Posted on 03/25/2013 8:57:25 AM PDT by Olog-hai
This week the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on two of the most critical cases of our time. On Tuesday, March 26, attorneys will make the pitch both for and against California’s Proposition 8. This, of course, is the Golden State’s pro-marriage amendment. It maintained the timeless definition of natural marriage as between man and wife.
Then, on Wednesday, March 27, the high court will consider the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed in 1996 with overwhelming bipartisan support and signed into law by then President Bill Clinton. It, likewise, secured the definition of legitimate marriage for purposes of federal law. …
The stakes could not be higher. Of central concern is whether the Supreme Court will put its official stamp of approval on that cartoonish contradiction-in-terms labeled “same-sex marriage.” Ultimately, these nine justices will decide either to recklessly deconstruct, radically redefine and render functionally trivial the age-old institution of natural marriage—or leave it alone.
They’d better leave it alone. …
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
Very unconstitutional.
Marriage is a sacriment of the Church (or synagogue).
What the earthly government decides is “marriage” is irrelevant to me. They might as well pass a law stating the sky is green and water dry.
The earthly government is responsible to God too, whether they realize it or not.
“Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But, if it is flat, will the King’s command make it round? And, if it is round, will the King’s command flatten it?”
-Robert Bolt in Man For All Seasons (Thomas More’s character)
The state has no business in Sacraments of the Church, whether recognizing them or TAXING them, as all states do.
Those who believe God is powerless to protect a Sacrament against the State may as well be atheists. I wonder what kind of god they worship.
Well, I predict some 5-4 votes on these cases.
Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor will vote for homosexual marriage, no question on them.
Alito, Scalia, and Thomas will vote that there is no constitutional right to homosexual marriage.
Justices Kennedy and John Roberts will be the deciding votes, which ever way it goes.
It really disturbs me that these cases are discussed in terms of policy, i.e. activists in favor of gay marriage want the judges to vote for same, rather than on any legal grounds. The homosexual activists want them to vote for same sex marriage as a policy matter. They want the Court to ignore all manner of legal proceedings, laws passed by numerous states on the subject of marriage, etc. They want the Court to rule that states have no right to make marriage and family law, because of the need to impose homosexual marriage as an explicit policy of this country.
I mention family law too, because if homosexual marriage is imposed by these rulings, then follow up lawsuits on subjects such as homosexual adoption will follow. Again, states will be in a position in which they will be told they are not allowed to make family law or policy, because such laws or policies may conflict with what homosexual activists want.
While I am completely against gay marriage, perspective demands that we keep sight of what is ACTUALLY killing marriage....
DIVORCE.
Those words, “until death do us part” mean absolutely nothing to most people today. I cannot believe the casualness with which people I work with discuss divorce. I’m afraid that to much (if not most) of our society, marriage has fallen into the same category as leasing a car. We’ll try it for a while, and if we don’t like it, just cancel the contract.
Kagan and Sotomayer are both carpet-munchers.
It’s a given how they will vote.
Kennedy and Roberts? They will go the liberal route.
Divorce is not nearly as wide spread as the media would have you believe -— the “1/2 of all marriages end in divorce” line is particularly misleading.
Most originally-married people stay married, but divorced people tend to get married-and-divorced mutiple times. It throws off the statistics.
The so-called “no-fault revolution” has resulted in marriages in the US lasting an average of 11 years. Used to be much harder to obtain divorce, and quite often the only legitimate grounds were things like adultery, abandonment or suchlike.
Could be correct, but perhaps aviation is bad for marriage as I would put the number closer to 60-70% where I work, and not much if any better where my wife works.
“no-fault revolution”
Funny you should mention that. Our secretary was talking once and commented, “I probably shouldn’t have divorced my second husband so quickly, and I may still try to get back together with him sometime but right now he is married.”
Almost like saying, well, ‘I know he’ll be divorced again and I’ll be divorced again so if we are both divorced at the same time maybe we’ll try again’. I swear it is just as if they are talking about a time share condo or a car lease.
>> I swear it is just as if they are talking about a time share condo or a car lease.<<
Or, sadly, custody of a child...
So, I agree with this article, that same-sex "marriage" is the death-knell of "marriage".
For those who think that Churches will be exempted from this; think again. The gays have convinced the elites who run this country that "gay marriage" is a "civil right". That will top any of our actual Constitutional rights. Just ask the Catholic Bishops who are now suing against the Obamacare mandate on them providing contraception and abortion coverage. Religious freedom --- nah.
While gays and lesbians probably make up 2% of the population (I know, they say 10%, but anybody with eyes can look around and see that 1 out of 10 people they know aren’t gay), according to the census, only 1% of the “couples” in this country are same-sex couples. So it seems that even when it comes to “shacking up” (as most of these couples are, since gay marriage still isn’t widely accepted), gays enter committed relationships at half the rate of opposite-sex couples.
Nobody is really maintaining a good statistic on gays who choose to actually get married where it is legal, compared to normal marriages. Or the divorce rate in those families compared to normal families. Because that wouldn’t help the cause.
Making divorce easier was one of the left’s first salvos in the Communist-Manifesto-proscribed “abolition of the family”. Those who regard themselves as conservative need to recognize that, because without strong families, society falls apart.
This is exactly the behavior that has gotten us to the point where we are seriously discussing homosexual "marriage". Heterosexuals need to look in the mirror at our own behavior and lack of seriousness when it comes to marriage. We are the ones who put all of us on this road. Sometimes, I just hate my generation. They pull down the institutions and then replace them with stuff that doesn't work nearly as well -- probably because they are always government-based.
Another probably more interesting statistic. These are all from the Census, so they are based on private data, these people aren’t admitting to things publicly.
But if you look at where people say they are couples, the percentages are higher in states where the gay agenda is actively pushed on the populace. Which could be interpreted as showing that people tend to be gay if it is “acceptable” at higher rates than they would be if it was not.
Of course, that goes against the “it’s never a choice” argument.
Of course, it could be that people just move to where it is acceptable. That’s a good interpretation as well, and shows how important it would be to allow each state to decide for themselves, and not make gay marriage a federal law.
Gary marriage is coming ....sooner rather than later, roughly by June.
And gay John Roberts is going to lead the charge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.