Posted on 04/25/2015 9:19:07 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
On April 28, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Obergefell v. Hodges and three other cases, testing the constitutionality of state bans on same-sex “marriage” and state refusals to recognize existing same-sex “marriages.” The outcome may well impose same-sex “marriage” on the entire United States of America, much as Roe v. Wade imposed abortion on demand upon the entire nation in 1973.
Such another sweeping “exercise in raw judicial power” (to cite Justice Byron White’s famous dissent in Roe) would be, in large part, based upon claims, rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to the effect that homosexuals have been unjustly denied “equal protection of the laws” by not enjoying access to homosexual “marriage” and, thereby, to the legal status and benefits given to those citizens who are free to enter into traditional heterosexual marriages. The following analysis addresses this central claim presented in the pending cases.
Traditional marriage already has a legitimate and exclusive foundation in the Constitution, because the Constitution’s Preamble explicitly states that among its enumerated purposes is to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”
According to Burton’s Legal Thesaurus, fourth edition (2007), “posterity” means, exclusively, entities, such as “later generations,” “children,” “progeny,” and other terms unequivocally identified with biological descendants.
Since the Preamble establishes the “legislative intent” that judges look to in determining the meaning of a law or constitution, it is clear that the U.S. Constitution is designed to secure the blessings of liberty to the biological descendants of the citizenry that constituted the United States at the time that the Constitution was enacted. This makes those biological descendants and whatever essentially pertains to them, including, presumably, the process by which they come into being as citizens of the nation, a central part or purpose of the Constitution itself.
“Equal protection of the laws” found in the Fourteenth Amendment language is cited in both state and federal claims alleging that homosexuals have the same right to marry as heterosexuals.
But such equality claims are illicit unless litigants are similarly situated before the law.
Since heterosexual marriage as a general institution can, at least potentially, further the purposes of the Constitution by securing the “blessings of liberty … to … our posterity” (biological descendants)—insofar as traditional marriage is the only institution that is naturally able to produce society’s posterity (biological descendants)—and since homosexual unions cannot produce any “posterity” (biological descendants) by themselves, the potential litigants are not similarly situated.
That is to say, while anyone can contribute to the blessings of liberty which may be bestowed upon posterity, traditional marriage between a man and a woman is the only civil institution naturally able to create the very object which is to receive those blessings, namely, posterity itself—the biological descendants of the present citizenry.
Anyone can make contributions to posterity, but the sexual union of male and female alone actually makes posterity itself. Marriage is the civil institution that regulates that union in civil society.
Thus, the Preamble’s wording establishes a distinct and special basis for traditional marriage, which does not obtain in homosexual unions.
This role of traditional marriage in producing society’s posterity is consistent with the classical meaning of marriage, even as understood by the pagan Romans.
Matrimony is taken from the Latin, “mater,” meaning “mother,” and “monium,” meaning “a state or condition,” thus defining the purpose of marriage as a man taking a wife in order to have children. In ancient Rome, this was understood as the purpose of marriage, the production of new citizens for the pagan Roman Empire.
While not every traditional marriage may actually beget new citizens for America, and while anyone may be able to adopt children, nonetheless traditional marriage between a man and a woman is the sole natural institution through which our “posterity” is begotten in order to replenish and perpetuate the citizenry of our nation. No merely arbitrarily formed contract—including so-called “same-sex marriage”—can fulfill that role as envisioned by the Founding Fathers, when they created a Constitution that secured the blessings of liberty, not only for ourselves, but also for our posterity.
Therefore, there is no legitimate basis for demanding “marriage equality” for homosexual unions—given the wording that expresses the legislative intent of the Founding Fathers as stated in the Preamble to the Constitution.
The Fourteenth Amendment cannot be legitimately employed to impose same-sex “marriage” upon the United States of America—unless the present Supreme Court intends once again to bear the infamy of engaging in an “exercise in raw judicial power.”
I read somewhere, maybe here, that a lesbian wanted to be able to marry her girlfriend so her own mother would have to accept her behavior as normal.
That sums it up. They know their behavior does not contribute to the furthering of the human race and is many time based only on sex but, they want to think that what they are doing is just peachy and normal. And if they can shove it in our faces and in God’s, all the better.
““Equal protection of the laws” found in the Fourteenth Amendment language is cited in both state and federal claims alleging that homosexuals have the same right to marry as heterosexuals.
But such equality claims are illicit unless litigants are similarly situated before the law.”
Its also ill-relevant as homosexuals can and always could marry just the same as heterosexuals by the same means as heterosexuals. Nothing is ever preventing a homosexual man from marrying any woman homosexual or otherwise.
The question is not nor has it ever been honestly about the right to marry but the nature of the marriage union or contract not being exactly what some people want it to be.
Well fine, they can and by all rights should make their own contract, they have no need nor any right to redefine the terms of any other person’s contract, nor is there such a right for any individual to demand the state redefine its relationship towards any particular contract or are we going to start demanding our mortgage contract be treated the same as our cell phone contract? Or perhaps we might just as well demand that we have the right to insist that the state ‘declare’ our relationship with the bank to be a ‘marriage’. This is nonsense at its core, unfortunately we don’t have just judges but rather ideological lawyers easily missed into nonsensical claims built upon a mountain of faulty promises.
So, you have no actual argument. Got it.
“I read somewhere, maybe here, that a lesbian wanted to be able to marry her girlfriend so her own mother would have to accept her behavior as normal.
That sums it up. They know their behavior does not contribute to the furthering of the human race and is many time based only on sex but, they want to think that what they are doing is just peachy and normal. And if they can shove it in our faces and in God’s, all the better.”
Maybe I don’t share the same understanding of the birds and the bees but I just don’t see two women or two men for that matter having ‘sex’ with each other as even physical possible.
But I suppose like ‘love’ the definition of ‘Sex’ has been broadened to include all manner of unrelated and often nonsensical activities and feelings. One starts to wonder what you call the actual act now when you don’t want to refer to anything else.
The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791. It expresses the principle of federalism, which undergirds the entire plan of the original Constitution, by stating that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the Constitution. All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people. In drafting this amendment, its framers had two purposes in mind: first, as a necessary rule of construction; and second, as a reaffirmation of the nature of the federal system. Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution, in any way, shape or form, so the STATES define what constitutes a marriage, and the States overwhelmingly have said marriage is a man and a woman, not a couple of sodomites that want to have sex 24/7, and absolutely can not bring children into the world as a result of that sex union. End of story.
Under that same argument, they are not technically seeking "special privileges" -- If they got what they want, then everyone (including normal people) would have the right to marry someone of the same sex or the opposite sex. That right wouldn't be limited to homosexuals.
Government-issued marriage licenses date until at least 16th-century England, and were a feature of every colony before the revolution (and every state at the time the Constitution was enacted)
Another reason the Constitution must be destroyed.
No, the states cannot define marriage insofar as said definition becomes an attack on the free exercise of religion. In fact, the free exercise clause as supreme law of the land could (and perhaps would) preclude that being a state’s right.
State definition of marriage has nothing at all to with religion. It’s common sense and for the betterment of mankind. For the good of society. That’s why marriage, up till the freak sodomites took control of the debate, was ALWAYS the union of a man and woman. The founding fathers would laugh in the face of someone that mentioned “same-sex marriage”, like any sane, rational person should.
And all this BS would have not been possible if not for the sodomite-loving Anthony Kennedy, who ruled sodomy was not illegal in Texas, which of course started the country down the path of sodomite “marriage”. Kennedy knew more than all the Founding Fathers, the writers of the Constitution, and every US Supreme Court justice in the last 235 years. He decided it all. He is directly responsible for destroying marriage in the United States. It takes common sense to be an effective justice and that’s something Kennedy does not have.
Quite right, but it should. So should, the abundance of writings available from the framers that clearly show intent and state of mind.
Yet there've been many cases where Muslims and Christians were arrested for participating in illegal plural marriages:
Charges laid against Bountiful leader Winston Blackmore ...
After the Manifesto: Modern Polygamy and Fundamentalist Mormons
Twentieth-Century Polygamy and Fundamentalist Mormons in Southern Utah
I agree.
Thanks so much for posting.
Ah, so you're changing the subject from state authority on marriage law and replacing it with things like human sacrifice and how unpleasant you can be. Makes sense and probably a smart move on your part. Meanwhile the rest of us will continue with the fact that states can and do define marriage in terms that can and do infringe on freely chosen individual religious beliefs.
I’m not the one who intends to alter the subject, between the two of us. And I did not accuse you of it.
The matter is still free exercise of religion. Since you added exercise in the unfree sense, I built upon that. In light of the First Amendment, do states really have the right to attack free exercise and thus institute persecution?
Nope. It would be the article. That should have been pretty obvious.
Care to elaborate?
If what is contained therein is somehow not seen as parts of the Law it codifies, then, IMHO, one could conclude that there is no United States of America, which it also clearly sets out.
I therefore agree with the article's author, stupid as you may see it notwithstanding.
The problem with the article is not that it cites the Preamble. I never brought that up. The problem with the article is that it is logically absurd. ie. Stupid.
Its argument is basically that because the Preamble mentions "posterity", that the Constitution itself, particularly the 14th Amendment, protects traditional marriage.
But the Preamble doesn't actually mention marriage. So to get to the article's conclusion one must believe that because the word "posterity" is used, the Constitution only protects husbands and wives, not only in regard to marriage, but in its entirety. And really, it's not husbands and wives, because again it doesn't mention marriage. It must be people that have children. That's who produces "posterity".
So the logical reasoning of this article is that all of the provisions in the Constitution protecting various individual rights, do not apply to anyone that hasn't produced a child.
Obviously this is absurd. The Constitution applies to everyone, regardless of how many children you have, and regardless of your marital status. The article is nonsense.
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.