Posted on 10/25/2014 11:19:39 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
I have read the 14th Amendment, and I didn't see anything about same-sex marriage. However, I do see that it says, "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
So, if that part of the Constitution is being used to say same-sex marriage is OK, then I feel that polygamy is also covered. And if same-sex marriage and polygamy are covered, then what is to say that it's "OK or not OK" to marry my sister, mother, brother, grandmother, etc.
I feel that equal protection should cover any and all issues that persons feel discriminated against by law. I have no problem with same-sex marriage, nor do I care what happens in one's love life. What I do have a problem with is the way in which the Constitution is being used. A stretch to have a document read the way you want it to read is not in the best interest of all.
So if a person says that the Constitution is to protect the few or minority, then lets drop all roadblocks connected to marriage. Therefore, lawyers, courts, Wyoming Equality and same-sex couples, let's do away with the laws that restrict us from "same family" marriages; let's demonstrate equality across the board.
” I have read the 14th Amendment, and I didn’t see anything about same-sex marriage. However, I do see that it says, “Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Back then, the idea of homosexulity was so disgusting a topic, that even close friends would not discuss it. It was an abonination, just as the bible said it was. No need to legislate.
The law does not proscribe acts so vile they are inconceivable. The acceptability of pornography, abortion, homosexuality and other morally repugnant acts has increased as the influence of morality has decreased.
If we are to survive total collapse the influence of smut and snuff peddlers must be opposed with flaming intensity. There is no constitutional right to destroy culture. The notion that morality is unacceptably discriminatory is itself an obscenity.
Very well stated.
TRUE.
ALL cultures and societies view homosexuality as aberrant. Some societies put up with it more than others, though, for some obscure reason of misplaced tolerance.
Depravity is on full display.
If homosexual marriage becomes is to become the so-called law of the land, America will rue the day.
Homos will attack religion (War on Religion) like never before. Churches will be sued nonstop, in an attempt to bankrupt them. Look at Houston. This will be just the proverbial tip of the iceberg.
The writer has a good point.
Judges have decided that “equality” means we have to change the definition of marriage.
The idea that traditional marriage laws treat everyone equally has gone out the window.
I believe that everyone is treated equally under traditional marriage laws. In that, we are all limited to 1 partner at a time. We are all limited to an opposite sex partner. We are all banned from marrying certain close relatives. We are all banned from marrying a same-sex partner.
The concept of “equal rights under the law” is being used, incorrectly in my opinion, to change the definition of marriage to make activists happy.
Clearly my legal reasoning is in the minority. But let’s be honest about what is happening here. Liberals have decided that judges can change the legal meaning of legal terms, and change the dictionary definition of a word, if liberals are unhappy.
At least polygamy, unlike “gay marriage” and those you mentioned, has an historical basis. Many of the patriarchs, kings and prophets were in polygamous marriages.
Time to go 2nd and 3rd wife shopping. [chuckle]
What a nice way of saying you are for Bestiality, Pedophilia and Necrophilia. The children who have been raped thank you.
/Sarcasm OFF
Wow, I meant “unlike those you mentioned” bud. Guess it’s time for my insulin shot...
Did you REALLY think I was for those things? Seriously? Really?
Don't discriminate against vegetables, rocks & trees!
/s
Total insanity!
It's interesting to note that neither society - even in their wildest orgies - ever appeared to have entertained the notion of homosexual marriage, knowing full well, IMHO, that such an aberrant practice would have shortly wrecked their entire societies.
The problem is: the Constitution states that PEOPLE/PERSONS have the rights...
THAT’s all. It doesn’t classify people/persons by their race, religion, personal sexual preferences, etc... -thus NOT guaranteeing special privilege because of these specifics.
The commie/libs wanna read all this in to push their agenda towards their totalitarian dream.
A Conundrum
FREE PEOPLE ARE NOT EQUAL.
EQUAL PEOPLE ARE NOT FREE.
PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!
e quality ceases t birth
...and the commentators on the web site in the “comments” section are showing their profound ignorance regarding the 14th amendment.
Perversion is celebrated. Slouching toward Gomorrah? You betcha. In fact, we’re now (as a nation) dancing in the streets of Gomorrah and its sister city.
The dancing will not last forever. Mourning will overtake it eventually.
Secular humanists want pluralism and permissiveness in morality. They believe in a psychology of self-actualization.They want to be able to engage in experimental lifestyles and alternative life styles in order to be able to self actualize.
The marxists want to destroy traditional marriage and family so that their dream of the state raising children is one step closer.
The postmodernists hate traditional marriage and family because it oppresses women.They want to destroy traditional marriage and family because they want to restructure society which they think makes women and minorities powerless.
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.