“Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?
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. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? [98 U.S. 145, 167] To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.”
Reynolds v. United States, 1878.
It applies to homosexual marriage and is a precedent setting decision...
It was landmark U.S. Supreme Court precedent Reynolds v. United States in 1878 that made “separation of church and state” a dubiously legitimate point of case law, but more importantly; it confirmed the Constitutionality in statutory regulation of marriage practices.
Homosexual monogamy advocates seek ceremonious sanctification of their anatomical perversions and esoteric absolution for their guilt-ridden, impoverished egos.
Neither of those will satisfy their universal dissatisfaction with mortality or connect them to something eternal. With pantheons of fantasies as their medium of infinitization, they still have nothing in them of reality, any more than there is in the things that seem to stand before us in a dream.
Homosexual deviancy is really a pagan practice (and a self-induced social psychosis) at war with the Judaic culture over what is written in the book of Genesis (1:27, 2:18). The term “gaystapo” is very accurate.
Marriage is a privileged practice that requires a statutory license. All adults have privelege to marry one consenting adult of the opposite gender, therefore, 14th Amendment arguments of “equal privileges and immunities” do not apply...
Marriage is a religious rite, not a civil right...
It’s nice you mentioned that, because Government has had the right to enforce provisions to uphold marriage licenses. In fact, regarding polygamy, they used to try and get someone charged with polygamy even if they had ZERO MARRIAGE LICENSES, but just had multiple women living in this house. But yeah, it’s true that the vehicle used for prosecuting polygamy is useful for prosecuting people who don’t agree with what the government calls “marriage”.