite sex, who act as is expected of their own sex in their group, are likely to have many opportunities to multiply their kind.

The result would be any genetic-type gayness kept at tiny minimum....I don't think there's any getting around this logic.

So, when gayness suddenly becomes so prevalent and vital to our identity, I think the cause is something other than any natural gay streak in the species. History certainly teaches us that humans can think themselves into all kinds of bizarre behaviors. No reason a widespread gay fixation couldn't just be a form of mass hysteria.


I only recognise marriage of the church that I practice in.

Since I don't plan to ever get married (I don't see the need)and I don't go to church it makes no difference.

I'd like it if the government in my country would stop taxing me and expecting me to pay benefits and legal rights for everyone else.

All a distraction.

I don't see why a government has to recognise marriage at all to help protect a contract between to voluntary individuals.

Oh, that's right - the government needs an excuse to own marriage, own you and seek taxes.

You are soo right. My equallity is just a distraction

BTW Do Muslim marriages not deserve recognition either?

Maybe you would be married or want to get married if you were more tolerant of others?

Always beating the Drum

I have nothing against homosexuals, other that the fact the word "gay" has been hijacked by them. Now the word "marriage" has been hijacked by them.

The definition and meaning of those two words have nothing to do with homosexuals or homosexuals who want to be together in a legal union.

I object to the use of the word "gay" to describe homosexuals. I cannot use the word "gay" as it is meant to be used, as people immediately assume I am gay if I say I am feeling gay.

I object to the use of the word "marriage" to describe the union of 2 homosexuals, as now it will not fit the definition of what it was orginally intended for.

Again, I have cousins and friends who are gay and I could care less about their lifestyles. But stop beating the drum and go about what you need to do without hijacking what means something to people who are not homosexuals. Come up with some new words for a change!!!

Ever heard of equal

Ever heard of equal protection? Then you should direct your energies instead toward removing the benefits of all, instead of propagating the "benefits for some, as long as they're like me" policies already in place.

Sounds like...

Sounds like you are recognizing a form of "newspeak".

The sum of the parts...



I personally have no dog in

I personally have no dog in the fight, but I will say this. To all those wonderful people of faith who frown upon homosexuality, it really exposes how much faith you have in whatever god you claim to worship when you make the decision to ostracize and condemn gay people. If you truly believe so strongly about YOUR faith, allow your god to judge them when this life is over. Remember, it's not your place to judge anyone. I'm pretty sure, at least for the Christian folk, your god said "Let he without sin cast the first stone." So, to each his own. Remain in peace, and prosper folks. For the sake of liberty....

What say you my fellow countrymen?! Onward!!! TO LIBERTY!!!

I wasn't going to really

I wasn't going to really comment but I felt that I had to clear something up.

-I'm a Christian; let us get that out the way. How I feel about an act never dictates how I feel about a person. I have many homosexual family members and we kick it the same way we did before I knew about it. If they ask me my views, they respect it because they know that because you do something doesn't make it truly greater that what it is. As far as the act is concerned, I look at the act the same way I look at sex before marriage, adultery, lying, stealing, and so on. The way I treat the person is with love. You are grown and you live your life. Live and let live but some have to remember, that goes both ways. While I believe that all this hoopla is for benefit from the government (and if I'm wrong, please explain to me why so I can understand the plight), I personally don't care, the same way I won't care when polygamist make there claim. (please believe it's coming...lol)

-As being "Christian folk," I have 2 clear up 2 things. If people really read the Bible, the concept of righteous judgement. This really doesn't apply to this but I just had to clear that up. We, as Christians, don't have the right to condemn. The verse that you quoted (which is one of the most misused, cherry picked verses of the Bible) is related to condemnation. The key part that you didn't include in that is the conversation between the woman and Jesus. Here it is paraphrased..

Jesus - Hey. Where are your accusers. Is anyone of them going to condemn you?
Woman - No
Jesus - Neither will I. Go and sin no more. <--the ignored part.

SteveMT's picture

Missed two words: Marriage Has Been Perverted.. by government!

Marital Status

Unmarried persons. You are considered unmarried for the whole year if, on the last day of your tax year, you are unmarried or legally separated from your spouse under a divorce or separate maintenance decree. State law governs whether you are married or legally separated under a divorce or separate maintenance decree.

Divorced persons. If you are divorced under a final decree by the last day of the year, you are considered unmarried for the whole year.

Divorce and remarriage. If you obtain a divorce for the sole purpose of filing tax returns as unmarried individuals, and at the time of divorce you intend to and do, in fact remarry each other in the next tax year, you and your spouse must file as married individuals in both years.

Annulled marriages. If you obtain a court decree of annulment, which holds that no valid marriage ever existed, you are considered unmarried even if you filed joint returns for earlier years. You must file Form 1040X, Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, claiming single or head of household status for all tax years that are affected by the annulment and are not closed by the statute of limitations for filing a tax return. Generally, for a credit or refund, you must file Form 1040X within 3 years (including extensions) after the date you filed your original return or within 2 years after the date you paid the tax, whichever is later. If you filed your original return early (for example, March 1), your return is considered filed on the due date (generally April 15). However, if you had an extension to file (for example, until October 15) but you filed earlier and we received it July 1, your return is considered filed on July 1.

Head of household or qualifying widow(er) with dependent child. If you are considered unmarried, you may be able to file as a head of household or as a qualifying widow(er) with a dependent child. See Head of Household and Qualifying Widow(er) With Dependent Child to see if you qualify.

Married persons. If you are considered married, you and your spouse can file a joint return or separate returns.

It's not just black and white

There are so many factors in this that it's impossible to touch on them all. I know a big one for me is that my fiance (who is of the same gender) lives in Sweden. The supreme court has ruled that the federal government trumps states when it comes to setting immigration policy. Do you realize how hard it is to legally gain a visa or green card to live in the USA for an extended time?

I would just like to hear some ideas on what you think about this issue. How should immigration issues of a gay couple be handled? Should it even be legal or should the states decide this?

Actually government is not involved in marriage the way

most people would define it. What government is in the business of is corporate citizen franchise merger's which result in a title product.

If one incorporated citizen entity has a merger with another incorporated citizen entity, the corporate product resulting from the union is regulated. It's like two corporations having intercourse and some new intellectual property is the resulting product of the union.

Legislatures just happen to use the terms marriage, etc. because it is something people are familiar with, but upon examination of code terms often used are undefined in their proper business context.

I'd like to clarify something

... that gay marriage was unacceptable to the English, and indeed to all other Germanic people, long before Christianity came along, or before marriage was made a function of the state.


Tacitus - Germania

Most of the ancient world, as most of the world does today, considered homosexuality a sin.

And what of the ancient

And what of the ancient Romans?

The way I see it, social attitudes vary greatly depending on population density. Dense cities tend to lean liberal and are more variegated on reproduction issues, while sparsely populated towns tend to lean conservative as a means of applying social pressures for their people to reproduce and "grow the herd". Of course, the percentage of the population that is gay remains fairly consistent across all populations and across species, so there is some genetic necessity involved, as they say. Otherwise such traits would've disappeared naturally over the course of the millennia.

That's the best you could dig up?

You had a thousand years of history and you couldn't even find a diatribe that actually mentions homosexuality?

Or perhaps you are suggesting anyone who practiced homosexuality was cowardly, unwarlike, and practiced abominable vices.

Achilles would like a word with you.

The Germani had an entirely

The Germani had an entirely different moral outlook to the ancient Greeks. Don't speak of what you clearly have no knowledge of.

if you are going to mention the Visigoths.

you should make yourself clear.
or suffer the fate of Rome.

Lt. Lynn Davis "Buck" Compton

Snowflakes gracefully blanket the woods. Compton, Gonorrhea, and Heffron peek out from under the tarp covering their foxhole, shivering. "Now we know how they felt," Compton muses. They have no idea to what he's referring. "The legionnaires, when they were watching the Huns, Goths, Visigoths," Compton lists. Gonorrhea rolls his eyes, lost and wondering where the hell Buck learned his smooth-as-sandpaper small talk. "Barbarians," clarifies Compton. "They came right through these trees, sweeping down to burn the shit outta Rome." The others laugh at what a long ride that is.




There is no duration defined in the Oath

I just looked at some of the

I just looked at some of the articles posted on Drudge and read some comments. The religious right has officially gone full retard. This is why rational people run screaming from the Republican party.


seriously the court didn't rule on gay marriage or it's legality

It simply said they do not have the ability to decide the case, and shot it back down to lower court.

Nothing has been decided, if anything it makes a stronger case for states rights.

Sexual orientation is not protected under the Constitution.

It's no more full retard as you call it than the hundreds of gays at the supreme court bashing the church.

As far as DOMA, the government givith the government taketh away.

Social conservatives are as

Social conservatives are as mentally unbalanced as fiscal liberals. Anyone who wants to legislate morals and values is a sick little cookie.

The Constitution is not a document designed to grant rights to people but to limit the governments involvement in legislating peoples rights. It protects the people from governmental interference in their natural rights.


Pro Life

I'm pro-life and have never been considered a sick little cookie until your idiotic post.

Until we can figure out the simple issue that a child in the womb is worth saving America will always struggle to figure out the deeper issues of life.

Have a blessed day.

The night is far spent, the day is at hand.
And those who have not heard shall understand.

SteveMT's picture

You mention the UK. Let's start with the royals.

What SCOTUS just did today was a start at un-perverting marriage.

"So, in 1701, what’s known as the Act of Settlement was passed. To this day, a British King or Queen – if they want to stay on the throne – cannot be a Roman Catholic or marry a Roman Catholic. There has been much talk about changing this law — what one critic has called Britain’s “grubby little secret” – but no sign of any action."

"Having negotiated the hurdles of his grandmother’s approval and his fiancée’s religion, William is in the clear. There are no requirements for a prince to marry someone of royal or even aristocratic blood. A future bride doesn’t have to be a British citizen or come from a Commonwealth country, like, say, Canada. There is no legal bar on them marrying a Muslim, a Jew or, indeed, an atheist."

Marriage as a contract

Marriage is very simply a contract between two people and nothing more. For much of this countries history there was no requirement that a license was required by any government entity to form a contractual relationship with another person as your partner. The reason that licensing by the states first occurred was to prevent marrying outside of ones own race. Today almost everyone believes one must have a license to get married but that is actually false. The state has no authority to prevent you from entering into a contract with another individual nor do any of your fellow citizens. Unfortunately governments and insurance agencies tell you that it is necessary.We the people are the only ones who can stop this charade.

So funny people are defending being bound

by yet another piece of paper. You know what I'd prefer? No marriage whatsoever like the old days before we became so "civilized" and hate-driven. Be bound to NO ONE and be free to have as many relations with whomever you'd like. Oh, that's right, this has something to do with gay people and not your own slavery-by-contract to another human.

More important things going on on this planet, folks.


I noticed I got downvoted

To add a disclaimer to my comment I am in fact married and I have gay friends, so I speak with full knowledge of these issues.


You mean from

The days where it was used to punish rapists or trade for livestock?
Marriage has always been ridiculous and government involvement in it at all is the problem.

No train to Stockholm.

You Don't Like the Constitution

What a shameful day for a website that's "Dedicated to restoring constitutional government to the USA". All I've heard is how government shouldn't be involved in marriage or gay marriage and therefore any law to the contrary violates the 5th or 14th amendment. I agree that our government has perverted marriage and should stay out as much as possible but that by no means makes a law unconstitutional.

It seems there is a large confusion here between what the constitution says and what it doesn't say. The 5th amendment guarantees life liberty property BUT this CAN BE RESTRICTED via Due Process of Law. The people that adopted this amendment understood it to be a procedural guarantee. You can executed (life), incarcerated (liberty), and be taxed (property) but only with the processes due to all. These processes include a trial, voting, etc.

For those that think the constitution forbids government from everything you like, you help destroy the framework of freedom.

hmm, I am destroying the framework of freedom by wanting it too?

Wow that makes a whole lot of sense!! Did you even read what I wrote?

What is your REAL issue with all of this??