Colorado proposal would require pre-marriage education classes

Not RKBA, but...

A California group has proposed a ballot initiative in Colorado that would require couples who want to get married to take mandatory pre-marriage education classes.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...marriage-education-classes/?intcmp=latestnews

Click to expand...

Sound familiar. If Colorado mandates training for marriages, civil unions would be excluded, then gun ownership could be predicated on a requirement to be trained. 10 hours for your first firearm, 20 for the second, and 30 for the third and subsequent firearms. If you lose a firearm you would due to theft then your next firearm would be treated as if it was your first.

Though, if the firearm is a rental, then it would be excluded from the training requirement.

Another example of a state who thinks it can create a privilege out of the voluntary actions of individuals.

sudden valley gunner said:

Another example of a state who thinks it can create a privilege out of the voluntary actions of individuals.

Click to expand...

Licensed marriage IS, by the very fact that it is licensed, a privilege. You can marry a pig and call it your wife if you want to. That marriage will simply not be recognized by the State and your relationship with the pig won't enjoy any legal standing any different than the that of a relationship of any other man living in sin with his pig.

A tax cut for completing the training, that the couple pays for out of pocket. It's for the children. Civil unions would not bear such a burden.

The proponents appeal to emotion is widespread and indiscriminate. The bribe is obvious. The detractors voice one common theme, the government should not be in the marriage business.

Why are civil unions exempted is the key question.

OC for ME said:

A tax cut for completing the training, that the couple pays for out of pocket. It's for the children. Civil unions would not bear such a burden.

The proponents appeal to emotion is widespread and indiscriminate. The bribe is obvious. The detractors voice one common theme, the government should not be in the marriage business.

Why are civil unions exempted is the key question.

Click to expand...

+1

What business does the state have in creating a privilege? Especially one based on tradition/religion/custom.

Especially when you consider the history of state issued "license" to marriage.

sudden valley gunner said:

+1

What business does the state have in creating a privilege? Especially one based on tradition/religion/custom.

Especially when you consider the history of state issued "license" to marriage.

Click to expand...

Business? None. Interest? Plenty...

It's not far fetched to assume the government wants to become the sole provider/owner of *everything* for its citizens. If there is a way to profit from or exploit a service, you can be sure they either own it, control it or have shares in it.

Medicine, marriage, intoxicants, guns, hunting, farming, entrepreneurship, construction, transport, property use, etc...

eye95 said:

Licensed marriage IS, by the very fact that it is licensed, a privilege. You can marry a pig and call it your wife if you want to. That marriage will simply not be recognized by the State and your relationship with the pig won't enjoy any legal standing any different than the that of a relationship of any other man living in sin with his pig.

Click to expand...

But Bill Clinton's marriage was recognized...

WalkingWolf said:

But Bill Clinton's marriage was recognized...

Click to expand...

I see what you did there...

I love how the str8s are uppity about one state contemplating marriage counseling prior to marriage. No one seems to mind that you're treated the same way prior to getting a concealed carry license.

Hey, if you don't want to take marriage counseling in Colorado, to get married, then don't plan to get married in Colorado... You could always go to a different state that offers councilor-free marriage.

PistolPackingMomma said:

Business? None. Interest? Plenty...

It's not far fetched to assume the government wants to become the sole provider/owner of *everything* for its citizens. If there is a way to profit from or exploit a service, you can be sure they either own it, control it or have shares in it.

Medicine, marriage, intoxicants, guns, hunting, farming, entrepreneurship, construction, transport, property use, etc...

Click to expand...

+1 and why I think the trend of courts ruling in "states interest" is a horrible abomination.

DrakeZ07 said:

I love how the str8s are uppity about one state contemplating marriage counseling prior to marriage. No one seems to mind that you're treated the same way prior to getting a concealed carry license.

Hey, if you don't want to take marriage counseling in Colorado, to get married, then don't plan to get married in Colorado... You could always go to a different state that offers councilor-free marriage.

Click to expand...

Interesting use of bigoted phrasing.

Being "straight" has nothing to do with it. Nice try though.

And yet no test to become a legislator.

I always thought that a marriage license should be just like your driver's license; first, you get a learner's permit good for one year. Then you get a license that must be renewed every four or five years. Would sure cut down on a lot of divorces.:lol:

Seriously, I've said it before: Marriage consists of two components. One is a civil contract that religion has no business interfering with and that should be binding between consenting adults. The other is a religious sacrament that the government has no business interfering with.

The various religious bodies can determine whether or not they want to perform same-gender ceremonies or not.

It would seem to me that the First Amendment would prohibit both the federal and the state governments from passing laws restricting the right to form a civil contract based upon religious principles. But the federal government outlawed polygamy, a breach of the First Amendment, and the various states outlawed same-gender civil contracts which, to me, is another such violation.

One other point: If the civil contract portion of marriage is not, in fact, a civil contract, then why are we required to go to court to dissolve that contract?

DrakeZ07 said:

I love how the str8s are uppity about one state contemplating marriage counseling prior to marriage. No one seems to mind that you're treated the same way prior to getting a concealed carry license.

Hey, if you don't want to take marriage counseling in Colorado, to get married, then don't plan to get married in Colorado... You could always go to a different state that offers councilor-free marriage.

Click to expand...

Gays can always go to a state that recognizes gay marriage if your state does not.

OC for ME said:

Gays can always go to a state that recognizes gay marriage if your state does not.

Click to expand...

However, upon return to the State that does not recognize homosexual marriage, that State will not have to recognize it, nor will one's employer, absent a law or ordinance requiring that recognition.

eye95 said:

However, upon return to the State that does not recognize homosexual marriage, that State will not have to recognize it, nor will one's employer, absent a law or ordinance requiring that recognition.

Click to expand...

True, and thus getting married in a state that does not mandate training may not be recognized in the state that does mandate training. Just as a CCW permit that does not require training to obtain may not be recognized in a state that does require training to obtain a CCW permit.

UC, and UM, is the goal.

What a tangled web they weave when the magic granting of privilege they conceive.

I am OK with licensed marriage--and it being heterosexual and monogamous (and no animals). As had been ruled in NY, the State has a compelling interest in promoting a family structure that has a father and a mother. Therefore recognizing that relationship in an official way is a reasonable function of State government. It left open the possibility that the State could recognize and promote other relationships, but ruled that licensing only heterosexual and monogamous (and human) marriage was not unconstitutional.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

eye95 said:

I am OK with licensed marriage--and it being heterosexual and monogamous (and no animals). As had been ruled in NY, the State has a compelling interest in promoting a family structure that has a father and a mother. Therefore recognizing that relationship in an official way is a reasonable function of State government. It left open the possibility that the State could recognize and promote other relationships, but ruled that licensing only heterosexual and monogamous (and human) marriage was not unconstitutional.


<o>

Click to expand...

I recognize individual liberty and that a state is created to protect those.

b0neZ said:

I see what you did there...

Click to expand...

my question is... which one is the pig, Bill or Hill?

Grim_Night said:

my question is... which one is the pig, Bill or Hill?

Click to expand...

Yes. One of them just wears lipstick.