Jesus “tells us to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s”

[PostmodernProph]

????....why do you say "nope" and then state the fact which makes it a yup?......the recording with the state is what creates the ability to enforce the agreement against persons other than the man and woman getting married.......

nope; even State is Prohibited from impairing in the Obligation of Contracts.

???.....yes.....that is why I say the state imposes recognition of the marriage upon those not a party to the contract.....if we could ignore the agreement that two people entered into there would be no issue......it is the act of the state in certifying it that causes the imposition......

a marriage contract can simply be recorded with the public sector for full faith and credit purposes and to establish that Obligation of that Contract.

let me try a third time to clarify for you.....to put it simply....THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING!......there, did that help?........

No, dear; simply because you are full of fallacy.

No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

omigorsh this is so stupid......somebody should impose a gold standard on your head........

 

[danielpalos]

nope; even State is Prohibited from impairing in the Obligation of Contracts.

???.....yes.....that is why I say the state imposes recognition of the marriage upon those not a party to the contract.....if we could ignore the agreement that two people entered into there would be no issue......it is the act of the state in certifying it that causes the imposition......

a marriage contract can simply be recorded with the public sector for full faith and credit purposes and to establish that Obligation of that Contract.

let me try a third time to clarify for you.....to put it simply....THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING!......there, did that help?........

No, dear; simply because you are full of fallacy.

No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

omigorsh this is so stupid......somebody should impose a gold standard on your head........

did you know that the only Thing more "stupid" than a valid argument, is one that is full of fallacy?

 

[PostmodernProph]

???.....yes.....that is why I say the state imposes recognition of the marriage upon those not a party to the contract.....if we could ignore the agreement that two people entered into there would be no issue......it is the act of the state in certifying it that causes the imposition......

a marriage contract can simply be recorded with the public sector for full faith and credit purposes and to establish that Obligation of that Contract.

let me try a third time to clarify for you.....to put it simply....THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING!......there, did that help?........

No, dear; simply because you are full of fallacy.

No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

omigorsh this is so stupid......somebody should impose a gold standard on your head........

did you know that the only Thing more "stupid" than a valid argument, is one that is full of fallacy?

wrong......the one more stupid is the one raised by someone who thinks he knows what the topic is, but doesn't.......

 

[danielpalos]

a marriage contract can simply be recorded with the public sector for full faith and credit purposes and to establish that Obligation of that Contract.

let me try a third time to clarify for you.....to put it simply....THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING!......there, did that help?........

No, dear; simply because you are full of fallacy.

No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

omigorsh this is so stupid......somebody should impose a gold standard on your head........

did you know that the only Thing more "stupid" than a valid argument, is one that is full of fallacy?

wrong......the one more stupid is the one raised by someone who thinks he knows what the topic is, but doesn't.......

thank you for only having fallacy for your cause.

 

[PostmodernProph]

thank you for thinking we were discussing the gold standard......

 

[danielpalos]

thank you for thinking we were discussing the gold standard......

there is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws, grasshopper.

No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

 

[PostmodernProph]

/whispers.....nobody here has ever suggested the state is impairing any contracts.......

 

[danielpalos]

/whispers.....nobody here has ever suggested the state is impairing any contracts.......

only the cognitive dissonance of the right accounts for your whispers.

employment Contracts and marriage Contracts are not State "license-able".

 

[PostmodernProph]

/whispers.....nobody here has ever suggested the state is impairing any contracts.......

only the cognitive dissonance of the right accounts for your whispers.

employment Contracts and marriage Contracts are not State "license-able".

without a state license, is a marriage contract binding on florists and bakers?....or insurance companies examining spousal rights?.....

 

[PratchettFan]

thank you for thinking we were discussing the gold standard......

there is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws, grasshopper.

No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

Your understanding of the clause is imperfect, as it does not apply to this situation. First, that prohibition applies to existing contracts. The state cannot create an issue with a contract ex post facto, but it can create requirements for contracts prior to the existence of those contracts which would void aspects of the contract if they failed to comply. Second, in the case the contract you are referring to (but have not produced) the state is a party and no one is suggesting they have impaired it. Finally, that prohibition applies to state law only. But the issue here is federal law, not state law. There is no prohibition when it comes to the Congress nor, and this is the important bit, the Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

marriage contracts and employment contracts are a natural right and may occur first.

 

[PratchettFan]

marriage contracts and employment contracts are a natural right and may occur first.

There is no such thing as a natural right. It is either in the law or it is not.

 

[danielpalos]

marriage contracts and employment contracts are a natural right and may occur first.

There is no such thing as a natural right. It is either in the law or it is not.

the concept of natural rights is recognized in law.

 

[PratchettFan]

marriage contracts and employment contracts are a natural right and may occur first.

There is no such thing as a natural right. It is either in the law or it is not.

the concept of natural rights is recognized in law.

Yes, we have confirmed that all rights derive from the law and only the law. Thank you for again confirming that calling it "natural" means nothing.

 

[danielpalos]

marriage contracts and employment contracts are a natural right and may occur first.

There is no such thing as a natural right. It is either in the law or it is not.

the concept of natural rights is recognized in law.

Yes, we have confirmed that all rights derive from the law and only the law. Thank you for again confirming that calling it "natural" means nothing.

the concept means something; especially with our limited and federal form of government.