Posted on 04/18/2015 6:32:20 PM PDT by kindred
They’re not supporting SSM, they’re destroying marriage. Give them civil unions and then they can practice as they please, but that was never enough. They’re doing the devil’s work for him.
Normal marriage is:
1) Permanent. No divorce except for adultery, and no remarriage, period.
2) Sexually exclusive. Adultery is not just a tort, it's a crime.
3) Children born of the wife belong to the husband, in exchange for his commitment to support only children of his wife's body.
NOBODY (Almost) supports normal marriage. Marriage between men and women that is:
1) terminable at will, with no recourse to the counterparty
2) Prone to cheating, with no damages for the offended spouse and no sanctions by the state
3) Children belong to the mother.
is homosexual marriage in all but name, and the fact that the parties are of different sexes.
The fight for normal marriage (and it wasn't much of a fight) was over by 1970.
If the 17th Amendment had never been ratified then the entire Senate would probably have fired a “warning shot” over the heads of the Supremes by reminding activist justices that the Constitution’s silence about marriage means that marriage is a 10th Amendment-protected state power issue.
The Senate could also be expected to clarify that attempting to legislate the so-called “right” of gay marriage from the bench as justices did with the so-called “right” to have an abortion could result in their removal from the bench and a possible new amendment to the Constitution clarifying that no marriage other than traditional one man, one woman marriages are acceptable.
Actually, if the 17th Amendment had never been ratified then there would likely be all different faces on the Supreme Court today, conservative justices probably deciding not to accept the case in the first place because marriage is a 10th Amendment-protected state power issue.
The 17th Amendment needs to disappear.
Dr. Charles Stanley is divorced. Marriage really doesn’t mean anything anymore.
Do you believe that a State cane declare, and compel adherence to, the proposition that two men or two women are "married" to each other?
Normally I’d say yes, but I also have reservations.
On one hand, the states have never amended the Constitution to prohibit anything but traditional one man one woman marriage. So in that way, there’s no clear prohibition of gay marriage in the Constitution.
On the other hand, the Supreme Court seems to have relied in part on English common law when it decided Reynolds v. United States (Reynolds) against the Territory of Utah in 1878. That case tested the constitutionality of polygamous marriage that Mormons were practicing in that territory.
The problem with Reynolds is that it was not a 10th Amendment issue since Utah was still a territory, not a state. But since common law is referenced in the 7th Amendment to the Constitution for example, I don’t know what trumps what between common law and 10th Amendment-protected state powers.
Insights welcome.
Regarding my previous post, it dawned on me that it can be argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in Reynolds v. United States established a precedent for the federal government concerning traditional marriage that lawless Obamas is now ignoring concerning his pro-gay policies.
Also note that if it weren’t for the 17th Amendment, that there would probably be enough senators who respect traditional family values who would be working with the House to override many of Obama’s pro-gay policies.
The 17th Amendment needs to disappear.
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.