Marriage already defined by the Supreme Court

United States Supreme Court ^ | 2-14-04 | Sir Francis Dashwood

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

The United States Supreme Court has already defined marriage as being only one man and one woman in Reynolds v. United States.

This decision also outlawed polygyny (one form of polygamy) in an act of judicial legislating

Ironically, this is where the erroneous term separation of church and state became a point of law by judicial fiat...

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

SOMEBODY PLEASE USE THIS...

[Destro]

The United States Supreme Court has already defined marriage as being only one man and one woman in Reynolds v. United States on a Federal level I am assuming?

In any case the Republicans will sadly not use this case because they want to make the Marriage amendment a campagn election tool agianst the Democrats so politics trumps constitutionality.

[R. Scott]

I’ve read and reread Reynolds v. United States, and can’t find where the SCOTUS defined marriage. How about showing me where you got it?

[spokeshave]

Well first off slap a lawsuit on Newcome and other officials in San Francisco as they have failed to exercise their fiduciary responsibility.

That is ...

1. Issuing false marriage licences.

2. Causing the registry office to be open after hours Friday 2.13/02.

and

3. Causing the office of marriage registry to be open Saturday 2/14, Sunday 2/15, and Monday (presidents day holiday) on 2/16/2004.

Consequently wasting taxpayers money.

Hereby suit to recover said costs from Newcome et al...

And have him and other department heads removed from office.

[lady lawyer]

The only question there was whether there could be more than one woman. The court didn't rule on whether there could be two people of the same sex. Besides, they could overrule Reynolds just as easily as they overruled Bowers v. Hardwick.

[knarf]

Whew!

I thought it was just me that couldn't find the definition.

Good case to read though ... helps to put into perspective the intents of those that helped form the law with the United States.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

As a freedom of religion issue, the court did say we have a right to limit "practice." Marriage is a religious practice, the court defined marriage as heterosexual monogamy...

[rface]

good find Dashwood - send it Gov. Romney

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Try also Late Corp. of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States, 136 US 1 (1890) and Ryan v. United States, 136 US 68 (1890)...

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Getting it through some heads is really a tough try...

I want to hit the left with separation of church and court...

[Rome2000]

If you think homosexual perverted democrats are going to enforce the law you must be dreaming.

The only justice for these wicked vermin will be the giant earthquake that God unleashes on San Francisco.

[ancient_geezer]

A link to the pertinate section of the Reynolds opinion:

Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145,161
refer "5. As to the defence of religious belief or duty."

And more to the point of what constitutes marriage as a protected institution:

Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333,345 , 10 S.Ct. 299.

Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, 45 , 5 S. Sup. Ct. Rep. 747,
referring to the act of congress excluding polygamists and bigamists from voting or holding office, the court, speaking by Mr. Justice MATTHEWS, said:

'Certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a [133 U.S. 333, 345]   free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the co- ordinate states of the Union, than that which secks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement. And to this end no means are more directly and immediately suitable than those provided by this act, which endeavors to withdraw all political influence from those who are practically hostile to its attainment.'

It is assumed by counsel of the petitioner that, because no mode of worship can be established, or religious tenets enforced, in this country, therefore any form of worship may be followed, and any tenets, however destructive of society, may be held and advocated, if asserted to be a part of the religious doctrines of those advocating and practicing them. But nothing is further from the truth. While legislation for the establishment of a religion is forbidden, and its free exercise permitted, it does not follow that everything which may be so called can be tolerated. Crime is not the less odious because sanctioned by what any particular sect may designate as 'religion.'

[Cicero]

I'm sorry to say that unless Bush manages to change the nature of our courts with some effective appointments in the next four years, it's likely instead to go the other way.

Once you've said that sodomy is constitutionally protected, and in the Casey decision that people have a right to choose their own versions of reality (however unreal their choices might be), then you are headed back down the road toward polygamy.

Islamic law says that every man is entitled to have four wives if he chooses. Who can doubt that at some point Muslims in our country will start agitating for such a right? And who can doubt that liberals will be prepared to give it to them? After all, it's good multiculturalism.

[RandallFlagg]

EHH-HEH-HEH!!

Bumping a good find!!

[Cold Heat]

I have a idea.

Marriage began as a institution of the church.

Government decided to adopt it.

The church should bring a case to take it back under the so called BS separation clause and throw the crap right back in the liberals faces.

[bvw]

Compare that Judge's common sense to Fox anchor Tony Snow's non-response when challenged by an female advocate for homosexual "marriage" -- she said "You're not being a rigot against gays, ae you?"

To which he said nothing. He could have made a defense of marriage and civilization.

[bvw]

rigot => "bigot"

[Cold Heat]

Yeah, I saw that.

He was way too cordial, but she did not push him very hard.

They just Jaw boned the topic to death and got too fair and balanced as usual.

[BCrago66]

Don't you know how to post a link to the source?

[Lunatic Fringe]

It's difficult to use when what you claim is not actually in the ruling. Try again.