Isn't same-sex marriage a construct of LIBERALism?
I wish the FF's had addressed this when they wrote the Constitution... then we wouldn't have to deal with it now.
I think that's oversimplifying, but there are elements in common. It certainly involves hijacking the state to exert social change.
I wish the FF's had addressed this when they wrote the Constitution... then we wouldn't have to deal with it now.
I think there are things that should never be addressed by the government. They addressed the issue of religion by leaving it out. That wasn't an accident.
I don't mind Wiccans marrying pigeons, as long as my stamp of approval isn't lodged on file in the county seat in the form of a civic certificate.
The statists who will to enforce their unshared morals through the power of government, with their attempt to erradicate the values that established a need for marriage in the first place, are the real threat. If the Founding Fathers didn't address it it was because no mere Constitution can withstand such a threat.
They did. It's called natural law, or the 'law of Nature and nature's God' in the Declaration of Independence.
Homosexuality is against the laws of nature.
You would think with such a high rate of death from doing well, unnatural things they would have figured that out.
If private sexual activity is deemed personal, then why have government involved in sanctifying a religious act. I don't care if you're a polygamous Morman, Muslim or any other. As long as both partners are free to make the decision and of age...
And no welfare state is involved.
DK