Posted on 11/08/2014 12:28:30 AM PST by GonzoII
Technically speaking should this not have been left to the States?
Of course this was about a natural marriage.
Why hasn't someone brought up this decision before? I would say that it certainly makes the recent Federal Court decisions invalid.
I don’t have any faith in the supreme court. They seem more driven by politics then the constitution.
true, marriage is not a federal issue. States create marriage laws.
Unless we pass a Federal Marriage Amendment the Supremes will overturn this.
I really like the term “Natural Marriage”. Sounds like a polite retort to “Gay marriage”
Polygamy was a federal issue. Utah was not allowed to join the union until they banned polygamy.
Liberals claimed we did not need a federal marriage amendment because we had a federal DOMA and state DOMAs and state amendments. Well the Supremes overturned the federal DOMA and federal courts have been overturning state DOMAs and amendments. Just because a few states have a temporary ok to keep their bans does not negate the states where bans have been overturned and whose appeal to the Supremes was declined.
We need a federal marriage amendment.
As it stood before this craziness, the differences between state marriage laws were very minor having to do with age and parental consent.
“Unless we pass a Federal Marriage Amendment the Supremes will overturn this.”
Rather than deciding on constitutionality more court rulings are making reference to “accepted norms,” foreign law and bowing to current politics.
Bosh. They "respect precedent" the way they "believe in science": as long as it serves the Revolution, and not one second longer. The destruction of the natural family serves the Revolution; therefore, all precedents "privileging" natural marriage can be ignored.
Indeed! Thanks for posting this Gonzo. Great article!
Unless you decide it was about racial discrimination and not really about marriage, because, as noted, it did not change the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.
so Florida had marriage defined on the ballot a few years ago and we voted to uphold it between a man and a woman. Now, the courts are overturning here in certain counties.
How can we stop them? with this case going to the SC?
Natural vs. Unnatural. Nice
” it means that defining marriage is exclusively an issue for the states to decide. “
However that puts us in the position where a marriage could be legal in one state and not another.
Because we have allowed government to define “marriage” for its own purposes (such as taxation and regulation of estates), we have allowed government to define marriage as a social institution. That was fine as long as people in control of government were generally supportive of God’s original definition of marriage. However we have entered a time when a growing number of people in control of government want to redefine marriage for their own purposes, which in part is contrary to God’s definition.
Marriage is now far more a matter of politics and ideology than of private religious beliefs.
Therefore, for the sake of marriage as God defines it, it is time to remove from government the power to define who is married and who is not. Then people could form whatever relationships they please but they could not force those who disagree to be enablers for those relationships. And we would not have schools that must teach that homosexual “marriages” are just as legitimate as heterosexual ones. Nor would we have owners of wedding-related services being threatened with arrest and being convicted of a crime for merely declining to artfully photograph a “marriage” they find morally repugnant.
The Edmunds Tucker and related acts started this whole mess. Better to allow a tiny minority its religious right to marry, than lose a whole nation.
“I really like the term Natural Marriage. Sounds like a polite retort to Gay marriage
I do, too. Control of the language is important, and is something that we haven’t been very good at. If the term “natural marriage” becomes widely used, how long do you think it will be before the left begins to claim that it’s bigoted?
And the converse, "unnatural marriage," explains the problem.
Bttt
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.