.png){kind=logo}
“If a man is valuable, his deeds will in some way outlive his life.” -Bill Loftus, Inventor
The Financial Freedom Foundation (F3) is a non-profit organization that teaches people how to create more passive income than their living expenses, so that they can quit living for a job and start dedicating their time and talents to giving back.
Personal financial independence is necessary in order to free up your time. However, financial independence is not the end goal, but rather an initial step, just the beginning step.
We’ll show you how to create $10k/month in passive income, so that you can cover your living expenses and quit your job, and then another $20k/month+ on top of that, so that you can have funds for helping other people. We have the tools to accomplish this, and we’ll show you exactly how to implement them. Money is very scalable, so you can actually get up into the millions, which will happen as your vision for what you want to accomplish increases.
Instead of trying to get wealthy people to become generous, we are teaching generous people how to create and control wealth, so that they can help others.
As to becoming a member in our Mastermind Group, we do not have any preferences as to age, gender, race, religion, level of education, or nationality … however, we are seeking people who:
If this does not describe you, don’t bother to continue reading.
If this does describe you, then please download the information in our Free Report and continue forward in our screening process.
We hand select people to join our Mastermind Group. If you would like to be considered, we ask you to:
(The links to access the Details page and the Membership Application Form are found in the Free Reports, which you can access by entering your Name and Email address in the box to the upper right and clicking the “Give Me My Free Report Now” button)
We believe that it is the personal responsibility of private citizens to care for the poor, the hungry, the homeless, the sick, and the elderly. We invite people to take more initiative in doing so, using their private sector skill sets to do this more effectively. We believe that the solutions to global poverty, world hunger, homelessness, and almost all our social, physical, mental, and economic problems rest in the hearts and minds of private individuals acting generously.
If you are ready to move to the next step, please download the Free Report now, using the box to the upper right.
“Never doubt that a small band of committed individuals can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” -Margaret Mead
Legal Disclaimer: The Financial Freedom Foundation is not a United States Securities Dealer, Broker or US Investment Adviser. Forex, futures, stock, and options trading are not appropriate for everyone. Trading and investing in the stock, Forex, futures, and options markets have large potential rewards. However, there is also a substantial risk of loss associated with trading these markets. Losses can and will occur. You are solely responsible for any losses as a result of trading. Never put your money on the line without an understanding of what you are doing, and why you are doing it, based on your own personal knowledge and experience. Results, depicted above are unique to the user. Your personal results will vary. You could make more, less, or even lose money. No system or methodology has ever been developed that can guarantee profits. No representation or implication is being made that using the information will generate profits or ensure freedom from losses. Traders should consult their own financial advisers regarding any securities transaction, and be responsible for their own investment decisions.
Question by chrisko692: Government Should Quit the Marriage Business?
I located this article “Government Need to Quit the Marriage Organization,” which I think would be a great solution to the political debate on gay marriage. I’m not looking to influence or persuade everyone, I’m just looking for men and women to post what very good points and flaws they see.
http://www.rossde.com/editorials/Dershowitz_marriage.html
“The decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declaring that gays have a constitutional right to marry could become a potent wedge issue in American politics. There is, nevertheless, a way to avoid that.
Those who oppose gay marriage think deeply that marriage is sacreda divine, a blessed sacrament in between man and woman as ordained in the Bible. If they are right, then the whole idea of marriage has no place in our civil society, which recognizes the separation between the sacred and the secular, in between church and state.
The state is, of course, concerned with the secular rights and responsibilities that are at the moment related with the sacrament of marriage: the economic consequences of divorce, the custody of youngsters, Social Security and hospital advantages, etc.
The answer is to unlink the religious institution of marriage — as distinguished from the secular institution of civil union — from the state. Under this proposal, any couple could register for civil union, recognized by the state, with all its rights and responsibilities.
Religious couples could then go to the church, synagogue, mosque or other sacred institution of their choice in order to be married. These religious institutions would have total choice-producing authority more than which marriages to recognize. Catholic churches would not recognize gay marriages. Orthodox Jewish synagogues would not recognize a marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew who did not wish to convert to Judaism. And those religious institutions that chose to recognize gay marriages could do so. It would be entirely a religious choice beyond the scope of the state.
Under this new arrangement, marriage would stay a sacrament, as ordained by the Bible and as interpreted by every individual church. No secular consequences would flow from marriage, only from civil union.
In this way, gay couples would win exactly the same rights as heterosexual couples in relationship to the state. They would nonetheless have to persuade individual churches of their point of view, but that is not the concern of the secular state.
Not only would this remedy be great for gays and for those who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds, it would also strengthen the wall of separation between church and state by placing a sacred institution entirely in the hands of the church although placing a secular institution under state manage.
Even though this proposal could sound radical, it does not differ fundamentally — except for labels — from the scenario that exists in numerous states nowadays. Throughout the United States, couples have the solution of getting married civilly by going to town halls or to a justice of the peace and just signing a marriage certificate. They also have the option of going to a church, synagogue or mosque and becoming married in a religious ceremony. So most Americans already have the choice between a sacrament and a secular agreement ratified by the state.
All that would be different would be the name we give the secular agreement. The word “marriage” would be reserved for those who chose the religious sacrament.
Although some traditionalists would be specific to balk at an explicit division between marriage and civil union, a majority of Americans already agree that gay couples ought to be allowed to join in secular unions with the rights and responsibilities that generally accompany marriage.
So let each and every couple make a decision whether or not they want to obtain the sacrament of marriage or the secular status of civil union. And let the state get out of the organization of determining who ought to get holy sacraments. “
Greatest answer:
Answer by MissJessica
The question is how significantly does a civil union relate to a marriage in terms of survivor rights, property rights, custody etc. Would you have to divorce to get out of a civil union? What are the parties known as Husband and Wife or participant 1 and participant two?
Give your answer to this question beneath!
Other articles you might like;
Related posts:
Comments are closed.
Flouride Dec 2 2011 - 9:25 pm
i’d get rid of both of them. marriage, civil union or whatever name you want to give it is just a scam for taking money away from dudes and giving it to chicks. i agree. government should get out of the marriage business, but they should get out completely!
Ogslog Mcbain Dec 2 2011 - 9:30 pm
The power vested in a minister or justice of the peace is given by the state. States give these rights and only the US Constitution says ‘Congress shall establish no state religion’. Certain religious things will never be done away with because it is part of the culture. Marriage is done in all religions and cultures throughout the world, and the US is one of only a few countries on the globe that do not have a state religion. The Constitution grants freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM it, or atheism would be the state religion by default. I have been married to the same person for 25 years and am a proponent of marriage because it works for me and countless others.
imacatholic2 Dec 2 2011 - 10:11 pm
I think I am beginning to agree.
Marriage is a religious institution. It predates all civil governments, including the United States of America. It has always been a religious expression and not a civil expression.
The Constitution of the United States of America has laid down the foundation of the concept of Religious Liberty where the State cannot interfere with the religious practice and experience of citizens. Almost immediately, the government crossed this line in the regulation and licensing of Marriage. Because, at the time, the government’s definition of Marriage corresponded with the great majority of the citizen’s religious belief of marriage this line crossing was unobserved.
A few people wanted to divorce their spouses which violated the religious doctrine of many Americans. The government changed its definition of marriage and began to interfere even more with the religious beliefs of more and more citizens.
More recently, even fewer people wanted to marry people of the same gender. Once again, the government is changing its definition of marriage and is interfering with even more of the religious beliefs of more and more citizens.
Some local and state governments have created legal “civil unions” for homosexual couples and given them all the same legal rights and responsibilities as those in marriages.
I propose that the government withdraw from its unconstitutional interference with Marriage which is a religious institution. The government should reclassify all “legal” marriages to civil unions. The definition of civil union is then up to what the government decides and does not interfere with the religious institution of Marriage.
With love in Christ.