I don't get it? (jk. don't explain it!)
Posted on 09/16/2004 1:11:19 PM PDT by presidio9
Three homosexual couples filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday seeking to overturn a law that prohibits Oklahoma from recognizing adoptions by same-sex couples from other states and countries.
The lawsuit alleges the measure, which is an amendment to the Oklahoma Adoption Code, "appears to sever legal ties between parents and their children whenever families led by same-gender couples enter the state of Oklahoma."
Gov. Brad Henry signed the law in May. It was drafted by 17 state lawmakers after Attorney General Drew Edmondson issued an opinion in April requiring the state to recognize all adoptions, regardless of the gender of parents.
A gay couple from Washington state, Ed Swaya and Greg Hampel, sought the opinion when they asked for a birth certificate listing both of them as their daughter's parents. The state Health Department had initially refused to list Swaya because he was not the birth mother.
The couple adopted their daughter from an Oklahoma woman. Now they fear they would lose their legal rights as parents if they visited the birth mother.
Swaya and Hampel are two of 10 plaintiffs, including the couples' children.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Congress, state legislatures and public referenda have statutorily determined polygamous, pederast, homosexual, and incestuous marriages are unlawful. No Constitutional Amendment restricting marriage is required to regulate "practice" according to the Reynolds decision.
Marriage is a religious "rite," not a civil "right;" a secular standard of human reproductive biology united with the Judaic Adam and Eve model of monogamy in creationist belief. Two homosexuals cannot be "monogamous" because the word denotes a biological procreation they are not capable of together; human reproductive biology is an obvious secular standard.
All adults have privilege to marry one consenting adult of opposite gender; therefore, Fourteenth Amendment "equal protection" argument about "privileges and immunities" for homosexual marriage is invalid. Driving, marriage, legal and medical practices are not enumerated rights; they are privileged practices that require statutory license. Nothing that requires a license is a right.
Homosexual monogamy advocates are a cult of perversion seeking ceremonious sanctification for voluntary deviancy with anatomical function and desperately pursuing esoteric absolution to justify their guilt-ridden egos. This has no secular standard; it is an idolatrous fetish. Why not properly apply the adjudicated Reynolds 'separation of church and state' here? No person can logically say that carnal practices engaged by homosexuals are consistent with human anatomical function. It is obvious, and an impervious secular argument to say that biology is a standard by which we can measure. The hormonal drive to mate is biologically heterosexual. Either homosexuality is a choice, a birth defect, or it is a mental illness. Take your pick.
Morality and all of its associated concepts are from the belief that some higher power is defining the correctness of human behavior. Today, "morals" are a religious pagan philosophy of esoteric hobgoblins where transfiguration is from pantheons of fantasies as the medium of infinitization. Others get derision for having an unwavering Judaic belief in Yahweh or Yeshua, although their critics will evangelize insertion of phantasmagoric fetishisms into secular law.
Was Freudian psychoanalytic theory of sexual stages in psychological development more accurate than accredited? The Michael Jackson Complex is an obvious fixation on mutilation of and deviance with human anatomy in the media. It is indicative of a societal mental illness that caters to the lowest common denominator and generated with Pavlovian behavioral conditioning in popular culture.
Should we really be canonizing special societal privileges in the law based on a person's idolatrous fetishes? Perhaps homosexual monogamy and civil union advocates could conclave to enshrine their own phantasmal state religion and consecrate Michael Jackson as its first Ecumenical Pope!
The greater question is if the Congress can pass a law defining what lawful marriage is without a Constitutional Amendment and the Supreme Court has said yes, upholding that power. Congress can pass a marriage definition and enforcement law under the powers conferred to it by Reynolds v. United States...
"…In our opinion, the statute immediately under consideration is within the legislative power of Congress. It is constitutional and valid as prescribing a rule of action for all those residing in the Territories, and in places over which the United States have exclusive control... Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices... So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed..."[Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 8 Otto 145, 24 L. Ed. 244 (1878).]
- - See also:
Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States, 136 U.S. 1, 10 S.Ct. 792, 34 L. Ed. 478 (1890). Revised as 140 U.S. 665, 11 S.Ct. 884, 35 L. Ed. 592 (1891).
The important aspect is the power of Congress and the state legislatures (not local municipalities or the courts) to legislate, by statute alone, restrictions on marriage. The Congress can either make lawful polygamy and homosexual marriage, or make both illegal based on what the Congress thinks will be beneficial. The Defense of Marriage Act by Congress and constitutional prohibitions by many of the states is consistent with these ends: Reynolds v. United States is legal precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Activist elements of the judiciary have ignored the case law precedent set by the Supreme Court concerning statutory law regulating marriage practices and corrupted the Constitutional 'separation of powers' by legislating from the bench. It is time legislative and executive bodies of government do their sworn duty to defend the Constitution.
Legislators need to impeach and remove judges from the courts (and other officials from public office) who break the law by acting beyond their legal jurisdiction. This is not exclusive to an issue of "states' rights" at all…
"god is not pleased with your arogance bigotry and prejudice."
There's a lot God isn't happy about these days, considering what is expected to be accepted as "normal" in this current day and age. Mocking him is probably high on his list, though. ;)
'Bye now! Hope you enjoyed visiting with us for the past few minutes, LOL!
later pingout.
see #40...
see #40...
Congress can't pass a law defining what is or isn't lawful marriage in the states. It's not Congress's business. Nor does Congress have Constitutional authority to do such a thing. You're reading Reynolds wrong. That case dealt with Congress's power in the territories, not in the states.
BTW, this thread is about adoption, not marriage.
I don't get it? (jk. don't explain it!)
The case dealt with the statutory regulation of marriage in the states, upholding a crimminal conviction for their violation...
It is about perverts and deviants trying to undermine the natural order of human reproduction and the essential social institutions attached to it.
If the problem cannot be remedied by reason and logic, you will see the problem remedied by natural selection or a cataclysmic social darwinism when people get fed up with it. Maybe this is what you would prefer?
No, it didn't. The statute had nothing to do with regulation of marriage in the states. The case came to the Court from the Territory of Utah, and the statute at issue said:
Every person having a husband or wife living, who marries another, whether married or single, in a Territory, or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, is guilty of bigamy, and shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500, and by imprisonment for a term of not more than five years.
In case you missed it: "in a Territory, or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction."
FYI, Congress doesn't have exclusive jurisdiction over the states, meaning the case had nothing to do with the states. You're simply dead wrong on this. Heck, reread the part you yourself quoted:
In our opinion, the statute immediately under consideration is within the legislative power of Congress. It is constitutional and valid as prescribing a rule of action for all those residing in the Territories, and in places over which the United States have exclusive controlPlaces over which the United States have exclusive control. And that means especially NOT the states.
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
Places over which the United States have exclusive control. And that means especially NOT the states.
It means what the Congress determines, not you or the court... (the supremacy clause). Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act and it was by this reasoning a federal judge recently overturned the Massachusetts pervert court.
Kiddie porn is illegal and the feds have been busting them all over the country. In fact, the feds have been going after the polygynists and prosecute people married to more than one person in many states. It is not exclusively a state issue at all...
Since most religious organizations are also I.R.S. 501(c) tax-exempt and marriage being a religious “practice,” the federal government also has a ‘compelling interest’ to regulate such “practice.”
So, is it your intent to legalize pervert marriages?
My intent was to show you that you misread Reynolds. No more, no less.
Marriage is a religious practice that can be regulated by statute alone.
No kidding, but so what? That doesn't mean that *Congress* gets to regulate it for the *states*. You're taking a case which simply says that religious belief does not justify lawbreaking, and you're tarting it up as some sort of proof that the federal government has authority to ban gay marriage in all 50 states. Hello? The case was about a territorial marriage law, not state marriage law. Can you read?
It means what the Congress determines, not you or the court.
Congress can write marriage laws for D.C., and maybe for Guam or American Samoa or something like that. It can't write marriage laws for the states, no matter how hard you stamp your feet and wish that it were otherwise.
Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act
Again, so what? DOMA doesn't regulate, determine, or change substantive state laws in any manner. DOMA pretty much just restates the meaning of the Full Faith and Credit clause. Congress couldn't change the meaning of the clause even if it wanted to--it couldn't and it didn't. The states were free to make whatever marriage laws they wanted before DOMA was passed, and they're still free to make whatever marriage laws they want today. Even *before* DOMA was passed, states didn't have to recognize out-of-state marriages that were contrary their own policy preferences, and they still don't have to recognize such marriages today. DOMA's essentially a no-shit-sherlock law; it changed nothing.
Really, if you want gay marriage banned throughout the states, it's going to take a constitutional amendment, your misreadings of Reynolds and DOMA to the contrary notwithstanding.
I do prefer a constitutional prohibition.
A ban in each of the 50 states would suffice as a statutory regulation. But on the federal level, Congress has the authority to pass a statute restricting marriage, as they already have many, many times.
“Marriage” is not in the Constitution anywhere, neither is “privacy” or “education.” Congress is obviously not prohibited in those areas either, are they? “Separation of Church and State” is not in the Constitution. But since Congress, state legislatures, state and federal courts, and the Left hold everyone to that case law precedent originally from Reynolds v. United States, hey let's cram it right back down their throats.
Since most churches are 501(c), they have to comply with the Internal Revenue Code Congress makes or lose their 501(c) tax-exempt status. (I would love to see all 501(c) organizations folded up.) And since Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes based on marital status, they do have regulatory power to define what constitutes a marriage.
re-ping.
Well duh!
Homosexual Agenda ping.
Comments on the thread from both sides - the right side, and the wrong side.
If two homosexuals can be "parents", then nothing has any meaning any more at all. Anything can mean anything that anyone wants. Well, not anyone. If a person is informed by and upholds tradition moral standards that are the same in every monotheist relgion, this is not to be allowed. Moral relativists are not relative, they are the most autocratic of absolutist; under cover of tolerance, they hate actual morality. Hate crimes, hate speech, then hate thought. That is what they are aiming for.
Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.
God put one man and one woman together for the purpose of raising children. He stepped back and called it "Good".
Where do some get the unmitigated GALL to attempt to add to that perfect, blessed, sanctified union? Such is the blatant, offensive arrogance of man to think that he can take something that God has called GOOD and make it "better".
To all the pro-sodomites in the crowd - take heed. You cannot, cannot, add to something that God has created, in a vainglorious attempt to improve upon His precepts. "God plus whatever-we-want-it-to-be-at-the-time" simply doesn't exist, nor is it a good idea to mess around with such notions. Each and every time man has thought he was smarter than the Almighty creator of the Universe, he has failed miserably.
This is the simple, perfect reason why "gay marriage" and "gay adoptions" are such an offense to those of us who believe in Him and hold His truths sacred.
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.