Yes, Its You America
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
Login or register to improve your experience
Main Navigation
Sarah's Resources You Should See
Full-Text Search & Archives
Leverage, the book
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions. For investment, legal or other professional advice specific to your situation contact a licensed professional in your jurisdiction.


Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility; author(s) may have positions in securities or firms mentioned and have no duty to disclose same.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must be complete (NOT a "pitch"), include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. Pitch emails missing the above will be silently deleted. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2023-09-08 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Social Issues , 271 references Ignore this thread
Yes, Its You America
[Comments enabled]

All of it, when you get down to it.

The Genesis, if you will, of this column was a conversation I recently had with a woman who would like to get married again, and in fact that's her "gating factor" to dating someone -- that the other person want that too, in the Christian definition of marriage.

Ok, as far as it goes.

Except you can't have that in America today.  Indeed, odds are she didn't qualify in the first place given that she'd been married before (I didn't pry sufficiently to discover whether this was true -- but I bet it was.)

"Yes you can!" you may protest -- and she certainly did.


There is no faith community that calls itself "Christian" that actually adheres to the Biblical standard of marriage and all of them are directly involved in false swearing before God at the time of the marriage.  That includes hers, incidentally, which means she is acting adverse to her own claimed desire yet she believes she can have what she's personally has a hand, every Sunday by being a part of that faith community, in destroying!

When I went through confirmation as an adult Catholic I challenged the church on this.  The pastor got rather annoyed with me for doing so too, since I was the only one going through RCIA that was not in the room because I wanted to marry a Catholic and the Church refuses if both are not Catholic.

Given what everyone else was doing there (I was doing it to take the sacrament, not because I needed a chit for something else, in this case marriage to a Catholic) I thought it was both a timely and in fact necessary conversation to have in that context.

Perhaps I should have paid better attention to the pastor's response to that as the same dynamic is why the Church didn't stomp on priests that abused kids over the decades prior to it blowing up in public where everyone could see it (and sue them over it.)

Contemplate how this works.  The current "social and government" structure of marriage is that you head down to the courthouse and apply for a license.  You ask permission of the Government to get married, in short.  This is claimed to be about record-keeping but that's a lie; the historical record is that the reason it was imposed was to place a "poll tax" on marriage and to prevent miscegenationthat is, to block marriage between white and black people and, before America, to keep other "undesirable" combinations from taking place.  Prior to that marriages among Christians were recorded in the family's bible, and in the Church's registry.  There was nothing wrong with this and may I remind you that the Christian churches predate and continue beyond the lifetime of most modern governments, so it is not possible to argue the "record-keeping" function of government is superior to that of faith communities.  Objectively it is not.

Yes, I know, the "protection" against miscegenation is longer effective as such was struck by the Supreme Court in America but that is in fact why it was instituted.  I could leave that alone but not what came with it and which none of the faiths will stand up and address.

By applying for said license and voluntarily executing it you submit to the statement of what marriage is by the State, all of which claim that "you're married until one of you doesn't want to be and, if one of you doesn't want to be then you agree that the process to dissolve that marriage will be whatever the State says now or in the future and you have no control over, or even an idea, what that process might be in the future."

Picture the person who was married in the 1950s and 30 years later his or her spouse wanted a divorce.  Do you think they had any reasonable expectation that the process of the 1980s would be what they'd have to undergo?  Not a prayer in Hell.  How many people married just a few years ago would consider "I believe my son is actually a girl!" to be valid reason for divorce if the other party disagreed and that such would be used to force the disagreeing party to pay support costs to undertake direct medical acts that, in the other party's view, are both immoral and unsupportable never mind being outrageously and permanently harmful to the child.

There is no contract of any sort ever that contains such a demand other than this one.  If you contract to borrow money for 30 years to buy a house the terms are entirely on the pages of the contract.  They cannot be changed unilaterally without your consent.  The same is true if you contract to buy a car or do any other thing, from the most-mundane (e.g. buying a hamburger at the local eatery) to the most-complex.

But your Church says otherwise and in fact explicitly endorses the actions of a State that it claims to disagree with.  Now some faith communities truly don't treat "marriage" as a lifetime commitment with no "outs" except for outrageous misbehavior.  And to be fair not even the most-stringent of evangelical Christian faiths demand continued cohabitation with a monster.

Many Christian churches do indeed enforce the premise that one cannot simply leave a spouse and then remarry.  But all of them will sign a formal government document that states that indeed you can do exactly that and in fact they will demand you go do that and bring it to them to execute if you want them to marry you even though they factually know that over the last decades there has been no actual "contract" in that the terms have been unilaterally changed and forced down their adherent's throats as soon as one party to said "sacrament" changes their mind.

Everything that is wrong with our society is encompassed right there.  It is the exact same premise that you find in so-called "college debt forgiveness" that so many scream about today.  You signed a contract that says you will pay the money back in exchange for its use to be paid to the college.  You then go to the college and, after having done so, you want to void the part that says you must pay the money back after receiving what they agreed to provide to you.  The demand you issue for "forgiveness" is a second sin in that it is a lie; nothing is being "forgiven" it is being shoved on someone else to pay, specifically the taxpayers of the country, and it is shoved upon them by force.  There is no charity -- that is, "forgiveness" -- involved.

Notice that nowhere in such demands is the claim made and litigated that you got screwed -- that is, that the college did not uphold their end of the bargain.  I have no quarrel with someone suing over that and, if successful, forcing the college to eat the debt.  They got paid originally so if they didn't deliver as promised the correct place for that to land is on them.  We have an adversarial process for such disputes and its perfectly fine to enable its use in such a case.

How is this different than what you see all around you with marriage and divorce?

It isn't; both instances occurred because one or both parties demanded the right to retroactively screw the other; that is neither actually intended to follow through on their commitment when it became difficult.  As long as it was easy all was good, but as soon as it wasn't easy then there had to be a way out even though the agreement did not include this provision.

What prevents a congregation from standing up as a group and insisting that their faith community not do that?


In fact The Constitution prohibits government interference with free exercise of religion in the First Amendment, so a faith community that performs religious marriages and refuses to execute government marriage licenses is entirely in the right and would win any such challenge.  Yes, you would not be "married" in the eyes of the State but that's irrelevant to the sacramental element of the rite; you are married before God and they can keep said records independently of the State, making them public so that if someone attempted to (for example) commit bigamy in the secular sense that could be trivially prosecuted.  Further, the Church could insist (as the Catholics currently do) that should either party want to end that in order to actually break that commitment in the sacramental sense the criteria they set forward as they see it in Scripture would have be met and proved.  If you don't then while they certainly can't stop you from going outside the faith (e.g. to a JP or other church) they have every right to refuse to marry you again.  Again, the Catholics already do that and as such there is no argument that they "couldn't"; that debate is settled.

Indeed in 2012 I penned a column on the rank hypocrisy of the Catholic Church on this exact point -- but it is not simply a function of marriage -- its everywhere in our society today and it is all equally wrong, foolhardy and a negative sum game that has a very high probability of eventually screwing you.

So why hasn't this happened in, for example, Baptist and other evangelical churches?

For the same reason it hasn't happened when it comes to student loans.  Indeed Barack Obama explicitly took all student lending onto the Federal Balance Sheet for the explicit purpose of destroying the contractual obligations of the borrowers when it came to private enforcement, rendering all of it under federal control where it could be changed and abrogated unilaterally and by force in an adverse way to uninvolved persons upon the mere protest of those who would be given the capacity to steal from the public.  Students, their parents and universities could have said "NO!" to all of this when Obama federalized the system but they all did not because every one of them wanted and in fact loves the idea of the capacity to abrogate said contract down the road AND STEAL FROM EVERYONE ELSE.

I was one of the few people I know who refused to participate in that garbage.

This is the precise same sin folks in that the sin was committed in contemplation in advance of its execution and the mess we have with college costs has been directly created by parents and students alike doing so.  Said cost issues were in the process of blowing up and being corrected by the marketplace on its own when Obama took this action.  Private lenders will not intentionally lend at a loss because they can't force someone else to cover the bill.  Government can and does but everyone who gave consent to and acted in consent beyond that point is a co-conspirator and committed the exact same sin by their participation.

The exact same thing is true when it comes to Obamacare and the health system.  Your refusal, as citizens, to put a stop to it is precisely why, three years ago, that was weaponized and then used to steal trillions of dollars of purchasing power across the entire economy by almost-literally everyone and today we're paying for precisely that in the form of a foldback in our economy and high, persistent inflation.

Now contemplate the couple that is married, remains married (they actually like each other), the kids are grown and gone and they blow through all of their savings, start ramping the credit cards and then whining that they're owed something more!  Some go even further and intentionally take actions that ruin their health then expect "someone else" to cover it.  Who and where is this "someone else" and why does that other person owe them this?

I have another example of this from yesterday among people I know but if I include it I'll have to put this article on the other side of the site.  So I'll leave it out because its just another example and not necessary to make my point.

An even more extreme example can be found with most of the "homeless" and "immigrants."  First they demand that you pay for their lodging in NYC, for example and then they trash the place and harass the citizens already there who go to work and pay taxes.  Exactly why are they "owed" lodging, food and clothing at all when they've not done a single minute of productive work in return for it and why is it that once you let them take that you're surprised when the next demand is that they have a right to have sex with anyone they think looks cute and, if refused, will take that too.  What do you think "A Girl in Iowa" was about?  A person who had no respect for the law deciding that he was going to take what he wanted -- and we all know what the result was.

Why are all these "migrants" coming to the United States?  It is precisely because they believe they are entitled to have housing, clothing and food without earning exactly as you believe you're entitled to a "marriage" that allegedly "complies" with God's commandments when you know damn well it does not because at the time you allegedly contracted it you agreed it does not.  Likewise you're "entitled" to all the "health care" you wish to consume without paying for it even if the reason you require it is that you ate yourself into a diabetic 500lb blob over the preceding 20 years -- or just had bad luck.  You're entitled to a college degree without being able to pay for it.  The bum on the street is entitled to break into a vacant hotel and crap all over the sidewalk, despoiling the property of others and the community at-large.  The migrant that raped and murdered A Girl in Iowa, and the other one who recently did the same thing to a much younger girl in Texas were both entitled to all the sex they wanted whether said girl was willing (or even of legal age) or not, weren't they?

All of this, when you boil it down, is the same thing folks.

And before you say "oh none of this would ever work" in America in the context of marriage alone..... may I present to you the Amish?

Can't be done eh?  Well then how come they do?

Yeah, I get it that some of those who are born there decide they don't like it and leave.  That's fine; its voluntary to be Amish.  So is choosing to be involved in a faith community that commits the sin of intentionally falsely representing things before God and allowing a government to continue to operate that will steal from you simply because someone stuck out their hand and said "gimme!"  Just as a church that loses all of its congregation's support will collapse so will a government.

People say that we should turn back to faith -- whether its "come back to Jesus", "come back to God" or similar.  Indeed I've often heard the quote from John Adams: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

True, however you are neither a moral or religious person if you permit your "House of Worship" to commit apostasy and remain in the building, never mind filling the tithe plate with your hard-earned funds.  Never mind that the very premise of voting for a lesser of two evils is to explicitly give license to evil through personal and intentional sin as you are committing an actual and explicit affirmative act.  If you do that you are not a moral or religious person and that is an irrefutable fact.

Indeed while you might escape judgment (I'm not qualified to speak for God of course) for turning one's head that which you formally and voluntarily participate in is another matter.  If you claim to be Christian then please explain how giving license to Beelzebub is different in form and character than giving license to Satan.

It is precisely because we as a people permit this and even explicitly act to further it that all of the above have and continue to occur.

Resolving the problem begins right here and until I see a faith community in the "mainstream" United States that will do so all of you who engage in that rhetoric are lying.  You personally want that escape route for yourself that allows you to "put" your issues, whether through your own hand or simply bad luck on others by force and sacramental marriage, as claimed by Christians, is just a small part of it.

And while fixing it in the context of marriage would be good, fixing it everywhere would be much better -- and, in fact, if we intend to avoid the collapse of our modern society it is the only rational set of actions that has a reasonable expectation of success.

Go to responses (registration required to post)

Comments on Yes, Its You America
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
Page 1 of 2  First12Last
Cmoledor 2k posts, incept 2021-04-13
2023-09-08 08:26:34

Beelzebub and Satan. If that doesnt perfectly describe both parties. Going to use that from now on. Two names of the same beast. And thats exactly what they are. Beasts.

The whole world is one big fucking scam
Full throttle till the end. Ocdawg
Take the stick you tried to beat me with and go fuck your own face. Ishmael
78rpm 21 posts, incept 2023-08-07
2023-09-08 08:26:37

Don't vote for the lesser of two evils -

Karl Denninger for President
Krzelune 17k posts, incept 2007-10-08
2023-09-08 08:26:41

Personal integrity is a virtue that is being purposely eroded.

Mikeyjm2 174 posts, incept 2011-10-20
2023-09-08 08:33:12

501(c)(3) Christian. Isn't that a self-defeating premise in the first place? I gave up on organized religion a few years back for roughly that reason.
Iou 1k posts, incept 2009-03-16
2023-09-08 08:45:00

The John Galt Pledge -> I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves, in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies

Invisiblesun 836 posts, incept 2020-04-08
2023-09-08 08:45:10

I love getting up in the morning to have the Ticker Guy smack me on the side of the head with a heavy piece of lumber.

I hate overused analogies as much as anyone but the frogs in the warming pot of water holds. Big government is a scourge on liberty and the warnings from decades ago about the threats of Big Government have come true. Americans do not have liberty. We are not free citizens. We have privileges allowed by our governments. We have imprisoned ourselves in jails we have built for ourselves.

The mingling of church and state is instructive of our imprisonment. The legal and cultural barrier between religion and government helped restrict the reach of government. It helped create friction in the particular realm that government would limit itself to public works - of roads and utilities and the fair application of law and justice. Religion would take care of our souls. Government was impersonal but competent and the less remarkable government was the better.

But then church leaders chose to make friends with government. They chose or fell for the lie that since both churches and government want to help society they should collaborate and help each other. And now there is no separation of church and state. The government feels empowered to interfere with our lives as would a church pastor and church pastors are comfortable promoting government propaganda. The church and state went from being competing elements to colluding parties.

And TG is right. Government has infiltrated every aspect of our lives because Americans have sold out. Americans have chosen and demonstrated they prefer to be coddled rather than be free. And why? Because to be free one must stand accountable for one's choices, and Americans would rather make excuses and make someone else pay for their mistakes and misfortune.

The government is all too willing to bail people out, it only costs our freedom. And church pastors have themselves yielded their liberty. American mainstream churches may show a more conservative veneer than the prevailing culture, but in reality they are beholden to the prevailing culture. The church has no authority because the pastors relinquished that claim in their desire to get a portion of what the government gives. It only cost them the soul and independence and credibility of their church.

Smacktle 8k posts, incept 2009-01-20
2023-09-08 10:36:00

I don't get my faith from a church. I receive it and have it from participating in prayer, worship and reading the bible. A personal relationship with God. Through that I am experiencing a great change in my life I didn't know was possible.

Life became way too complicated for me and I'm still trying to find my way.

Marriage?! Good luck with trying to figure that one out. I damn sure haven't.

Use your Ticker Balls
Sundance 38 posts, incept 2017-07-29
2023-09-08 10:36:10

Right on. I love how a person can come to a marriage, make the vows (contract), then brazenly break said contract and demand and get half the assets accumulated. Refuckindiculous. Great scam that is so easily pulled off lawfully these days
Ostriches 320 posts, incept 2009-10-28
2023-09-08 10:36:34

The crux of the problem is that the various governments and the various agreements with the cituzens need to be limited to those most basic things ALL with capacity agree upon. For example, all agree that murder should be illegal.

However, when the people allow government to improperly expand, or want it to expand for their own benefit, beyond its most basic and originally intended roles, it ends up being used as a 24 against the "others" not in power.

Then, when the government fully finds its own legs and takes on a life of its own as is the case now (power for power's sake), the "others" are simply those not in a government or unsupported of government policies.

In sum, the only solution is a reversion back to the original intent.
Fenriswulf 29 posts, incept 2021-10-16
2023-09-08 10:36:40

Been married 30+ years. I was planning to say that marriage historically Was contractual. There was a strict class structure including "untouchables" like executioners and butchers. In the US, that structure didn't follow people and the love match became dominant. When that happened, marriage became emotional and tied to ego. Everyone wants to be the Princess Bride. A prenup or any business style contract is not Twooo Wove. Granted even 10 years ago no one would have guessed sexual mutilation of a child would be a taboo issue, but today if the uber cynical gen X and millennials and worldly Z's started a movement for strict contracting with prenups and perhaps simple common law marriages (in Texas if you live under the same roof and present as if married you are in the common law or at least that was so and I doubt anyone's bothered to change that), this could be changed. You could have an expiration and renewal -not sure - how about a 5 year interval in your prenup. You could state deal breakers. Why not have I get the kids and you get nothing if you become a woke nutter, cheat, join a cult, etc.? With Trusts, power of attorney and so on I bet you could come up with a contractual and legal frame work that is both functional and deprives the government of the marriage tax penalty. Perhaps any form of existing marriage is not necessary with a more suitable contractual alternative.

But what I really want to say is: what attaining a successful decades long marriage, and your piece come down to is personal integrity. Why doesn't the median population have decent personal integrity? I don't know. We both meant it - in good times and bad till death do you part. Coof and social media have surprised us. 80% took the jab (we did not and thought it was an obvious no brainer from the get go). Of the 20 % that didn't - looked like half faked it and blended in, based on commentary here. That leaves 10%. Maybe that's a litmus test. I remember a different culture. One were the median valued integrity. I don't know how you get that back. Someone once posted a game theory simulation where the win win high trust culture benefited all a magnitude more than low trust and stealing ever could benefit even the thief. We have simply slid into the low trust society that is the prevalent human condition.

Young men are afraid today to marry because fundamentally they think the chance the woman lacks integrity, and ruins life for decades, are higher than the chance she has integrity. TG, perhaps it is not just the young men, even if they are the ones articulating it. After all it is the woman who, on average does the leaving. That's unfortunate as I know those people are still out there. Copper harbor was full of them - it was like vacationing in the 70's. Families, almost no fat people, no tattoos, no piercings, little diversity, just normal people with shared culture having fun outdoors. Look for integrity. If you both have that and are on the same page it doesn't matter how clown world changes things. Have a long engagement to shake things out. The only way to preserve the old culture is to continue to live it and pass it on, in the face of clown world. It starts with changing or preserving what you can in your own sphere of influence. Embers.
Tappedout 300 posts, incept 2020-09-21
2023-09-08 10:38:32

"Why are all these "migrants" coming to the United States? It is precisely because they believe they are entitled to have housing, clothing and food without earning"

I don't know about "entitled."

I think they are coming here because of the give aways, but don't necessarily expect it, or expect it will last. If the US is stupid enough to do it, they look at it like I look at the free sample of egg white frittata I ate at CostCo yesterday.

As for the trashing of places: I think most of them don't know any better and have been living like that all their lives. And of course, there are a high percentage of teens-twenties who are drug addicts, gang bangers, and former prisoners who have never learned respect for anything other than brute force.

When I read the percentages on how many married people cheat, it's hard for me to get worked up about marriage or divorce. I have always thought it's a sham to drag God into something so flawed. But of course, the Religion Cartel must get their gate receipts and on we go. That's what it's really all about.

Three facts are core to my understanding of where we are: No one knows or will know what they found when they raided Epstein's properties, Trump and Biden are our choices for President.

That's all you need to know.
Aquapura 4k posts, incept 2012-04-19
2023-09-08 12:56:37

I have always found it curious that people want to get married in a church but divorced in a courtroom. An enterprising church could take up the divorce business, after all I heard that women are now having divorce parties. Why not a reverse ceremony with afterparty of dinner and drink?? I'm sure a judge would be willing to go along with it.

Kidding aside, if marriage is a contract why is it so easily entered into? Shit, I just transferred title on a vehicle and that took more time and effort than getting married, at least the state part of it all.

I've often said as a society we should be making things harder to do, not easier. I've said that about licensure in my profession of choice, voting in elections, and marriage too. We collectively seem to think everything should be "easy" and thereby people make hasty and stupid decisions because they aren't forced to put effort into it and really think about the outcome of those decisions. Screw that. Our "easy" times are going to hand us some real hard outcomes in the not so distant future and we deserve it.
Ee4fire 1k posts, incept 2011-03-24
2023-09-08 13:46:19

Karl as always a well thought out explanation of your observations of a present situation we find ourselves in today's society. I will take one issue with your statement and that is the term "You America". Not all of the USA wanted or voted for it. I wish I had time to write an entire explanation of my thoughts on this.

The civil society we have lived in is falling apart. Why it is falling apart is hypocrisy. We all have some level of hypocrisy in our lives. We are human. The problem is too many humans live a lot of hypocrisy. You have to do something I don't because I have power you gave me and now you are a peon I control. Many people bitch about it and then re-elect the same hypocrites.

We get the gov't we deserve. Many in this country are selfish hypocrites. They will elect the same. Hence, the giveaways of our tax dollars, because too many want what someone else has and don't want to work for it. They have been taught this by greedy self center people.

Your explanation of what is wrong with the Catholic Church has a lot of truth to it. The leaders are a bunch of men with absolute authority. Absolute authority corrupts absolutely. This corruption is not recent, it has been going on for centuries. Some centuries were worse than others. The issue with interfaith marriage is an interesting one because I am Catholic and my wife is Methodist. We were married in a Catholic Church with a priest and minister present. The priest who married us made the statement during our marriage preparation was "He would rather die as a good Protestant than a bad Catholic." The Bible has a lot of insight to all of this. It was all predicted thousand of years ago, because it was going on then too. The more things change, the more they remain the same. Welcome the new boss, same as the old boss. It is just going faster, because the speed of information is faster.

My wife's pastor was raised Catholic. Every once and awhile we meet for lunch. I joke with him that we are "Roaming Catholics". I still go to mass periodically, not as much since COVID. I go to her church more regularly. We have some very in depth discussions on the Protestant and Catholic differences and similarities. Right now the United Methodists are in the process of splitting in two over LGTBQXYZ issues. The traditionalists don't want gay marriage and transsexualism to become accepted and the "progressives" are all in for it. we are in the middle of discussing our thought on this issue. The Catholics are having the same problem since there are radical priests who are pushing LGBTQXYZ in the Catholic church. They are doing so because many of these priests are gay themselves, which is the elephant in the room no one wants to talk about.

When you diversify your moral foundations, laws, norms, and traditions, then you are dividing/destroying the structure of the civil society. We are watching it play out in front of US. You eloquently stated many of the reasons why.

"Only by creating wealth can you relieve poverty.
It's what you do with your wealth that counts."
― Margaret Thatcher
Sonoran_monk 3k posts, incept 2021-08-16
2023-09-08 13:47:35

Government marriage is a sham like everything else they touch. Why enter into a contract of adhesion that rewards the other party for breaking it?

Mate choice is particularly bad at the moment. Who wants to marry the town bicycle with mental and physical health problems?

Men don't want to get married because women don't want to stay married, they have the government to make sure they're "independent".
Realist 268 posts, incept 2009-07-14
2023-09-08 13:47:41

In fact The Constitution prohibits government interference with free exercise of religion in the First Amendment...

Don't be too sure we have a First Amendment anymore. The U.S. Government has officially said at a sentencing hearing for Owen Shroyer, a journalist who entered into a plea agreement, that his speaking out about the results of the 2020 election should be considered in the sentencing hearing. This is a blatant, in-your-face example of criminalizing the freedom of speech as stated in the First Amendment, just because the government didn't like what you said. If this stands, you will no longer have the freedom of speech in Amerika.

As I've said before, all it takes is one judge to make an unconstitutional or unlawful ruling and for that ruling not to be overturned for precedent to be set on anything.

''Whenever law ends, tyranny begins'' -- John Locke, English Philosopher
The United States is a banana republic
Survivors use critical thinking, common sense and intuition
Tickerguy 198k posts, incept 2007-06-26
2023-09-08 13:49:35

@Ee4fire -
Karl as always a well thought out explanation of your observations of a present situation we find ourselves in today's society. I will take one issue with your statement and that is the term "You America". Not all of the USA wanted or voted for it. I wish I had time to write an entire explanation of my thoughts on this.

I disagree.

Not only you but I as well have tolerated it. So have all the others who claim not to.

You think not?

How many cops of all types and sizes are there? About a million. How many Americans (real ones, not fake illegals)? About 300-ish million, perhaps 330 depending on who's numbers your using.

So.... half say "oh you're full of shit government!" Ok, that's 150:1.

How long does that shit last with that numerical disadvantage assuming people actually mean it?

Yeah, about 10 minutes. Maybe.

So fine and well, but don't tell me to go vote for evil, because I won't.

"Anyone wearing a mask will be presumed to be intending armed robbery and immediately shot in the face. Govern yourself accordingly."

Margbp 220 posts, incept 2021-12-02
2023-09-08 14:21:52

My non Catholic mother married my dad in the Catholic church in the 50s and didn't become Catholic until the 60s after she started having kids. In the 70s my narcissistic parents were super Catholics labeling annulments as "Catholic divorce". Until they decided in the 80s to get divorced. They didn't seek an annulment probably because they knew that they had no grounds for it.

Not much different than those against the vexx until it suited them to get vexxed.

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his desires depend upon his not understanding it.
~Upton Sinclair slightly paraphrased
Vernonb 3k posts, incept 2009-06-03
2023-09-08 14:26:41

If memory serves me correctly from Jewish history at the time of Moses divorce had extreme penalties especially for the partner found in infidelity. After the divorce the adultering partner could not be married again by the church.

Today words are cheap. Without proper judges the whole system is shit.

People rightfully claim marrying homosexuals in the church is mocking God. Yet these same hypocrits fornicate and commit adultery. Welcome to the church of the lukewarm hypicrit. Prepare to be spewed.

It is now just another social club. I turned my back on organized religion at 18. I was raised in a church of Penecostals. Idiots claimed I was demon possessed. Pentecostals do not like serious questions or religious jokes. All I saw in pastors were mostly control freaks.


As far as Bigamy if the religion permits it so be it. For argument consistency I don't understand why the state should be involved here either to continue the unholy union with any church. What have I missed?

"Mass intelligence does not mean intelligent masses."
Tickerguy 198k posts, incept 2007-06-26
2023-09-08 14:27:32

@Vernonb you can go get a state marriage license either with, or without a church involved.

If you do so TWICE without a state divorce, well, that's bigamy.

"Anyone wearing a mask will be presumed to be intending armed robbery and immediately shot in the face. Govern yourself accordingly."
Iou 1k posts, incept 2009-03-16
2023-09-08 15:12:49

Fr. James Altman, the priest behind the viral video, You cannot be Catholic and a Democrat. He now has released another video claiming Pope Francis is not the Pope.

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves, in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies
Annfan 49 posts, incept 2017-10-28
2023-09-08 16:10:46 describes marriage as a legal contract and binding agreement. Anyone else here ever enter into a contract that cannot be enforced? The license gives one permission to marry, lets say in the Church. The terms of the marriage in the church might be, indissoluble, forsaking all others, till death do us part, for example. The divorcER is breaking the terms of the contract, entered into willingly by both parties in front of witnesses. Then the state comes in and enforces their and its terms on the divorcEE, in the case of no-fault divorce - zero recourse. Where is that in the fine print exactly? Its certainly not on the license. Nor was it in the terms of the agreement. How is that not the state trampling all over the church? And what have the churches done about it? Mr. D is correct - bent over, enabled, and even facilitated it. None would have to be a fool to enter into a legally binding agreement under those conditions, which basically came into effect under Reagan with no-fault divorce. Unfortunately, most people who get married do not understand that until they are in the throes of the legal proceedings of a divorce thrust unwillingly upon them. Oh and they have to pay for the privilege.
Goprisko 3 posts, incept 2022-07-09
2023-09-08 16:48:31

I married in the Catholic Church...
After being engaged to the woman for 2 years..
In front of our families...
Wearing the crowns....
Only to find...
My wife refused to have sex with me...
Refused to live with me...
Refused to join me in Hawaii during my naval service there..
Refused to reconcile with me after I returned from the war..
Only to find ... that the Monsignor who married us refused to help save our marriage..
Only to be accused in divorce court of being a "sex maniac" ....
Only to learn years later that her child was that of another..
Only to receive a catholic annulment years later AFTER I left the church to return to Orthodoxy..


Karl, don't waste your time... Find a good Russian girl... marry her...

Tickerguy 198k posts, incept 2007-06-26
2023-09-08 16:50:36

Problem is that I'd have to move to Russia and I'm not about to do that.

"Anyone wearing a mask will be presumed to be intending armed robbery and immediately shot in the face. Govern yourself accordingly."
Elbowwilham 58 posts, incept 2021-08-20
2023-09-08 18:35:05

Timely post for me. I am looking to join the Eastern Orthodox church and am currently taking classes at the local parish. But I have the same issue with the marriage contract, as I went through a nasty divorce 4 years ago. While I still believe in the sanctity of marriage, I don't think the family court in the USA does.

Marriage in the Orthodox and Catholic church is a sacrament, similar to taking eucharist. You don't take eucharist in a non-Catholic church, why do we accept marriage terms from another organization?
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
Page 1 of 2  First12Last