I am putting on my nomex now.
1. Marriage recognition is a state issue, not a federal one. Any “conservative” that says marriage recognition should be dictated to the states by the federal government is no conservative. I don’t think there should be a separate federal recognition of marriage at all.
2. “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” Some Protestants, often the most violently opposed to government “recognition” of gay marriage, accept a marriage as valid when presided over by a judge. Marriage is a sacrament. Whatever any earthly government declares as marriage may or may not be one, but the government declaring it so does not make it so.
From Man For All Seasons: “Some men think the earth is round, others think it flat. It is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat,will the King’s command make it round? And if it is round, will the King’s command flatten it?”
Many are arguing about whether or not the state can make a marriage that is against God. Since the state is not competent to make marriage, obviously it cannot. That certain religious groups assumed the state had that power by accepting “marriage” “granted” by the state (a justice of the peace), I can see their problem. They, like the left, have tried to give that which is God’s to their Caesar. *That* is the real problem.
One may need a licenses to have his marriage recognized by the state and to receive the tax benefits of marriage recognition, but recognition is a far cry from making a marriage, which can only be done by God.
3. There have always been factions in both parties that feel they can save individuals by passing laws to save them from themselves (see Prohibition, for example). Contrary to the statements by Scott Magill in the much lauded link, the Constitution does *not* deal with the relationships of an individual to the family, the family to the church, nor even the government to the family, but the government to the *individual*. (”Church and family are the basis of the traditional values upon which our Constitution rests.”)
I, too, have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution. However, radical divinations of what the Constitution ought to say based on a quote from a historical figure not only does not magically transform the Constitution into something it is not (a bulwark for the ideals of some religious institutions) , but recalls the tactics of the radical left in their attempts to destroy that very document. It says what it says and for a reason.
I do *not* support gay marriage, as there is no such thing. The state claiming there is such a thing would be as meaningful as the state declaring that the Earth is flat (or that there really is a market for ethanol).
Unfortunately, the homosexual agenda doesn't stop at "marriage".
A very good post #28, and I agree.
The ‘Age of Consent’ is also a state issue, not a federal one. So if the left-wing attack this state issue the same way that they have attacked the definition and recoginiton of marraige are you still going to spout the same BS?
The Constitution specifies the means for Amendments. Yet you claim it is anti-conservative to seek an Amendment in order to clarify the definition of marraige for activist judges?
As it stands now the left-wing seek to dictate a perverted morality through federal law. They have also saught this on the state level for many states as well. People and businesses have been punished for opposing perversion. The ‘right to association’ is being destroyed. The People’s ‘right to representation’ is also being destroyed by activist judges who claim that the people have no right to make state laws opposing perversion rights.
The military is now also being perverted at the federal level as well by leftists. What state laws will prevent that?
All of this eventually winds up in front of judges. The only way to make it crystal clear for judges is through a Constitutional Amendment that clarifies it for all of the states.
But if we are lacking the majority to Amend the Constitution then we still will have to fight the left here on every level from the state level to the federal level. It is moronic to think that it is anyother way.
The past wording of the ‘Marraige’ Amendment may not be the silver bullet answer but to defeat the left will require action at the federal level and ultimetaly an Amendment.
One may need a licenses to have his marriage recognized by the state and to receive the tax benefits of marriage recognition, but recognition is a far cry from making a marriage, which can only be done by God.
Having the marriage recognized by the state also subjects it to other laws, such as community property, alimony, child support, etc., all of which were designed to protect "the weaker sex." As with many things the government does it has often foisted the opposite upon us. Women usually reign supreme in a divorce court. However, those issues are legitimate concerns for women and I am not sure how they could be handled through an administrative procedure through the church.
I suppose your view is that were it a "true marriage", a sacrament of the church, these issue are unlikely to arise.