Posted on 12/05/2003 4:48:01 PM PST by Federalist 78
Richard G. Wilkins, a professor of Law at Brigham Young University, wrote recently in an article entitled, "Constitutional governance and the Irrationality of Marriage" that as a result of two recent decisions, one by the United States Supreme Court and the other by the recent Massachusetts Supreme Court, "all state marital laws may have tumbled."
Just to make the legal meaning clear Wilkins went on to say, "For those who don't have a law degree: marriage has just been declared irrational."
I thought surely he was overstating the case to make a point. So I again looked up the actual court decisions and reread them. The United States Supreme Court declared in the Lawrence vs Texas sodomy case that "the fact a State´s governing majority has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice, and (2) individual decisions concerning the intimacies of physical relationships, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of "liberty" protected by due process."
Wilkins noted,, "Four months later, in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, relying upon the reasoning of Lawrence by a four to three vote, announced that the ‘everyday meaning of marriage´ is ‘arbitrary and capricious.´"
I got a lot of e-mail recently on an article I wrote on this subject in which I stated that in one decision the Massachusetts Supreme Court declared the meaning of the word "marriage" invalid in every English dictionary in the United States. Marriage, according to all the dictionaries in my house, is "a social institution in which a man and a woman become husband and wife" or "the act of legally uniting a man and woman in wedlock" or words to that effect.
It´s not just the dictionaries, folks. Wilkins warned, "All state and federal legislation – such as the federal Defense of Marriage Act – which define marriage as a union between a man and a woman will soon fall before a federal constitutional command. In short, unless Goodridge has improperly cited, quoted and interpreted the most recent decisions of the Supreme Court, marriage is irrational in Massachusetts."
According to the Massachusetts Supreme Court, the "limitation of marriage licenses to unions between a man and a woman does not ‘bear a real and substantial relation´ to any cognizable public interest, nor does the refusal to license homosexual unions ‘serve a legitimate public purpose.´"
What is really the logical conclusion to that decision? If marriage between a man and a woman who are very apt to have offspring does not "bear a real and substantial relation to any cognizable public interest" what exactly is the state interest in issuing marriage licenses in the first place? In fact, why should the state be involved in ANY sexual matter? If there is no State interest in protecting possible future children that might be born to a woman and a man, what state interest can there possibly be in the State selling a marriage license to, or refusing to sell a marriage license to, a man and a man or a woman and a woman, or a man and a dog, a man and his daughter, or a man and three women? What is the point of having ANY form of state approved marriage if there is no actual state interest in the subject?
It would appear to me that these two decisions shoot down a whole lot more laws than just the marriage laws. The laws of marriage are, after all, the oldest laws known to mankind. If they are irrelevant, and irrational, because there is no "state interest" in them, what, for heavens sake, is the relevancy or the rationality in all these laws passed by state and national legislatures every year?
Wilkins puts it this way, "The reach of Goodridge plainly exceeds the judicial grasp. No amount of logic, no constitutional formulation (no matter how stunning), and no new expansion in civil rights can possibly span the ‘unbridgeable difference´ between a marital union and homosexual relationships….. Biology, not destructive stereotypes, has decreed that children spring from one union and not the other.
"The ‘everyday meaning of marriage,´ in sum, is irrational only to the extent that basic biology is irrelevant."
Well, we should have seen this coming. For thirty years we have meekly accepted the Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision that ruled an unborn baby is not a "person" and therefore there was no "state interest" in it being killed.
Now we are supposed to meekly accept the notion that children are so disposable that there is no "state interest" in discouraging immorality and encouraging morality or in the State helping to encourage a long-lasting marriage where children are known to best flourish. The purpose of State sanctioned marriage was the protection of children. These two decisions have changed that to providing state approval of and protection for sexual behavior still considered morally corrupt by most people.
Wilkins put it this way: "The all-too-common contention that 'government must not regulate morality' is utter nonsense – unless the goal is to eliminate all government. Governmental decisions, from welfare to clean air to sexual conduct to speed limits, always involve competing moral values. Who should decide who wins and loses in contests involving fairly debatable moral claims?"
Under the Constitution of the United States, the answer to that question is …the people, not the Courts. Judges can be impeached or booted out of office where they are elected. Members of Congress could defund or abolish federal courts that legislate or ignore the Constitution. Governors and Presidents who choose corrupt judges can be voted out of office.
This should be a major issue in next year´s election. As Richard Wilkins said, "Proper regard for the political structure established by the United States Constitution demands that Americans, whatever their views, now engage in a vigorous constitutional debate regarding the meaning of marriage in America. Do the Massachusetts and United States Constitutions provide a right to same-sex marriage? The people, not slim majorities of seven or nine people dressed in black robes, must answer these questions.
"The social, political, moral and ethical values at stake are too important – and too hotly and honestly contested – to be resolved any other way."
The Sovereignty Implications of Two Recent Supreme Court Decisions The Supreme Court, in two recent cases (Lawrence v. Texas and Atkins v. Virginia) is continuing a trend of citations of foreign and international law, particularly European law, as supporting evidence for the validity of its decisions. This use of international sources in cases involving purely domestic concerns is alien to the American legal system, historically, and, if unchecked, will produce a further erosion of American sovereignty, in addition to the mischief already done by these cases.
Maybe not.
"I have a ceremony to attend," quoth one, "at dawn to-morrow, in the Quirinal valley." "What is the occasion?" "No need to ask: a friend is taking to himself a husband; quite a small affair." Yes, and if we only live long enough, we shall see these things done openly: people will wish to see them reported among the news of the day. - Juvenal
This was circa 120 A.D. - well after Nero.
Excellent question, actually. If the state has "no interest," then why are they selling licenses?
The state also has no interest in outdoor, summer barbeques. Can we expect that to be licensed here shortly?
No amount of logic, no constitutional formulation (no matter how stunning), and no new expansion in civil rights can possibly span the ‘unbridgeable difference´ between a marital union and homosexual relationships….. Biology, not destructive stereotypes, has decreed that children spring from one union and not the other.
Another awesome point.
There is very good reason for pastors to begin marrying within the church and ignoring the state.
Holy matrimony is a heavenly act that is simply not dependent on the state.
When gays are permitted to adopt (state-sanctioned child abuse), then gays can say the state has an interest in homosexual unions because an adopted child may result from the union.
Ignoring the state
While this argument is comforting, the reality is that for generations the state has authorized marriage for sound reasons. To foresake this is to relinguish the moral high ground and the practical low ground.
I believe the rush to legitimize homosexual unions is coming from very high up in the economic power structure. At its core, it is rancid, gnostic and rabidly anti-Orthodox Christians and Jews.
To hand over the legal reins of marriage to the sodomites is evil. We are not Amish; we are Christians who are part of the community. And that community is being corrupted right and left.
The State has no right to govern lives and/or the private conduct
between consenting adults.
Re:
"limitation of marriage licenses to unions between a man and a woman does not ‘bear a real and substantial relation´ to any cognizable public interest, nor does the refusal to license homosexual unions ‘serve a legitimate public purpose."
That State provided marriage certificate allows two individuals that have
sworn and pledged to remain together and share as one everything in
life, the benefits of all others that make that same pledge.
It is a legal agreement provided by the State, and to that effect can not
be limited in a prejudicial manner.
A "driver's license", a license to operate a business, etc, can not be
denied to an individual over reasons of prejudicial nature.
A license is provided to legitimize all benefits that are granted for all
those having that State provided license.
So what's the big deal? Isn't freedom and equality under law mandated
by our Constitution? That's what this Country is all about, isn't it?
…we are Christians who are part of the community. And that community is being corrupted right and left.12 posted on 12/05/2003 11:53:06 PM PST by Dr. Eckleburg (There are very few shades of gray.)
America needs preachers who will "obey God rather than men," and who will, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you…."
Where in the New Testament are the capitols of the nations excluded? Where does it state in the U.S. CONSTITUTION; thou shalt have an abortion and sodomite lobby in thy capitol and thou shalt not have a gospel, or ten commandments lobby? You can search in vain, till you go insane and you will not find it in either.
Such imaginary notions as 'Jefferson's wall' and 'separation of church and state' are found in the foolishness among those described as follows:
2 Timothy 3: This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as their's also was.... But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
Romans 1: 28 - 32 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;" Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
America needs preachers who "believe in the right to life," and "believe in the right to have the means to defend that life" as columinist Charley Reese recently stated. And America needs to understand, as Rob Schenk does, that "Secular nations have one thing in common -- mass graves, and the reason is that they believe the government is the final arbiter of right and wrong and good and evil."
The modern day Corinthian Churches in America need to understand:
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." 1 Corinthians 6:9-11
And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. Deuteronomy 6:5
How often:
Therefore thou shalt love the LORD thy God, and keep his charge, and his statutes, and his judgments, and his commandments, alway. Deuteronomy 11:1
What about the popular culture….
Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Deuteronomy 13:3
C'mon, I'm not Jewish!
And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. Mark 12:30
O.K., O.K., O.K., enough already, I'll withdraw from society and become a monk….
And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. Luke 10:27
Who is my neighbor? Matthew 5
5:10
"Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to them. 5:11
"Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you and say all kinds of evil things about you falsely on account of me. 5:12 Rejoice and be glad because your reward is great in heaven, for they persecuted the prophets before you in the same way. 5:13
"You are the salt of the earth. But if salt loses its flavor, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled on by people. 5:14 You are the light of the world. A city located on a hill cannot be hidden. 5:15 People do not light a lamp and put it under a basket but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all in the house. 5:16 In the same way, let your light shine before people, so that they can see your good deeds and give honor to your Father in heaven. 5:43
"You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor’and ‘hate your enemy.’ 5:44 But I say to you, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you, 5:45 so that you may be like your Father in heaven, since he causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 5:46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Even the tax collectors do the same, don’t they? 5:47 And if you only greet your brothers, what more do you do? Even the Gentiles do the same, don’t they? 5:48 So then, be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Am I My Brother's Keeper?
But he that hateth his brother is in darkness and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness has blinded his eyes." You cannot be blind and be a good keeper. John 2:1
What does all that have to do with Romans 13, I Peter 2, and Acts 5? Romans 1313:1
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 13:2
Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 13:3
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 13:4
For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 13:5
Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 13:6
For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. 13:7
Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. 13:8
Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. 13:9
For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 13:10
Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
1 Peter 2
11 Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul;
12 Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.
13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:
16 As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.
17 Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.
18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.
19 For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully.
20 For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.
21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:
24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
Acts 5
17 Then the high priest rose up, and all they that were with him, (which is the sect of the Sadducees,) and were filled with indignation,
18 And laid their hands on the apostles, and put them in the common prison.
19 But the angel of the Lord by night opened the prison doors, and brought them forth, and said,
20 Go, stand and speak in the temple to the people all the words of this life.
21 And when they heard that, they entered into the temple early in the morning, and taught. But the high priest came, and they that were with him, and called the council together, and all the senate of the children of Israel, and sent to the prison to have them brought.
22 But when the officers came, and found them not in the prison, they returned, and told,
23 Saying, The prison truly found we shut with all safety, and the keepers standing without before the doors: but when we had opened, we found no man within.
24 Now when the high priest and the captain of the temple and the chief priests heard these things, they doubted of them whereunto this would grow.
25 Then came one and told them, saying, Behold, the men whom ye put in prison are standing in the temple, and teaching the people.
26 Then went the captain with the officers, and brought them without violence: for they feared the people, lest they should have been stoned.
27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them,
28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.
29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.
33 When they heard that, they were cut to the heart, and took counsel to slay them.
34 Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space;
35 And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men.
36 For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought.
37 After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.
38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:
39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.
40 And to him they agreed: and when they had called the apostles, and beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.
41 And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name.
42 And daily in the temple, and in every house[The state house, the court house], they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.
why should I allow them to be the arbiter of marriage?
State your case to the state!
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.