Posted on 06/07/2006 9:44:59 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
I meant (as I said) that the amendment must be passed and ratified ASAP, not that it had to pass today.
I don't think that the situation is as dire as some argue. Marriage is governed by two separate institutions: religious organizations and the government. I was married in the Catholic church, and to the extent that my marriage is sacred, it's because of the church's blessing. However, the church cannot grant me special tax status or survivorship rights under probate law. I receive those benefits because of civil laws enacted by the government. Also, the government will grant me a divorce order, and allow me to re-marry without committing polygamy. The church will not allow me to divorce, and even after a court divorce order, a second marriage would, according to church law, constitute adultery. So the government, including activist judges, can change the civil definition of marriage, but not the religious definition. Finally, the Catholic Charities adoption case in Mass. not withstanding, the Court will NEVER mandate a particular church to recognize the validity of a particular marriage. Never.
I see. I doubt it will come up again before - oh, election season 2008......
You contradicted your argument in the same sentence in which you made it.
Same-sex "marriage" is, as you point out above, already being used to persecute the Church. It is not unimaginable that this will continue in the future. That is why we need the FMA; it is an extension or clarification of the First Amendment.
Congress acted in 1861 to define marriage prior to Utah being accepted as equal. The Us supreme Court in a series of decisions 1878 Reynolds --1890 Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter day Saints v. the Unite dStates upheld that Congresisonal definition of marriage. Yet to day we insit it is just a local issue. Perhaps - It matters NOT what Congress or th eCOurts declare is legal IF human law violates the Law of nature dictated by God Himself, or the
positive Revealed Laws found in Scripture Human law is ill made. I will NOT recognize as valid any same sex/homosexual marriage NOR recognize as equal to marriage any dilution of the trademark institution.
The Catholic Charities case is being appealed and will, I believe, be reversed. Even if it stands, the Church will never be forced to recognize gay marriage. Consider this, the church does not grant a practical benefit (tax status, social security rights, etc.) on married couples, so the principle remedy that a court could grant would be a mandate requiring a priest to perform a marriage ceremony. That will absolutely never happen. The only other available action is (like in the Catholic Charities case) to strip the church of its authority to execute civil marriage licenses. This is a more likely scenario (though still improbable), and frankly I can think of worse things that could happen to the church.
You're right. This has several features in common with prohibition: grass-roots origins, values-based. That had a disastrous thirteen year run before the Constitution had to be re-amended to undo the public's folly. Good Call.
Also, look at Europe and Canada who are further down this road, where quoting certain Bible verses constitutes "hate speech."
And here I thought it was about abolition or voting.
What percentage of Americans liked to drink then?
What percentage like to lick their same-sex partners today?
I see a wee bit of a difference. But, hey...
I suppose you'll be wanting an Amendment for abortion? Right to die cases? Amount of ice cream in a scoop at the local drugstore? The full faith and credit clause excuse is a red herring. It existed at the time of the passage of the Constitution and yet the separate and sovereign states passed laws unique to the respective state. Interestingly enough, many of those laws are still on the books. It will be funny to watch statists become federalists overnight if a Democrat wins
Most issues were designed to be determined at the state level.
I don't know. However, the prohibition amendment was adopted by congress on its first vote and ratified less than a year later. This required the type of vast public support, that the the gay marriage amendment has never had. Accordingly, since you imply that public support reflects participation in the activity, than you think that guys would rather marry their buddy than have a beer with him. An interesting theory.
Lets see, was Sodom a nation or a local?
No. Way off. Try again.
"Not according to the full faith and credit clause."
But the full faith and credit clause allows for Congressional regulation as to the manner in which full faith and credit is given. Congress, with the Defense of Marriage Act, has stated that if one state recognizes same-sex "marriages," no such "marriage" needs to be recognized by other states. Additionally, there's a well-recognized "public policy" exemption to the full faith and credit clause, so, if a state declares that it's the policy of the state to regulate marriage in a particular way, there's no need to recognize an "unsuitable" marriage.
Marriage is, and should be, a state issue. Why do we want to give more power to the Federal government?
Amazing. You compare how farmers grow some crops to the foundation of human civilization.
BTTT and great links.
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.