Catholics are really ****** up when it comes to the marriage vows. My neighbor divorced his first wife about 30 years ago. He was born into the Catholic church (by no choice of his own) and now is a long-time recovering Catholic and belongs to another church of his own choosing. His second wife decided that she wanted to become a Catholic. He had no problem with that. It was her choice. She went through about 8 months of hardcore catechism classes to prepare for her baptism and the sacraments. About a month before it was time to receive her holy baptism the priest notified her that since her husband was a former Catholic that they would have to ask his former wife a series of questions (very personal - to include questions about their sex life and reasons for divorce) - before the woman could be accepted into the Church. The reason given is that it was the churches position that once married you are never really divorced in the eyes of the Catholic religion. My neighbor was fit to be tied. He hadn't even talked to his former wife in close to 30 years and was not on good terms with her. He went down to the Parish and lit into the priest for putting his wife through 8 months of catechism classes and then laying this requirement on her. Consequently, she never became a Catholic. Had she withheld the fact that her husband was an ex-Catholic all of this could have been avoided. No wonder the Catholics are having a hard time finding new good members who aren't from south of the border.

The local Priest in this case was completely full of ****.

@Steelhead23 - If both "wives" agree to share the man, and will sign a contract to that effect, it might be a sin, but not a crime. Women are unlikely to sign a contract that would permit adultery or bigamy or not have severe penalties for such acts including alimony. The equivalent is if the employer has a benefit, it can decide it can only be applied to one wife at a time.

From "A man for all seasons:"

Margaret More: Father, that man's bad.
Sir Thomas More: There's no law against that.
William Roper: There is: God's law.
Sir Thomas More: Then God can arrest him.

I also note with no small amount of irony that Catholics are all in favor and supporting writing Luther's and Henry VIII's definition into their constitutions. Thomas More got his head chopped off for defending the Catholic definition of marriage. But today, I point out Henry married a woman each time. (He got one annulment so the Pope would not grant a second).

(I would also note the Bishop in Maine did mention "for children" but forgot the "till death do us part" from his letter against the Gay Marriage vote)

States may vary as to what is or is not a proper contract or enforceable provisions (some may need to be in writing, or witnessed, notarized, etc.), so you would need the State merely to recognize Marriage Contracts to be as immutable and unbreakable as student loan debt. And it would need only one state - get married there and the other 49 are required to recognize the contract.

See my above paragraph on the Catholic definition of marriage (being indissoluble) above.

You can always kill your wife and then go to confession, but that sin of presumption could still get you. And it's hard to get remarried in the hoosegow.

Karl, I'm glad you brought this up - but not because of gay-rights or the specific issues related to it.

In 1920, the feds pushed through the 18th amendment (prohibition of alcohol). 13 years later, after seeing the results (organized crime, etc), they repealed it with the 21st amendment.

My question is this... At what point did the federal government no longer need to use the amendment process when they wanted to exercise powers that weren't specifically granted them through the constitution or the existing amendments? It's clear that back then, they felt they needed the state's blessing to obtain the right to crack down on alcohol.

But since then, the feds just pass laws, without state's input, which limit things control drugs, education, roads, and so on.

I'm no constitutional expert, but it seems to me something profound happened along the way - at which point the federal government realized that all they have to do is pass a law, and the states comply.

That's why I find the WA and CO marijuana laws so interesting. Unless there was a constitutional amendment passed giving the feds the right to ban the stuff in all states, I don't see how any state should even respond to what amounts to hollow threats.

Yet, we've become so brainwashed that it's practically an 11th commandment not to question the "established" practice of policing things that aren't in the constitution.

"The local Priest in this case was completely full of ****"

Karl, he wrote a letter to the dioceses and got a reply that basically said those were the requirements of joining the church. Tough luck. In fact, he showed me the actual form that the Parish gave him that he was supposed to mail to his ex-wife and that she was supposed to fill out and return to the dioceses. I was shocked at the questions asked.

I don't understand why people are so worried about polygamy, when it is intrinsically self-punishing:

For each additional wife, you are sentenced to an additional mother-in-law.

Tully

Yes that's what I meant, it is a states right issue. The Federal government has no standing other than amending the constitution.

Well, IMHO their loss and also IMHO unconscionable on their part to pull that crap. Funny how jackbooted crap is so prevalent.

Hey Noodleman, scan that letter and put it up for us all to see. I too would like to see what those pervs wanted to know.

Quote:

My question is this... At what point did the federal government no longer need to use the amendment process when they wanted to exercise powers that weren't specifically granted them through the constitution or the existing amendments? It's clear that back then, they felt they needed the state's blessing to obtain the right to crack down on alcohol.

When they realized that they had lots of guns, and that they were _more_ willing to kill people in order to get their way vs the population at large.

The eagerness for the volunteers that work for the state to KILL is a immense. That is what they do, that is what they are hired for.

Might makes right. No piece of paper is going to save you when you get a love note sent at 3000fps embedded in your head

I think if more people realized that these marriage laws started out as race laws, they would be more willing to tell the Federal government to***** off.

Same with gun laws, we never had gun laws until the black man could own one.

Good ticker.

Tully,
Not if you marry sisters.

The issue with polygamy is that most polygamous societies I would classify as dis-functional. Whether it is those Mormon sects that like to commit welfare fraud, kite checks and eject uneducated young men, or Muslim polygamy (which is mitigated to a degree by the four wife maximum) that also produces hordes of uneducated young men with no social prospects. I don't think it a coincidence (and this is my opinion) that both of those societies are misogynist.

Agreed Tully, and I'll one-up you:

Where some men see with twice the wives comes twice the sex, I see twice the bitching, nagging, complaining, and quadruple the SHOES.

**** that noise!

Medic: Yep. The Gun Control Act of 1968 followed....

The Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Duh.

We have laws against welfare fraud and financial fraud, that has nothing to do with marriage (legally).

I didn't know "functionality" was a prerequisite to legal marriage in America, because it hasn't been applied as far as I can see.

The Constitution wasn't about social engineering, it was about limiting federal power.

add in the genesis of the abortion movement which few seem to know or care about.

look who loves gun control and abortion now.... hmmm............

"Hey Noodleman, scan that letter and put it up for us all to see. I too would like to see what those pervs wanted to know"

I will contact him to see if he still has it. If so, I will send it along. It was good for a laugh.

@Noodleman - You would deny the freedom to define marriage in the way they want to Catholics?

Note that the Catholic church recognizes as indissoluble any marriage (with vows, etc) between two baptized persons, so it doesn't matter that the Husband was Catholic, if they were both Baptist, the marriage would still be considered valid. The church's position is to deliver the mail, not edit the message:

Luke 16:18 Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

A finding of nullity (an annulment) is a declaration that (the original) a marriage never took place. The reason it is intrusive is because if both original spouses were fully informed and of free will said "Till Death Do Us Part", the Church is following the rules - that marriage is valid until the death of one spouse. If one was misinformed or coerced or didn't have the capacity to say "I Do" with full free will, then the marriage would not be valid.

Technically she could be admitted without the annulment but I don't think they would agree to the terms. The priest likely did a bad job, but it would be worse if he tried to change the rules.

Whether she ever becomes Catholic or not does not change one word of the Gospels - in Red and clear.

I don't know why people get upset at the one institution that insists on the rule of (canon) law applying to everyone equally. Rail against corruption on wall street - but when it comes to the church setting immutable standards of what is right and wrong, you want them to have a TARP like program.

The church often doesn't live up to its own responsibility or even what it knows is right and wrong - any reading of church history shows this. The one thing it doesn't do is say the doctrine - the Law - is wrong, only that they - like all sinners - are fallen and broke it.

Liberty has almost diametrically opposed meanings to people who consider man as fallen and corrupt and corruptible, and the other side who thinks man in general and they specifically are perfect and always do good no matter the result or evidence.

The former will always be suspicious of any and all power and authority - including that of the church - see St. Catherine of Sienna or the other saints who constantly reform the church.

The latter will either permit the powerful to abuse the fundamental rights of the poor, or will slowly start doing the abuse themselves to the poor "for their own good".

Peter denied Jesus 3 times and it has been downhill (as hellward) since, but that is the church Jesus founded. I have no trouble thinking of the USCCB as not much different than those at the time of the Borgia Popes. Yet even the Borgia Popes broke the rules, they didn't change the rules to say what they did was right.

Don't ask me to defend the bishops - They deserve only condemnation. They are upset over paying a few pennies for contraception, yet ignored the "we need to pass it to find out what's in it" PATRIOT Act, the unjust wars still going on, the war crimes including torture, the warrantless wiretaps and other searches, and the rest of what BISHOP Steven Langton helped write into the Magna Charta. And their silence on the billionaire bankster bailout bonuses. The rest of the greed and corruption they tacitly condone.

The Bishops can go to hell. Literally. And probably will if they do not repent. The reading for this end of ordinary time describe the fall from grace and the last things.

I'm calling them to repent and to call to reestablish every freedom and liberty lost. To stop looking the other way except on divorcees and abortion. To start a third great awakening to turn the USA back toward righteousness so they would again be fit to live under the original constitution.

We will not be free in a Pagan (de facto or de jure) culture. Western Civilization was called by the name "Christendom", for all its faults discovered and enshrined human dignity and rights. When Christians are all for the same corruption as the unbaptized, they will similarly despise liberty. We need a revival.

We need to repent, then claw back every treasure of the church we have given to Caesar or let him steal (see the story of St. Lawrence). When the Bishops get in bed with Caesar, the church becomes the ***** of Babylon. Caesar's bitches.

(Peter Kreeft:) Remember Judas Iscariot was one of the Bishops. The first to accept a government grant. 30 pieces of silver if I recall correctly.

Medicdan,
I think there is a difference between the civil marriage laws related to miscegenation and those related to bigamy and polygamy.

I believe that the bigamy laws often predate the miscegenation issues for example Rome outlawed bigamy in 285 and bigamy laws in the US originate from English common law.

However there is no specific grant of power to the federal government to outlaw bigamy or polygamy. Therefore it should also fall to the states or to the people.

Brought up but not quite answered...in law, why does the definition of 'marriage' need to be addressed via the state constitution but not other less obvious ones such as "corporation"?

No government involvement period. What does***** me off are people that involve themselves in risky sex and death styles that then demand tax monies to cure illnesses created by their behaviors so they can continue those same behaviors. AIDS etc.

TZ, the Catholic church can follow whatever doctrine or rules it wants to. I really couldn't care less what they do. I guess my point is that since divorce is so pervalent in our society it would be darn hard for the Catholics to follow the standard doctrine of matrimony handed down through the ages and still maintain a population of congregants who aren't all living in adultery, which I assume is a mortal sin in the eyes of the church and, if convicted, the sentence would be the brimstone and fires of hell. You seem to be much better versed in Catholic doctrine than I am. All I know is that the woman next door is a fine and upstanding and honorable woman who was punished because of her husband's marriage that ended in divorce 30 years ago or more. She would be an asset to any organization. To me, it seems totally unreasonable for her to suffer the consequences of her husband's former partnership that did survive. But that's just me.

A "marriage" cannot be between other than one man and one woman. It's a religious term and a religious definition. Genesis 2:24 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." The state incorporated this standard (and the word) into civil law back when we had a civil society. This was back when the first amendment was written to keep the state out of the church.
As one who believes this, I really don't care what consenting adults do behind closed doors or what label they want to apply to it. But the word "marriage" is already taken. Give the homosexuals power of attorney, tax benefits, whatever, the same "rights" as the other 98% of the population. You just can't call it marriage. IMO it makes as much sense as calling the male parent the mother or the female parent the father. Didn't France eliminate the terms "father" and "mother" and change it to "parent 1" and parent 2". Idiots. This whole subject is a waste of time and resources. Our government is spending millions paying lawyers and judges to argue this non-issue to placate the vocal 2% minority.

Exactly.

It's none of the government's damned business who lives with who so long as all are consenting adults. At the FEDERAL level there is no Constitutional Authority for any such declaration IN ANY DIRECTION.