New Lesbian Mayor And City Of Houston Aim At Pastors

[Aesop]

In the end, no harm done.

I saw what you did there.

I think you are mistaken as to why the state is involved in marriage licenses. It is not enough revenue to be worthwhile from that standpoint. The original purpose was to provide protections for child bearing women and their children by legally recognizing (and tying) the father to them. Since unions of one man/woman were the only way that made sense to do, that is how it was done. As there is a huge amount of evidence (that is growing) suggesting that the best outcomes from children come from situations where they grow up in two parent households with a mother and father, that is something which makes a great deal of sense for society to support.

For any other relationship, if they want to use contract law to bind themselves and set up whatever they want to set up – go for it, not my business. But the society does not really have an interest in that outcome so the state should stay out of it.
For the other things that are supposed benefits from marriage that they gays want, they are really a matter of the state sticking its nose in things it does not belong.

1. Insurance should be bought by individuals and they should be able to buy it for whoever they like. If you want to buy it for your live in boy/girl friend or you friend down the street, that should be your business.
2. Visitation (at hospitals and such) – why should any bureaucrat have any say on who visits you? If someone wants to visit you and you want them to do so, that should be the end of it.
3. Inheritance – see contract law/wills.
4. Tax treatment – this is actually a false flag because the tax treatment of married couples is actually rather negative. However, the easy fix to that is to eliminate the income tax and then it does not matter. Consumption taxes are both cheaper to administer and don’t require the .gov to micromanage peoples personal lives.

While all that's commendable common sense, it never catches on.

[Vonz90]

No, the reason why marriage licensing exists, is to apply eugenics and prevent miscegenation.

Those were the only and intended purposes for marriage licensing.

Marriage licenses date to the middle ages and had exactly nothing to do with either of those points. They were originally not a requirement, but just a way to move things along without having to go through the required announcement/waiting period.

In the US, they date to roughly middle of 1800's or before depending on the state, and there was certainly some overlap on the miscegenation point, but eugenics was not really a thing yet. (I certainly agree that some of the requirements added in the early 20th century in some states by the Progressives were along those lines - but that is a different point.)

Of course, even those places which recognize common law marriage, it is a man/woman thing because the point is to provide a legal status for the offspring. It doesn't really apply to single sex situations because there are no offspring.

[HTRN]

The only one I can think of who possibly meets that criteria is Shrillary, the biggest carpetbagger in the history of the republic, who had to move to NY because no one else in their right minds would have elected her, and even she had to go from Chicago to Wellesley to Arkansas to D.C. before coming to NY to get that "Midwestern" smell off herself, changing her political stripes the way Madonna changed personas in the 80s and 90s to get where she wanted to be.

Those are mostly NY politicians. I was referring to people who are referred to as "Nuyawkers" when they move somewhere else, usually with condencion. I'll let you in on a not so little secret - lifelong NYers, especially multigenerational ones, tend to be incredibly provincial - "The wilderness starts at the Hudson" and would no sooner leave the city than cut off their own hands. The ones you see moving to the Carolinas, Florida, etc tend to be ones who moved here from somewhere else - NJ, Conneticut, etc. The Hipster infestation in Brooklyn is a prime example.

As for the politicians, politics has become a job that you have to start early, so it only makes sense that their locals. And they got elected by pandering to those same left leaning jackasses that moved here, and the economic underclass that makes up a large percentage of the cities population.

[randy]

I'll let you in on a not so little secret - lifelong NYers, especially multigenerational ones, tend to be incredibly provincial

No! Really!

[D5CAV]

Chris is correct.

Even when the "one man, one woman" ruling came out of the Supreme Court in 1878, most jurisdictions didn't require marriage licenses.

Just to start an interesting conversation when I visit the PDRK, I say, "I'm against gay marriage. (Long pause) But I'm also against heterosexual marriage. Who I choose to associate with and in what manner is between my family and my pastor. It is none of the us.gov business."

Per the OP, as Mencken said, "Democracy is the political theory that people deserve to get the government they want ... And deserve to get it good and hard."

The people of Houston have spoken at the polls. They made their bed, now they get to sleep in it.

[Termite]

In the post-Civil War/Reconstruction South, marriage licenses were a way to prevent blacks and whites from marrying.

Louisiana is interesting in that you actually get 2 certificates. One is a marriage license from the Clerk of Court, that other is a Certificate of Marriage issued by the priest/minister/rabbi/etc after the ceremony is performed.

IIRC, not all states require licenses for marriage. Texas, for one, has a recognised common law marriage that carries the same legal standing as a "convention marriage".

As for Houston's mayor, she is now "hip-deep in kimchi". If you note the picture in the Houston Chronicle, you will see a large number of black pastors; and some of these churches are quite large. Blacks overwhelmingly vote Democrat, even morally conservative blacks. That was much of the mayor's support when she was originally elected. And now she has figuratively slapped them in the face.

[Goods2010]

Be very careful, I could tell you stories of my young, enlisted days with the whores on Brandenburg road. (Or, was that US 31W?) outside of Knox.

More Pawpaw stories!!! Imagine me bouncing around like an exited child.

I think it would be pretty cool to have a thread for a collection of stories...

On topic...

I hate this political issue. It makes me want to punch people in the face. People I like to interact with sometimes. However when they attempt to explain their view of the issue and "what its about" I respond with "Bullshit!" then politely walk away. "Same sex marriage banned" my foot... I have yet to see SWAT teams raiding a ceremony then hauling all persons involved to the gulag... They do not appreciate my smart ass remark of "Do you really need a piece of paper from the government to love your significant other?"

[Vonz90]

In the post-Civil War/Reconstruction South, marriage licenses were a way to prevent blacks and whites from marrying.

Except, as I pointed out, the use of marriage licenses pre dates the existence of the United States and the common availability of black people to marry even if someone happened to want to. (Which of course they should.)

Having a record of a marriage gave young women a layer of legal protection (from abandonment and such) which common law marriage did not. Marriage licenses were introduced replace the older system of a waiting period and announcement which was used to ensure the couple could legally marry (they were both of age, not blood related, not already married, etc.) The use of marriage licenses goes back to the middle ages.

Again, as I said, it is correct that they were put to that use later a lot of places. However, it is kind of tough to argue that something was invented for a certain purpose when it was not used for that purpose until 500+ years after it was invented.

[PawPaw]

After due consideration, I'm amazed not that the pastors were outraged, but at the fact that the Mayor didn't know that most sermons are in the public domain. They may be copyrighted but they're freely available to the public.

My church, for example, puts the sermons online. Freely available, to spread the Good News of Christ. I've seen editorials from other pastors who say that they would print their sermons, wrap them in a red ribbon, and personally deliver them to the Mayor, hoping hat she'd read the sermons, take the matter to heart, and repent from her sinful ways.

I suspect that my pastor (who commonly calls folks "skanks" from the pulpit,) would offer to deliver those sermons verbally from the front steps of City Hall.

[Aesop]

I suspect that my pastor (who commonly calls folks "skanks" from the pulpit,) would offer to deliver those sermons verbally from the front steps of City Hall.

The pastors in question should queue up at the mic at the next City Council meeting, and do just that.
After notifying the media, and their congregations.

Just like the military, the best way to stop a jackassical order and make the jackass promulgating it repent of such foolishness is to obey it to the hilt.

I do wonder though, that so far there's evidently no judge in the precincts of Houston with the jurisprudential wit to quash the mayorette's subpoenas for cause out of hand.
I can understand finding one simpleton to back them up, but that all of them do is beyond credence.

And if there is in fact no actual legal paperwork backing up the mayorette's demands, the simple answer would be to advise her Mayorness in an open letter in the Houston papers, that she forthwith wish in one hand, and crap in the other, and see which hand filled up first.