Posted on 03/20/2013 5:57:00 AM PDT by Kaslin
Within the next few months, Justice Anthony Kennedy will likely rule that same-sex marriage is mandated by the Constitution of the United States. The ruling will offend both common sense and Constitutional law. But it will nonetheless become the law of the land. With it, states will be forced to recognize same-sex marriages; same-sex marriage will enter the public school lexicon; religious institutions will be forced to recognize same-sex marriages or lose their tax-exempt status. Religious Americans will be forced into violating their beliefs or facing legal consequences by the government. The First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty will largely become obsolete.
There is only one way to stop this development: Get the government out of the business of marriage. Right now.
States and localities originally gave tax benefits and crafted specific legal systems in order to incentivize Americans to get married and have children within the context of marriage. But those legal institutions have been undermined over the past several decades by a culture that degrades marriage and child rearing. Incentive structures that used to provide the cherry on top of good moral decision-making no longer matter enough to drive such decision-making.
That gap between culture and the legal system has led to a cycle of defining deviancy down, with government taking the lead. The view of the value of marriage in American life changed in the 1950's and 1960's; the left used that cultural shift in order to legitimize no-fault divorce laws, legal custody and child support arrangements that incentivized divorce and social welfare systems that incentivized unwed motherhood.
The last bastion of the old value system was the state's approval of traditional marriage. But thanks to a decades-long cultural shift away from marriage, the left is now in position to use the levers of government to redefine the institution once and for all -- and in the process, destroy the American religious culture that under-girds American freedom.
Unlike the movement to retract laws restricting sexual behavior, the same-sex marriage movement has never been about freedom in any real sense. The push for same-sex marriage is not about wanting freedom to copulate; same-sex copulation has been effectively legal in this country for decades, and formally legal since Lawrence v. Texas (2003). The push for same-sex marriage is not about wanting legal benefits available to heterosexual couples; same-sex couples are largely able to make contractual arrangements to achieve those benefits, and in many states, civil unions equate legally with marriage.
The push for same-sex marriage is about placing the power of government in direct opposition to traditional religious viewpoints.
And conservatives cannot stop that push unless they are willing to restrict government power. Conservatism has always been about preventing the power of government from invading the lives of citizens. Leftism has always been about using the power of government to restrict the behavior of others. It is time for conservatives to recognize the reality of their situation, realize the dangers inherent in their insistence on government interventionism and act quickly.
Getting the government out of marriage would mean voluntary lifestyle arrangements governed by contract -- a practice that has roots stretching back millennia. Religious people would not be forced by the state to approve behavior they find morally problematic. They would not have to worry about their children being taught about such behavior. Conservatives would be forced to rebuild a culture of marriage rather than focusing on a crumbling legal bulwark.
Conservatives lost the culture. Then they lost the law. They can only regain traditional values by removing legal coercion and incentivization from the table -- the left will never hesitate to use those means -- and focusing once again on the raising and production of children within a culture of traditional morality.
“So, according to you, marriage has absolutely no earthly, physical significance. Okey-dokey then.”
That is completely contradictory to what I said. Marriage, by that I mean REAL marriage, not ones claiming to be so without God’s grace by the power of the State, have a massive amount of earthly and physical significance. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t be Holy Mysteries.
What I argued was that what you call “marriage,” which is nothing but Caesar attempting to usurp something that is God’s alone, will *always* result in degenerate behavior. You say the law has the power of God. Evil men will twist the law into their own meaning. I was reading something about the gun control debate where someone said that we could pass all the gun control laws we wanted, but evil would still find a way to destroy.
You can make all the laws you please and call it “marriage.” The first sin is the belief that you have that authority. All other sins that follow are a function of the first. You first claimed the power to define it. Now that you have claimed that power, evil will gain control and change the definition, which will ultimately result in your own persecution.
Do you really believe that you will win by saving some paper law while homosexuals still parade in the streets, adopt children and write popular books to (successfully) convince others of the rightness of what they do? Laws on faith won’t make people faithful. Even if you keep laws against “gay marriage” now, the evil will grow until it wins. Why? Because you wasted all your time enforcing your views with laws and not by changing the hearts of your fellow citizens.
Quick clue: Europe thought your way was the right way, as does Sharia Law. Here in America, we made people argue their ideas and win on the persuasiveness of their argument, while protecting an individual’s right to practice their own faith unencumbered by the state.
Not this crap again.
Section 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
The Supreme Court and Same-Sex Marriage (Part 1)
And
The Supreme Court and Same-Sex Marriage (Part 2)
I believe Ben Shapiro is writing about these cases that are in front of the US Supreme court
In post#23 Freeper xzins wrote to Freeper theBuckwheat: "I’m not so sure Kennedy will rule that same sex marriage is a basic right". It is true we don't know how he will rule
In a saner time this would be a non-issue. Under the current regime it would go like this:
Islamists? Go right ahead.
Hippies who want to marry farm animals? No problem.
Mormon fundamentalists and christians or Jews who wish to be polygamus? no dice.
The state was happy to put force behind marriage licenses when they decided to prosecute polygamy. The effective way to prosecute polygamists is to make it criminal to be living together and having babies together without a marriage license. That was the state’s rules for a while, until they pretty much gave up enforcing those laws. But now, when you consider the state’s important need to protect homosexuality, and who knows, perhaps polygamy, if not at least decriminalize it down the line, then you can get a look at how over time, the government has flip-flopped on it’s crusade for making marriages “good marriages”
This thinking is nuts, but the derangement continues because we failed to understand / explain why marriage really exists and what it is for ... it’s for civilizing procreation and protecting children that issue from that procreation.
“We had to destroy marriage in order to save it.”
Government has an interest in making sure our civilization continues into the next generation. the breakdown in the family harms our civilization.
marriage preserves family structure.
ergo, govt does have an interest in marriage.
“To advance the legal case that a marriage between two people of the same sex is no different than a marriage as God defines it, the US Justice Department will base their arguments before the Supreme Court that a child does not need, nor have a right to a mother. [5]”
Which is why we have been making all the WRONG arguments about gay marriage. Its NOT about what the bible says, that is completely unconvincing in a secular culture that doesnt want ‘bible thumpers imposing beliefs’, its about THE CHILDREN.
degrading marriage, and gay marriage is putting us on the slippery slope to basically destroy marriage as we know it, as any argument about “Marriage Equality” would take us to polygamy and the rest...
the idea that the Constitution forbids states laws on marriage, or the whole body of family law, is errant nonsense.
And moreover, adding gay marriage ADDS TO THE LAW - it will add more legal burdens more complexity, more rules, and get govermnent MORE involved.
“When we start to make laws based on our personal beliefs, rather than our Constitution, then we go down the road of Lefties, Dictators and Terrorists.”
What a stupid comment. The Constitution is a framework for government to ALLOW us to ‘make laws based on our personal beliefs’. that’s what laws are. If we arent basing laws on what we think should be, we are idiots.
“I’m not so sure Kennedy will rule that same sex marriage is a basic right.”
Kennedy wrote Lawrence v. Texas, which ruled that sodomy is a sacred constitutional right. And Roberts will vote for it too. He gave free pro bono time to the plaintiffs (homosexuals) in Roemer, which ruled a Colorado initiative preventing special treatment of homosexuals was unconstitutional.
Lawrence ruled you can’t criminalize sodomy between men but not between men and women.
It like saying that if a man shoots a man, then that’s a crime. But if a man shoots a woman, then that’s not.
That having been said, there isn't any reason that a government recognition of a marriage has to mean anything beyond the fact that the individuals involved have agreed to a particular contract and are publicizing that fact. What anyone else does with that information should be up to that other person.
I do consider Roberts a bigger threat than Kennedy because Roberts is compromised.
However, this is a duly passed congressional law, and Roberts in the obamacare ruling swore that upholding congress was a sacred duty. We’ll see how big a hypocrite he can be.
Roemer revolved around not having a government interest in denying special treatment to homosexuals.
Denying marriage is first, rational, since there can be no such thing as a right to another person contracting with you.
The governmental interest is the upbringing of ensuing generations.
We’ll see. Roberts is the wild card because he is unreliable due to being compromised via an illegal adoption.
Bull.
The State has been involved in marriage for eons. There have always been rules about who, when, where and how you can marry and the state has enforced those rules.
You can babble about how , "if you just have marriages be religious only...." but the truth is that people stay married when if there was no legal tie they would have split up. Having a legal document binding you to one another means that you can't just walk out when things get messy. That means people have to stop, think and usually they work things out.
Without marriage there is no family. Without family there is nothing. There is no foundation to build a civilization on.
Even the Soviets were not so stupid. In fact I can not think of any civilization that was this stupid.
Either you keep marriage as a legal bond (for all) as well as a sacred bond (for some) or the whole thing falls apart.
It’s like saying I have a right to have children.
It’s a nonsensical statement.
It’s like saying I have a right to have children.You do. Or, at least the state doesn't have the power to prevent you that from trying, if you find somebody willing to have them with you.
That is why it CANNOT be an individual right.
Sure it can.
You have the right to search for a mate, and when you find one have kids with her. She has a similar right with regards to a man. Again, no guarantees that you’ll get there, but the state can’t block you in this except under very limited circumstances.
Similarly, marriage has been a recognized and protected right for nearly half a century. Consider it for the moment as another kind of contract - each party has the individual right to enter into the agreement. It’s about that individual right, not the collective rights of both parties.
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.