U.S. Constitution’s Preamble Upholds Traditional Marriage

http://www.crisismagazine.com ^ | April 22, 2015 | DENNIS BONNETTE

[mlo]

Sure. See above.

[Olog-hai]

Above what?

[Olog-hai]

No, it cannot be merely “people who have children” because that is not posterity.

And you believe that the Constitution applies to everyone? John Adams did not.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Therefore, those who cannot be ruled by it must be punished by it.

---

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. …

---

What is hard to understand about the phrase “to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity”? Never mind the attack on traditional marriage in the form of so-called “SSM” being the opposite of a “blessing of liberty”. Logic requires including everything and making no omissions. Some people have been in the 31^st state for just too long.

[AzNASCARfan]

Good to know... I was going to look into it after I posted that, because I kept wondering about it all day today...
I will say it is surprising information though...

I guess not terribly surprising after thinking about it though, the reason our constitution had the no mandated religion part was because it was in England.... so its not really an argument against it primarily being a religious ceremony, just that government has been involved far too long (in my opinion)...

[expat_panama]

The Constitution applies to everyone, regardless of how many children you have, and regardless of your marital status. The article is nonsense.

While the Constitution applies to all, licenses do not, and states have jurisdiction over who can receive a license.  Individual states can decide that a felon may marry a person of the opposite sex and that two homosexual lovers may be each granted a license to carry a firearm.  

Carrying a firearm allows enormous power that states do not want felons to have and it's good the states have this authority.  Likewise the privilege to marry includes a number of benefits that the state grants because the state needs families.   OK, so not all heterosexual unions produce offspring but most do, and there are some homosexual groups that produce young but that is as rare as elephants that live in trees.

[MD Expat in PA]

…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

While I don’t think that is what the author is implying, as written, it almost sounds as if he is saying that the Constitution only applies to those whose biological ancestors were citizens at the time the Constitution was enacted. If that were the case, a lot of us would be SOL.

[MD Expat in PA]

And you believe that the Constitution applies to everyone? John Adams did not.

”Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other”.

Therefore, those who cannot be ruled by it must be punished by it.

One IMO has to be somewhat careful when quoting the Founding Fathers’ personal letters and their personal views. Some of the Founders had some rather shall I say, “interesting” if not somewhat controversial views on religion.

Adams also said:

We should begin by setting conscience free. When all men of all religions ... shall enjoy equal liberty, property, and an equal chance for honors and power ... we may expect that improvements will be made in the human character and the state of society. -- John Adams, letter to Dr. Price, April 8, 1785

But Adams also in his personal writings also said:

Cabalistic Christianity, which is Catholic Christianity, and which has prevailed for 1,500 years, has received a mortal wound, of which the monster must finally die. Yet so strong is his constitution, that he may endure for centuries before he expires. -- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, July 16, 1814

“Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion?” -- John Adams — letter to Thomas Jefferson

And

I do not like the reappearance of the Jesuits.... Shall we not have regular swarms of them here, in as many disguises as only a king of the gipsies can assume, dressed as printers, publishers, writers and schoolmasters? If ever there was a body of men who merited damnation on earth and in Hell, it is this society of Loyola's. Nevertheless, we are compelled by our system of religious toleration to offer them an asylum. -- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, May 5, 1816

Jefferson also held some very personal anti-Catholic sentiments but also said:

“Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person’s life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the “wall of separation between church and state,” therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society. We have solved … the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving everyone to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.” -- Thomas Jefferson — in a speech to the Virginia Baptists, 1808

The “Founders”, contrary to what you seem to propose, did not want to impose their own or the religious beliefs or necessarily any religious beliefs on the citizenship by force of Law, nor did they propose, even as some held some very strong personal biases and beliefs and disbeliefs regarding religion and more for some and more against other religions (Catholicism for instance), they did not ever codify their personal beliefs in the Constitution.

[Olog-hai]

No, states do not possess this jurisdiction. The Second Amendment is not undermined by the Tenth or the unconstitutional laws of any state at all. Thanks for omitting the fact that where the states’ illegal control over firearms is most draconian, the higher the gun crime—so by slamming the door shut on a natural right, they increase the power via the gun that outlaws ought not have.

[mlo]

"And you believe that the Constitution applies to everyone? John Adams did not."

No, John Adams did not believe the Constitution applied to some citizens and not others. He was stating his opinion on the character of a people that would be able to live by it.

[mlo]

"What is hard to understand about the phrase “to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity”?

It shouldn't be hard to understand, but apparently some people have trouble with it. Like the author of the article.

"Posterity" in this sentence means future generations. They were creating a Constitution for the future. It says nothing about some citizens who aren't covered by it, and it says nothing about marriage.

[mlo]

"While the Constitution applies to all, licenses do not, and states have jurisdiction over who can receive a license."

That's not in dispute, and not the subject of the article.

[Olog-hai]

Where is the rest of the first quote? Liberals love to leave that out.

When all men, of all religions, consistent with morals and property,* shall enjoy equal liberty, property, or rather security of property, and an equal chance for honor and power: and when government shall be considered as nothing more mysterious or divine than any other art or science, we may well expect improvements in the human character and in the state of society.

* Some scholars think that “propriety” was meant here.

Therefore, agreed that one must be careful with quotes.

[Olog-hai]

On the contrary, it most definitely is in dispute where states, especially liberal-dominated ones, undermine the Constitution.

[mlo]

"While I don’t think that is what the author is implying, as written, it almost sounds as if he is saying that the Constitution only applies to those whose biological ancestors were citizens at the time the Constitution was enacted. If that were the case, a lot of us would be SOL."

My ancestors on both sides were Pilgrims. So I'm good. :-)

[mlo]

"On the contrary, it most definitely is in dispute where states, especially liberal-dominated ones, undermine the Constitution."

No, we are talking about the idea raised by the article. Not any issue that might be vaguely related.

[Olog-hai]

No it does not simply mean “future generations”. Or rather, it does in terms of those generations not being illegitimate offspring.

[Olog-hai]

You aren’t. You’re already trying to redefine what the article says.

[Olog-hai]

I did word that badly. Notwithstanding, Adams words with respect to the Constitution being “wholly inadequate to the government of” those people who are not “moral and religious” means that the punishment of such people by this Constitution is to be swift and fair while not draconian—no way does it allow for the peace of the moral and religious to be disturbed as it is today.

[expat_panama]

"While the Constitution applies to all, licenses do not, and states have jurisdiction over who can receive a license."

That's not in dispute

Huh.  Where maybe we diverged was in our disputing whether the constitution gives states the authority to set policy with regard to "anyone that hasn't produced a child".  My bad.

...and not the subject of the article.

On that we probably went our separate ways when the article we were working with focused on marriage as "an issue that belonged exclusively to the states".

No problem; what's good is we agree that the constitution permits states to issue licenses for marriage as they see fit as long as the intent is to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".   The hope is that future courts may concede that this also happens to be the explicit intent of the federal constitution.  I'm not holding my breath though, we're talking about a court system that said on day 1 that Obamacare was not a tax and on day 4 said it was a tax.

[mlo]

"You aren’t. You’re already trying to redefine what the article says."

No, I'm following the article's own logic to its absurd conclusion.