Two Associated Press stories from the social legislation front caught my eye this morning. First, is by Deanna Martin, is a bill that would hike marriage fees unless the couple takes classes first.
The second, unattributed, is a bill that would mandate that doctors tell their patients that human life begins at conception. There are something like nine bills with abortion in their description, so I’m not sure which one this article has in mind.
No time for me to hold forth on these at the moment. Talk amongst yourselves.
There should be no marriage licensing.
1. If persons wish to enter into a verbal contract (wedding vows) with witnesses, that agreement is sufficient. No license is needed.
2. The fact that Indiana’s Libertarians are advocating the extension of licensing to include same-gender couples is absurd. It violates their core philosophy of less-intrusive government. It’s like demanding taxes be extended to be inclusive rather than reduced or eliminated.
3. This silly nonsense proposed by Deanna Martin is evidence that government licensing of families through marriage licenses is an insidious and intrusive act of government.
I am ashamed that a Republican would put forth a measure, such as a proposal to force people into taking a marriage class. I thought the party of Lincoln was about less government, not more of it!
“It is to secure our rights that we resort to government at all.” –Geo. Washington
I thought the party of Lincoln was about less government, not more of it!
Just out of curiosity, Diana, where’d you ever get that notion?
Reminds me of the young girl who told her Pappy she couldn’t possibly be pregnant, because the man said he was a preacher.
Please tell me this doesn’t surprise you, Ms. Vice.
Next thing you will tell us is how surprised you are that the Tea Party has been coopted by bigots and homophobes…
I thought the governor called a truce on social issues? I guess not everyone got the memo.
I was a little unclear. Deanna Martin is the author of the AP story, not the legislation.
“Next thing you will tell us is how surprised you are that the Tea Party has been coopted by bigots and homophobes…”
The amount of venom directed at the Tea Party astounds me. This is just one example of a potshot taken on a subject matter that has nothing to do with the Tea Party.
Ms. Vice is very familiar with homophobes.
Sadly “homophobe” can be defined as anyone who disagrees with the prevailing blather from militant gay hate groups. It’s wearing thin.
Hmm.. is it militant gay to want to be able to work and support your family without being fired for being gay? Is it militant for people to want you to serve your country without being investigated? Is it militant to want religious people to mind their own business and not enforce their idea of morality and family structure on everyone else? And is it militant to think that a couple that has lived/ loved together for 10-25-40 years – building a home and family or a business together – be treated the same as any other couple — even those married in a quickie Las Vegas chapel — and divorced shortly after?
I guess that makes me a militant – I’m not asking for everyone to be gay.. but just accept that gays exist and that they have the same God-given rights as any other American. And according to the Indiana Constitution, any rights granted to one group of people cannot be denied to any other class of people.. that’s a pretty radical thought these days.
While the comments start to stray from the topic at hand, imo, I keep seeing this and other social legislation proposed, and wonder how many jobs does this create? And I think that should be the Democrat’s theme song this session. ‘And how is this about jobs?’
I understand the potential value of premarital counseling, but I have concerns about a practical mandate to participate in a state approved process to help make sure your relationship meets their expectations.