"I think we've done a wonderful job raising our children, so let's not let the gay community try their hand at it."
Public schools have been undermining parents for over 30 years and that is why the disconnect--Parents ASSUME that their little Johnny is taught what I refer to as "common sense" stuff. They are indoctrinated with moral relativism--which demeans Christianity and conservative parents.....
Children should have a right to be raised by a mother and a father since they will have to function in a world with both genders. Anything else should be considered a hateful environment for the sex that is excluded by the homosexual marriage. By allowing homosexual couples to adopt or raise children, you are saying that there is no right and wrong.....teaching moral relativism to the children (which leads to chaos in a society). It is hatefull to allow such a union!!!!!
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…