He then explained some of the technicalities of the marriage license. He said, first of all, the marriage license is Secular Contract between the parties and the State. The State is the principal party in that Secular Contract. The husband and wife are secondary or inferior parties. The Secular Contract is a three-way contract between the State, as Principal, and the husband and wife as the other two legs of the Contract. He said, in the traditional sense a marriage is a covenant between the husband and wife and God. But in the Secular Contract with the state, reference to God is a dotted line, and not officially considered included in the Secular Contract at all.

Consideration on the part of the husband and wife is the actual fee paid and the implied agreement to be subject to the state's statutes, rules, and regulations and all court cases ruled on related to marriage law, family law, children, and property. He emphasized that this contractual consideration by the bride and groom places them in a definite and defined-by-law position inferior and subject to the State. He commented that very few people realize this. He also said that it is very important to understand that children born to the marriage are considered by law as "the contract bearing fruit" -- meaning the children primarily belong to the State, even though the law never comes out and says so in so many words.

In this regard, children born to the contract regarded as "the contract bearing fruit," he said it is vitally important for parents to understand two doctrines that became established in the United States during the 1930s. The first is the Doctrine of Parens Patriae. The second is the Doctrine of In Loco Parentis. Parens Patriae means literally "the parent of the country" or to state it more bluntly – the State is the undisclosed true parent. Along this line, a 1930s Arizona Supreme Court case states that parents have no property right in their children, and have custody of their children during good behavior at the sufferance of the State. This means that parents may raise their children and maintain custody of their children as long as they don't offend the State, but if they in some manner displease the State, the State can step in at any time and exercise its superior status and take custody and control of its children -- the parents are only conditional caretakers.

By way of reference, if you would like to read a legal treatise on marriage, one of the best is "Principles of Community Property," by William Defuniak. At the outset, he explains that Community Property law decends from Roman Civil Law through the Spanish Codes, 600 A.D., written by the Spanish jurisconsults. In the civil law, the marriage is considered to be a for-profit venture or profit-making venture (even though it may never actually produce a profit in operation) and as the wife goes out to the local market to purchase food stuffs and other supplies for the marriage household, she is replenishing the stocks of the business. To restate: In the civil law, the marriage is considered to be a business venture, that is, a for-profit business venture. Moreover, as children come into the marriage household, the business venture is considered to have "borne fruit."

I will say this as well since our "love lives" have been legislated. We should not let our emotions ever decide when they conflict against the statistics.

I sat in a debate on the House floor of the Indiana State Representatives, a packed house I might add. The debate was between a medical doctor who had a friend that was gay and wanted to marry his partner and an Indiana State Rep. I thought this "logical, calculating," medical doctor was going to shut the state rep down. What I learned about countries that have allowed state sanctioned marriage was flooring. I had no idea. The Representative effectively shut the doctor down with hard facts that left the doctor's closing statement with literally "i love my wife and I am lucky to have her. She is my best friend. I am lucky we were both born heterosexual so we could fall in love and get married, my friend can not." I thought, "WHAT!!!??" that's it? That is his argument?

Somethings in Denmark have experienced are the highest rate of alchol and drug abuse in the world among young adults whose parents are homosexual partners verses those in a traditional marriage. Before you think it is because of close-minded social stigmas thrust upon them stop because you will be wrong. You see when two women/men are married they more times than not divorce at a higher rate than heterosexuals. The cost to society and the public coffers is overwhelming. For one, everybody in economics knows divorce is costly. Two, children more often than not were brought into the family "unaturally" through surrogates and adoption. Guess what happens when custody battles come. Most go from fighting and using the child as a weapon to threaten the other with using the child as a burden. Before you think the alcohol/drug abuse is higher in all adopted children stop again you will be wrong. Overwhelmingly it is higher in young adults that are from same sex families. The children tend to need more counseling, therapy, medication, and typically have a high rate of suicide after the "state" fails them. Who do you think bears the burden of taxes and "health care" in these socialized systems of "state parenting?" That's right society!

SO before we go making decisions based on aww what feels good we need to look at some cold hard facts as I am sure Mr. Romney has done.

Ridiculous to have to come up with an argument in order to be entitled to rights that we should never have been denied in the first place, don't you think?

Because community = people and business = profit.

Originally posted by IsThisThingBugged
reply to post by Cuervo

---

So should Mitt have said he supported gay marriage to appease this guy? I applaud any politician that is consistent, and doesn't just tell people what they want to hear.