Posted on 04/25/2015 9:19:07 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
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 Gods, 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.