Posted on 02/21/2020 2:03:22 PM PST by fwdude
Whether you think the Supreme Court's decision in the so-called gay marriage case Obergefell v. Hodges was right or wrong, it could not be what it is said to be.
Marriage concerns the association in which children are conceived in the stable, loving union of their parents. This is a unique relationship, crucial for the continuance of society, and we need a name for it so we know what we are talking about.
Consider then the notion that Obergefell gave homosexuals the right to marriage. It did no such thing, for they already had the right to marriage. A man attracted to men could always marry a woman. A woman attracted to women could always marry a man. Some have always done so.
Or consider the notion that Obergefell gave persons the right to homosexual marriage. It couldn’t do that either, because a procreative association requires both sexes. Whether you think the sexual pairing of two women or two men is a good thing, a bad one, or indifferent, by nature it is incapable of producing new life.
Or consider the notion that Obergefell redefined marriage as merely an association between two persons who want to cohabit sexually. If you have the power, you can use words any way you want to, but you cannot change the realities that words are intended to name. Redefining the word “oblique” so that it refers to both oblique and acute angles does not make acute angles the same thing as oblique ones. Redefining the word “dog” so that it refers to both dogs and rabbits does not make rabbits the same thing as dogs.
Suppose then that we do scramble our words. Henceforth, let us say, the word “marriage” is to be used with no procreative connotations whatsoever.
In that case, it is hard to see why the Supreme Court should have taken any interest whatsoever in “marriage.”
For the law has excellent reasons to define and protect the union that turns the wheel of the generations, so that each child has the strongest possible chance of being raised by his natural mom and dad. But it has no parallel interest in blurring the difference between that kind of association and other kinds.
And notice: This conclusion has no logical dependence on how favorably or unfavorably we look upon the other kinds. You can’t blame it on hostility or animus.
The natural order (nature) tells us that homosexuality is a perversion. Romans 1 tells us that homosexuality is an abominable sin.
Homosexuals who claim they are Christians pervert God's word, which is no surprise, since their heart and mind is perverted.
License is not love. There's a vast difference between admitting I have trouble with a sin or weakness and need Christ's help vs I take pride in and flaunt my sin. Christians are called to repent (turn) from sin and turn to Christ and His mercy. When we call good evil and evil good - we are truly in trouble.
The Supreme Court has proven it thinks it has the right to get involved in social engineering since at least Griswold vs. Connecticut.
God gave humans logic, and the innate ability to reason. We have the individual ability thinking critically, unless erased by evil indoctrination and indoctrinated mob peer pressure.
Great and honest article!
“Obergefell redefined marriage as merely an association between two persons who want to cohabit sexually”
That is a fairly accurate description of what it sought to do on paper, except that lesbian couples don’t have sex. Obergefell was another step toward destroying what was left of male-female relations in the West. Feminism and no fault divorce had already destroyed the institution of marriage. Same sex “marriage” was an endzone dance.
Yes, there really is a Culture War. It won’t be won by a modest reduction in marginal tax rates.
“If the author is saying that procreation is a prerequisite for marriage, I believe that’s a false premise.”
The author isn’t saying that. He said, “Marriage concerns the association in which children are (or MAY BE- words and emphasis mine) conceived in the stable, loving union of their parents. This is a unique relationship, crucial for the continuance of society, and we need a name for it so we know what we are talking about.”
In homosexual “marriage”, children cannot be conceived from the union of the two married people, ever. Thus, their relationship is not marriage.
Totally agree...
While Scripture teaches marriage is indeed prerequisite to children, it was also God’s design for male and female oneness.
Battery is dead—
Same sexes cannot marry any more than my dogs can marry. I don’t care what the Supreme Court said or what modern life says.
What Obergefell isn’t is “legislation”.
In some states there may be no legal basis for marriage.
The Supreme Court can declare legislation unconstitutional but it can’t legislate itself.
The Supreme Court declared most if not all State definitions of marriage unconstitutional in so far as they limited marriage to a man and a woman. Depending on how each law was written, the whole law didn’t have to be declared unconstitutional, just the section limiting marriage to a man and a woman, but in some cases the whole law became unconstitutional.
I do not believe that all states have replaced the legislation declared to be unconstitutional with new legislation. In such states, there may be no legal basis for marriage.
Whether you think the Supreme Court’s decision in the so-called gay marriage case Obergefell v. Hodges was right or wrong
I think he's saying that procreation and the subsequent protection of vulnerable children from that act are the sole justifications for any compelling interest of the state in a relationship between two adult individuals.
In short, absent even the remote possibility of creating any offspring, why does the state have anything to say about marriage? Sure, there are joint property considerations, but those can easily be solved through existing contract law.
If you see a FAMILY, the GREATEST collective in the history of civilization, smile.
If you see an INDIVIDUAL, the SMALLEST minority in the history of civilization, smile.
Thank you.
If the author is saying that procreation is a prerequisite for marriage, I believe that’s a false premise. Older folks past the age of fertility - marry. Young couples with physical constraints or limitations that prevent them from having children - marry. There are some couple, who although capable of producing children, chose not to do so. So we have here examples of men and women marrying who despite not having children are truly married.
Further, there is a difference between religious marriage, and government’s purpose in recognizing marriage. For the government’s cause, the benefits and rights granted are towards creating an environment in which to raise children and to recover afterwards, and those who never procreate are indeed gaming the system. The challenge here is to differentiate between that are not going to procreate, and those who just haven’t yet - so the governments largely haven’t where it is at least superficially feasible to procreate.
Again, while the line can be drawn at different places, it is a bounded range and the courts have no place in either expanding that range beyond the core criteria nor curtailing it. It also does not mean that some of those rights granted cannot be separately given to others under different auspices such as interpersonal contracts.
“I do not believe that all states have replaced the legislation declared to be unconstitutional with new legislation. In such states, there may be no legal basis for marriage.”
Agreed.
So many miss the basics in this.
The ruled laws that held one man one women kaput. So if laws were not rewritten, states cant license marriages. Good.
Another piece here is the Courts compelling interest. The court should look at the existing law, vote yeah or nay, not dream up solutions.
Want a new law Convince your fellow citizens to vote for it, or the representatives who will vote for it.
You've eloquently defined marriage! Thank you!
We've got a problem here with a word, "sex," which is almost entirely raveled out when it comes to coherent meaning.
If by "sex" you mean "identity based on reproductive genetics/anatomy," them, of course each lesbian has a sex, namely, female.
If by "sex" you mean "sexual union," meaning that physical union of the two sexes which has reproductive potential, then lesbians do not "have sex" but neither can males "have sex" with males. They cannot achieve sexual union, that is, the union of the sexes.
If by "sex" you mean, "achieving genital arousal with orgasm/climax," then yeah. The teenage Portnoy famously "had sex" with a plate of beef livers.
Nevertheless,I don't think he aspired to marry the livers.
You are so correct.
This can only be won by the act and work of God’s grace and forgiveness, and repentance in the hearts of individuals.
Actually whatever SCOTUS defines marriage as being becomes the law of the land, which thus criminalizes those states and employers who refuse to recognize it.
That does not mean SCOTUS is infallible, but they are the supreme judicial authority, and thus dissent from its rulings are punishable, even if the dissenter is correct, based upon the most supreme authority, from which any earthly authority derives it own.
Likewise if SCOTUS requires recognizing “oblique” as referring to both oblique and acute angles then those that dissent are to be considered wrong, even if correct.
Which beings us to the proposed Federal "Equality Act" which virtually all the Democrats and many Republicans want to pass, which would require (at least in jury selection) recognizing whatever a person claims they are,
"a perception or belief, even if inaccurate, concerning the race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), economic status, or national origin, respectively, of the individual” (SEC. 12. Juries)
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.