Elections and Junk.

[JPC sr]

The truth will set us all free.

but then that allows the government to decide if you should stay married or not. It would be easier to make getting married harder.

No, that would be taking it way too far.

Besides it is only an idea that still need the bugs worked out.

It is not part of my agenda for the US Congress as it is only working out ideas.

The point is only that the laws are meant to protect marriages and to defend the family and not to promote divorce as is done now.

 

[FerretRescue]

No, that would be taking it way too far.

Besides it is only an idea that still need the bugs worked out.

It is not part of my agenda for the US Congress as it is only working out ideas.

The point is only that the laws are meant to protect marriages and to defend the family and not to promote divorce as is done now.

hmmm, then let me jump in and ask this. HOW?
I am with somdprincess on this, and here is why

If keeping people married is the goal, then why not make getting married harder? Doesn't the Catholic church have classes or something like that before they are married?

Why not have them go through classes, some type of counseling or something to make them think before they take that step. It would be much easier to handle then trying to keep two people that do not want to be together stay together.


Anybody can come up with an idea. It take dedication to make the idea happen.

 

[JPC sr]

The truth will set us all free.

understandable. I was just curious as to why you would want to stregthen marriages when you did not do yours. I am not trying to throw stones.

It just reminded me of the drinker who quits drinking or the smoker who quits smoking.

I did want my own marriage to last forever and to have lots of children and I live now with regrets.

That being like a reformed addict that now preaches the evils there-of does sound like me.

Marriage is important and fragile and it needs protections especially for the younger first marriages and I know it well from my own failures.

What are you plans to promote your platform? Any public appearances?

No public appearances and I am doing a Washington Post interview soon so I will get publicity before February 12th election Day.

Since Hoyer is so rich then it is better for me to stay low key and just stand on a simple message.

"Pro-Life Cusick verses abortion-boy Hoyer".

 

[FerretRescue]

I did want my own marriage to last forever and to have lots of children and I live now with regrets.

That being like a reformed addict that now preaches the evils there-of does sound like me.

Marriage is important and fragile and it needs protections especially for the younger first marriages and I know it well from my own failures. No public appearances and I am doing a Washington Post interview soon so I will get publicity before February 12th election Day.

Since Hoyer is so rich then it is better for me to stay low key and just stand on a simple message.

"Pro-Life Cusick verses abortion-boy Hoyer".

okay that was really insightful.

 

[JPC sr]

The truth will set us all free.

hmmm, then let me jump in and ask this. HOW?
I am with somdprincess on this, and here is why

If keeping people married is the goal, then why not make getting married harder? Doesn't the Catholic church have classes or something like that before they are married?

Why not have them go through classes, some type of counseling or something to make them think before they take that step. It would be much easier to handle then trying to keep two people that do not want to be together stay together.


Anybody can come up with an idea. It take dedication to make the idea happen.

Okay, sorry SomdPrincess as I see now.

I do like that plan of pre-marriage education,

but lets not call it "making marriages harder" but some thing more like "helping marriages begin".

 

[FerretRescue]

Okay, sorry SomdPrincess as I see now.

I do like that plan of pre-marriage education,

but lets not call it "making marriages harder" but some thing more like "helping marriages begin".

Sorry not somdprincess...But I did play her once on tv...

but on the serious side that is a good idea, preparation for marriage.

 

[Giantone]

I did want my own marriage to last forever and to have lots of children and I live now with regrets.

That being like a reformed addict that now preaches the evils there-of does sound like me.

Marriage is important and fragile and it needs protections especially for the younger first marriages and I know it well from my own failures. No public appearances and I am doing a Washington Post interview soon so I will get publicity before February 12th election Day.

Since Hoyer is so rich then it is better for me to stay low key and just stand on a simple message.

"Pro-Life Cusick verses abortion-boy Hoyer".

How does scum like you get any lower?

 

[Giantone]

Okay, sorry SomdPrincess as I see now.

I do like that plan of pre-marriage education,

but lets not call it "making marriages harder" but some thing more like "helping marriages begin".

This is what I mean,..it's called EDUCATION.Educate the couple on life.........something JPC knows nothing of.

 

[somdprincess]

Okay, sorry SomdPrincess as I see now.

I do like that plan of pre-marriage education,

but lets not call it "making marriages harder" but some thing more like "helping marriages begin".

call it whatever you want

 

[JPC sr]

The truth will set us all free.

Sorry not somdprincess...But I did play her once on tv...

but on the serious side that is a good idea, preparation for marriage.

Problem is that our present system is not set up that way.

The foremost thing we can push for is to stop the already agressive attacks on the families by the unjust custody and child support laws.

Our corrupt system is now giving pre-marriage preparation in the form of pre-nuptual agreements that allows the richer spouse to screw the poorer from the beginning.

For me I like the idea of a pre-nuptual agreement if it is to agree on how to make the marriage work for life, but not a pre-nup that plans for divorce.

Reforming the unjust laws would be a gigantic task.

 

[JPC sr]

The truth will set us all free.

This is what I mean,..it's called EDUCATION.Educate the couple on life.........something JPC knows nothing of.

That is true in that I do not know everything.

I like that idea of education, and the Country needs all the help that we can get.

You can help too.

 

[somdprincess]

Problem is that our present system is not set up that way.

The foremost thing we can push for is to stop the already agressive attacks on the families by the unjust custody and child support laws.

Our corrupt system is now giving pre-marriage preparation in the form of pre-nuptual agreements that allows the richer spouse to screw the poorer from the beginning.

For me I like the idea of a pre-nuptual agreement if it is to agree on how to make the marriage work for life, but not a pre-nup that plans for divorce.

Reforming the unjust laws would be a gigantic task.

The government does not require a pre nup. That is just a optional legal document.

There is nothing corrupt about that. You sign or don't sign. Period.

It would be nice before you qualify for a marriage license that you are required to put in so many hours of commuinty service, and pass a series of marriage prep classes.

 

[This_person]

The government does not require a pre nup. That is just a optional legal document.

There is nothing corrupt about that. You sign or don't sign. Period.

It would be nice before you qualify for a marriage license that you are required to put in so many hours of commuinty service, and pass a series of marriage prep classes.

No offense intended, but isn't that taking things awfully far out? What I mean is, do we really want there to be some sort of test (intelligence, compatibility, whatever) before we're allowed to marry someone? A test our government issues and oversees?

This is purely a personal responsibility issue. Get married when you (and your support group of family, church guidance/pastor/whatever, and friends) and your intended are ready. If you were wrong, and you just cannot make it work (your decision when that is), then you get divorced. Hopefully, you weren't wrong.

The government should not give permission to marry, deny divorce, nor have any other input into your personal life. You obtain a marriage license to show the legal connection for tax, medical, etc. purposes. You get divorced to separate yourself from those connections. Outside of that, and protecting children from non-custodial parents who would choose to not support their own children, I don't see what business it is of the government. The divorce issues get crazy when two adults can't act like adults, and an impartial judge has to come in and decide the issues for them.

 

[JPC sr]

The truth will set us all free.

The government does not require a pre nup. That is just a optional legal document.

There is nothing corrupt about that. You sign or don't sign. Period.

The gov gives the legal authority to the pre-nup as that is what "legal document" means.

If we were in another Country or if marriage were under a religious institution then they give authority to the marriage and rules of marriage and no "pre-nup" would undermine the laws of God or the laws of State.

The pre-nups are now superior to the marriage covenant because the pre-nup is given higher authority then the law and that is what our gov gives to the pre-nup.

If a rich person marries a poorer person under a pre-nup then they stay married for five (5 or whatever) years then decide to get a divorce in accord with the pre-nup and that mean there was no marriage in the first place.

It was just a temporary civil union that undermines the real institution of marriage.

It would be nice before you qualify for a marriage license that you are required to put in so many hours of commuinty service, and pass a series of marriage prep classes.

I would prefer not to "require" it but make it attractive.

Like give particular legal rewards for participating in the pre-marriage class.

Like giving legal protection that if anyone out side that marriage thereafter violates or adulterates that marriage would face criminal prosecution.

And maybe give the graduating couple a free set of wedding rings that mark the marriage as blessed and protected by the laws.

 

[This_person]

Ahh, the good ol' days.....

YES THAT IS THE ANSWER #$%^&

YOUR POST IS HYPOCRITICAL.

CAN YOU NOT SEE ??

CAN YOU NOT READ ??

Call it a reply if you can not fathom the answer,

but that was it, DUH.

 

[This_person]

Remember, when casting your vote:

If any child is in that condition it is only - ONLY because of neglect or abuse by the custodial.

They have custody.

If any child in the entire USA does without then it is only -ONLY because of neglect or abuse by the custodial - only by the custodial.

 

[somdprincess]

No offense intended, but isn't that taking things awfully far out? What I mean is, do we really want there to be some sort of test (intelligence, compatibility, whatever) before we're allowed to marry someone? A test our government issues and oversees?

This is purely a personal responsibility issue. Get married when you (and your support group of family, church guidance/pastor/whatever, and friends) and your intended are ready. If you were wrong, and you just cannot make it work (your decision when that is), then you get divorced. Hopefully, you weren't wrong.

The government should not give permission to marry, deny divorce, nor have any other input into your personal life. You obtain a marriage license to show the legal connection for tax, medical, etc. purposes. You get divorced to separate yourself from those connections. Outside of that, and protecting children from non-custodial parents who would choose to not support their own children, I don't see what business it is of the government. The divorce issues get crazy when two adults can't act like adults, and an impartial judge has to come in and decide the issues for them.

I am just throwing it out there. Maybe not permission but making people stop
to think and really prepare for marriage instead of just jumping in blind.

 

[somdprincess]

The gov gives the legal authority to the pre-nup as that is what "legal document" means.

If we were in another Country or if marriage were under a religious institution then they give authority to the marriage and rules of marriage and no "pre-nup" would undermine the laws of God or the laws of State.

The pre-nups are now superior to the marriage covenant because the pre-nup is given higher authority then the law and that is what our gov gives to the pre-nup.

If a rich person marries a poorer person under a pre-nup then they stay married for five (5 or whatever) years then decide to get a divorce in accord with the pre-nup and that mean there was no marriage in the first place.

It was just a temporary civil union that undermines the real institution of marriage. I would prefer not to "require" it but make it attractive.

Like give particular legal rewards for participating in the pre-marriage class.

Like giving legal protection that if anyone out side that marriage thereafter violates or adulterates that marriage would face criminal prosecution.

And maybe give the graduating couple a free set of wedding rings that mark the marriage as blessed and protected by the laws.

Prosecution for adultry? Whats next a scarlet letter and stoning?

 

[JPC sr]

The truth will set us all free.

Prosecution for adultry?

That is not likely to happen any time soon from this wicked society.

Again, it is just an idea and not my political platform or agenda.

But I say to ONLY prosecute the outsider that actually adulterates the marriage and not the married spouse that messed up.

The married spouse does never get off free from reprecussions but under force of law the gov must protect the marriage and defend the family from immoral attacks from outside.

If some one comes into our house and steals stuff then we can blame the owner that left the door open and left the valuables exposed but the law punishes the thief.

So the outsider adulterer that violates a marriage and family is a destructive part of our society that needs to be controlled.

Whats next a scarlet letter and stoning?

Well look at what is left now.

High divorce rates, broken homes, damaged families, children without their parent, custody battles, child support collection agencies, and more.

We either defend marriages and protect families or else we watch our society deteriorate.

 

[This_person]

I am just throwing it out there. Maybe not permission but making people stop
to think and really prepare for marriage instead of just jumping in blind.

That's up to them, though, isn't it? The way they were raised, their parents/morals/etc.