Marriage Licenses: The Real Truth

Pretty much any law having something to do with sex, drugs, entertainment and music.

Specific examples:

prostitution
drug war
censorship of music, movies, television, news, etc.

There's also the big fearmongering movement about Sharia law, while promoting the 10 commandments in public courts. Not saying that I think it's all bad or even avoidable, but it's certainly there. It's a nanny-state mindset to demand that the gov't censor what your children see on TV...

Are you talking about FCC public decency regulations?
 
Pretty much any law having something to do with sex, drugs, entertainment and music.

Specific examples:

prostitution
drug war
censorship of music, movies, television, news, etc.

There's also the big fearmongering movement about Sharia law, while promoting the 10 commandments in public courts. Not saying that I think it's all bad or even avoidable, but it's certainly there. It's a nanny-state mindset to demand that the gov't censor what your children see on TV...

The biggest censorship people have always been liberal Democrats. Check them out in action:



Liberals also advocate the "fairness doctrine" for radio. Even "religious" neocons are against that.

There is nothing wrong with promoting the 10 commandments in public, since our country has a basis in those laws. Ron Paul just said at the last debate that no Christian should be barred from advocating for their religion in a public place.
 
At the end of the link in the OP it says this:
If there is a license, terminate the contract with the state
based on not having full disclosure at the time of signing.

Does anybody know what "terminate the contract" means?
 
The claim that Abraham Lincoln didn't have a marriage license is false.
442.jpg
 
Last edited:
Are you talking about FCC public decency regulations?

Partially (and yes, I know Tipper Gore played a part as well.) Social conservatives are notorious for trying to force people (like Howard Stern and other "shock jocks") off the air.

The biggest censorship people have always been liberal Democrats. Check them out in action:



Liberals also advocate the "fairness doctrine" for radio. Even "religious" neocons are against that.

There is nothing wrong with promoting the 10 commandments in public, since our country has a basis in those laws. Ron Paul just said at the last debate that no Christian should be barred from advocating for their religion in a public place.


Didn't say that liberals had nothing to do with it, however, to try to say that social conservatives are not for censorship is not true. (And if you'll notice, I didn't say that I thought that all of it, like the 10 commandments, was necessarily a bad thing.) The "Ground Zero Mosque" craptoversy was mostly pushed by social conservatives.

I'm not trying to argue that liberals are great on the issue, because that'd be untrue. But it's just as untrue that social conservatives are great on the issue, and I don't understand why anyone would argue otherwise when it's so obvious.
 
I disagree. They could throw "God" in the contract and it wouldn't make one bit of difference--in fact, it's an option.

I don't think you understood his point. at all. adding one three letter monosyllable to a statutory licensing contract is as good (or meaningless) as another three letter monosyllable, say "toy." It's the statutory licensing contract itself that is fundamentally wrong. Take marriage away from the state altogether and give it back to God under the sole authority of the church, and pretty much all of this angst goes away.
 
I don't think you understood his point. at all. adding one three letter monosyllable to a statutory licensing contract is as good (or meaningless) as another three letter monosyllable, say "toy." It's the statutory licensing contract itself that is fundamentally wrong. Take marriage away from the state altogether and give it back to God under the sole authority of the church, and pretty much all of this angst goes away.

I understood his point. Thanks though.
 
censorship of music, movies, television, news, etc.

I forget the name but I've heard that the agency that provides rating for movies, PG, PG-13, R, etc. has a priest as one of the decision makers on what the rating of a movie will be. If they don't like something (mostly sex, violence is ok) they can give it a NC-17 rating making sure the movie won't make any money...
 
I forget the name but I've heard that the agency that provides rating for movies, PG, PG-13, R, etc. has a priest as one of the decision makers on what the rating of a movie will be. If they don't like something (mostly sex, violence is ok) they can give it a NC-17 rating making sure the movie won't make any money...

That would be the MPAA.
 
Wow, so much good information here.

I would just like to add that this makes a lot of sense and holds a lot of significance for me, since my little sister is having her child out of wedlock, and it is ridiculous the amount of government welfare programs these parents need just in order to support the child. As a result, the mother is forced to cede ownership of her child to the state. We've decided that adoption is the best option as of now.

I hope your sister is the one getting to make the decision. If she does place the baby for adoption I'm sure she'll make the new parent(s) very happy. We'd like to adopt but we really can't afford it right now.
 
I really hate how the marriage argument is all about gays getting married, but never questions why most states require you to apply for a marriage license, and get married by an "AUTHORIZED" individual. I guess yes gays are discriminated against if they can't get a government-sanctioned permission slip to be married, but for anyone with at least two marbles in their head, actually being with somebody and exchanging vows is enough. The way some of these gay people describe not being able to get a government marriage license makes it sound like any day they can go to jail for being gay. Stupid.
 
Back
Top