Posted on 04/25/2015 9:19:07 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
On April 28, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Obergefell v. Hodges and three other cases, testing the constitutionality of state bans on same-sex “marriage” and state refusals to recognize existing same-sex “marriages.” The outcome may well impose same-sex “marriage” on the entire United States of America, much as Roe v. Wade imposed abortion on demand upon the entire nation in 1973.
Such another sweeping “exercise in raw judicial power” (to cite Justice Byron White’s famous dissent in Roe) would be, in large part, based upon claims, rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to the effect that homosexuals have been unjustly denied “equal protection of the laws” by not enjoying access to homosexual “marriage” and, thereby, to the legal status and benefits given to those citizens who are free to enter into traditional heterosexual marriages. The following analysis addresses this central claim presented in the pending cases.
Traditional marriage already has a legitimate and exclusive foundation in the Constitution, because the Constitution’s Preamble explicitly states that among its enumerated purposes is to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”
According to Burton’s Legal Thesaurus, fourth edition (2007), “posterity” means, exclusively, entities, such as “later generations,” “children,” “progeny,” and other terms unequivocally identified with biological descendants.
Since the Preamble establishes the “legislative intent” that judges look to in determining the meaning of a law or constitution, it is clear that the U.S. Constitution is designed to secure the blessings of liberty to the biological descendants of the citizenry that constituted the United States at the time that the Constitution was enacted. This makes those biological descendants and whatever essentially pertains to them, including, presumably, the process by which they come into being as citizens of the nation, a central part or purpose of the Constitution itself.
“Equal protection of the laws” found in the Fourteenth Amendment language is cited in both state and federal claims alleging that homosexuals have the same right to marry as heterosexuals.
But such equality claims are illicit unless litigants are similarly situated before the law.
Since heterosexual marriage as a general institution can, at least potentially, further the purposes of the Constitution by securing the “blessings of liberty … to … our posterity” (biological descendants)—insofar as traditional marriage is the only institution that is naturally able to produce society’s posterity (biological descendants)—and since homosexual unions cannot produce any “posterity” (biological descendants) by themselves, the potential litigants are not similarly situated.
That is to say, while anyone can contribute to the blessings of liberty which may be bestowed upon posterity, traditional marriage between a man and a woman is the only civil institution naturally able to create the very object which is to receive those blessings, namely, posterity itself—the biological descendants of the present citizenry.
Anyone can make contributions to posterity, but the sexual union of male and female alone actually makes posterity itself. Marriage is the civil institution that regulates that union in civil society.
Thus, the Preamble’s wording establishes a distinct and special basis for traditional marriage, which does not obtain in homosexual unions.
This role of traditional marriage in producing society’s posterity is consistent with the classical meaning of marriage, even as understood by the pagan Romans.
Matrimony is taken from the Latin, “mater,” meaning “mother,” and “monium,” meaning “a state or condition,” thus defining the purpose of marriage as a man taking a wife in order to have children. In ancient Rome, this was understood as the purpose of marriage, the production of new citizens for the pagan Roman Empire.
While not every traditional marriage may actually beget new citizens for America, and while anyone may be able to adopt children, nonetheless traditional marriage between a man and a woman is the sole natural institution through which our “posterity” is begotten in order to replenish and perpetuate the citizenry of our nation. No merely arbitrarily formed contract—including so-called “same-sex marriage”—can fulfill that role as envisioned by the Founding Fathers, when they created a Constitution that secured the blessings of liberty, not only for ourselves, but also for our posterity.
Therefore, there is no legitimate basis for demanding “marriage equality” for homosexual unions—given the wording that expresses the legislative intent of the Founding Fathers as stated in the Preamble to the Constitution.
The Fourteenth Amendment cannot be legitimately employed to impose same-sex “marriage” upon the United States of America—unless the present Supreme Court intends once again to bear the infamy of engaging in an “exercise in raw judicial power.”
Saying the Preamble is not law is NOTHING like saying the Declaration of Independence is not law, for the very simple reason that the Declaration of Independence IS law, while the Preamble is NOT law.
Incorrect interpretation. The First Amendment, as part of the Constitution, is supreme law of the land, and nothing may prevent free exercise of religion, i.e. so long as said law is upheld. (Which, of course, is about as upheld as Article 4 Section 4 Clause 2 with respect to invasion particularly by illegals.)
While it is true that nothing in the Constitution authorizes the federal government to impose gay marriage on the states, there is also nothing in the Constitution that prevents each state, or eventually all the states, from redefining or abolishing marriage …
Not Amendments 9 and 10?
Because the American People have accepted government schooling, the fed, the income tax, welfare, abortion, and gay marriage, the Constitution is defunct. There was never anything IN the Constitution that could prevent it …
The basis of a just law—what makes it just—is that it comports with the natural moral law.
The presence of a preamble is absolutely, totally irrelevant.
More than anything else, the preamble IS the Constitution.
Can you point to any part of the Constitution that says that?
When officers of government, all of them, take their oath, as required by Article VI, they swear to support and defend the Constitution. All of it.
The world is full of things and truths that are not mentioned in the Constitution. It’s a Constitution, not an encyclopedia.
All you have to do is READ the Preamble.
Point to something in the Preamble that commands anyone to DO SOMETHING.
You can’t. It’s not there.
Therefore, the Preamble is not law.
Its a valid point.
He could also argue the very definition of marriage is exclusive to homosexuals. The definition has always been one man, one woman. Marriage has a specific definition because words mean what they mean.
Redefining it to whatever, destroys the definition. You can call your ass an elbow, but it doesn’t make it an elbow.
As required by Article VI, every officer of government in this country, in every branch, at every level, swears a sacred oath to do everything in his power to:
1. Form a more perfect Union
2. Establish Justice
3. Insure domestic Tranquility
4. Provide for the common defense
5. Promote the general Welfare
6. Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
“Gay marriage” and abortion both destroy every possibility of fulfilling any of that.
What sense does any oath make if our representatives are not required to fulfill any of the stated purposes of the document they are required to swear to support and defend?
One of the primary reasons that the Articles of Confederation failed is that they did not include any statement of purpose.
One of the primary reasons that the U.S. Constitution has worked for more than 200 years is because of the document’s statement of purpose, aka its preamble.
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
"in Order to"
order
OR’DER, n. [L. ordo.]
1. Regular disposition or methodical arrangement of things; a word of extensive application; as the order of troops or parade; the order of books in a library; the order of proceedings in a legislative assembly. Order is the life of business.
Good order is the foundation of all good things.
2. Proper state; as the muskets are all in good order. When the bodily organs are in order, a person is in health; when they are out of order, he is indisposed.
3. Adherence to the point in discussion, according to established rules of debate; as, the member is not in order, that is, he wanders from the question.
4. Established mode of proceeding. The motion is not in order.
5. Regularity; settled mode of operation.
This fact could not occur in the order of nature; it is against the natural order of things.
6. Mandate; precept; command; authoritative direction. I have received an order from the commander in chief. The general gave orders to march. There is an order of council to issue letters of marque.
7. Rule; regulation; as the rules and orders of a legislative house.
8. Regular government or discipline. It is necessary for society that good order should be observed. The meeting was turbulent; it was impossible to keep order.
9. Rank; class; division of men; as the order of nobles; the order of priests; the higher orders of society; men of the lowest order; order of knights; military orders, &c.
10. A religious fraternity; as the order of Benedictines.
11. A division of natural objects, generally intermediate between class and genus. The classes, in the Linnean artificial system, are divided into orders, which include one or more genera. Linne also arranged vegetables, in his natural system, into groups of genera, called order. In the natural system of Jussieu, orders are subdivisions of classes.
12. Measures; care. Take some order for the safety and support of the soldiers.
Provide me soldiers whilst I take order for my own affairs.
13. In rhetoric, the placing of words and members in a sentence in such a manner as to contribute to force and beauty of expression, or to the clear illustration of the subject.
14. The title of certain ancient books containing the divine office and manner of its performance.
15. In architecture, a system of several members, ornaments and proportions of columns and pilasters; or a regular arrangement of the projecting parts of a building, especially of the columns, so as to form one beautiful whole. The orders are five, the Tuscan, Doric, Ionic, Corinthian, and Composite. The order consists of two principal members, the column, and the entablature, each of which is composed of three principal parts. Those of the column are the base, the shaft, and the capital; those of the entablature are the architrave, the frize, and the cornice. The height of the Tuscan column is 14 modules or semidiameters of the shaft at the bottom, and that os the entablature 3 1/2. The height of the Doric order is 16 modules and that of the entablature 4; that of the Ionic is 18 modules, and that of the entablature 4 1/2, that of the Corinthian order is 20 modules, and that of the entablature 5. The height of the Composite order agrees with that of the Corinthian.
In orders, set apart for the performance divine service; ordained to the work of the gospel ministry.
In order, for the purpose; to the end; as means to an end. The best knowledge is that which is of the greatest use in order to our eternal happiness.
General orders, the commands or notices which a military commander in chief issues to the troops under his command.
OR’DER, v.t.
1. To regulate; to methodize; to systemize; to adjust; to subject to system in management and execution; as, to order domestic affairs with prudence.
2. To lead; to conduct; to subject to rules or laws.
To him that ordereth his conversation aright, will I show the salvation of God. Ps. 50.
3. to direct; to command. the general ordered his troops to advance.
4. To manage; to treat.
How shall we order the child? Judges 13.
5. To ordain. [Not used.]
6. To direct; to dispose in any particular manner.
Order my steps in thy word. Ps. 119.
OR’DER, v.i. to give command or direction.
Sorry but the preamble is making an acknowledgement of preexisting natural moral law that it must follow.. it set the premise, the foundation, that naturally pre-exist its a statement of that fact ...it’s like the Declaration of Independence “we hold these truths to be self-evident”... its acknowledgement of preexisting natural law.. the law build by men must be built on foundation of natural bedrock ..else its arbitrary and has no true foundation..its nothing but whim of who has the power
look up the word preamble it has a function
the introductory part of a statute or deed, stating its purpose, aims, and justification.
Moron.
I am not positive, and too lazy to research it, but am guessing when the constitution was written, marriage was something that happened in a church and just a religious ceremony and because of that, they never intended government to have any say one way or another... I would argue the government stepped over constitutional boundaries when they started collecting marriage license fees.
If you do not wish to have the reputation of an idiot, do not, DO NOT, ever make these arguments in a public place in front of an audience. Oops. Too late.
If your theory of “law” were correct, people would be arrested, indicted, tried, and imprisoned for “doing evil” and “failing to do good.”
mar·riageOrigin Middle English: from Old French mariage, from marier ‘marry.’
--from http://www.etymonline.com/
- marry (v.)
- c. 1300, "to give (offspring) in marriage,"
Societies either favor the creation of successive generations or they disappear.
Many on the left argue that it is law when it comes to "welfare", something only mentioned there. This entire issue is one of faction and not fact. The 14th amendment says if the federal gov't allows people to do something then the states can't forbid it. There is no federal law prohibiting murder, only state laws. We don't consider murder to be a right; we've got to come together in understanding that our legal system has to make sense.
Sorry, I don't like it when liberals argue over comas out of the context of the times the constitution was written and it would be hypocritical of me to read between the lines to support something which is clearly not addressed the way the author wants it addressed.
Just like the founding fathers couldn't have imagined the internet and TV reporters (the 1st)...nor could they have imagined the "assault rifle" (BARF)....they would have never in their wildest dreams have imagined gay marriage. NEVER.
So it's best not to try and connect dots that aren't there. After all, there are plenty of gay couples that have "progeny" and if they ever succeed in reproduction without a male ( and they are working on it) then what is going to be said? It would still be progeny.
Let the constitution speak and stand on its own...and lets stop trying to read more into it than is there.
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.