Posted on 06/28/2015 10:08:50 PM PDT by z taxman
...The Constitution is silent on the question of marriage because marriage has always been a local issue. Our founding fathers went to the local courthouse to be married, not to Washington, D.C.
I’ve often said I don’t want my guns or my marriage registered in Washington.
Those who disagree with the recent Supreme Court ruling argue that the court should not overturn the will of legislative majorities. Those who favor the Supreme Court ruling argue that the 14th Amendment protects rights from legislative majorities.
Do consenting adults have a right to contract with other consenting adults? Supporters of the Supreme Court’s decision argue yes but they argue no when it comes to economic liberties, like contracts regarding wages.
It seems some rights are more equal than others.
...
I acknowledge the right to contract in all economic and personal spheres, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a danger that a government that involves itself in every nook and cranny of our lives won’t now enforce definitions that conflict with sincerely felt religious convictions of others.
Some have argued that the Supreme Court’s ruling will now involve the police power ofthe state in churches, church schools, church hospitals.
This may well become the nextstep, and I for one will stand ready toresist any intrusion of government into the religious sphere.
Justice Clarence Thomas is correct in his dissent when hesays: “In the American legal tradition, liberty has long been understood as individual freedom from governmental action, not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement.”
The government shouldn't prevent people from making contracts but that does not mean that the government must confer a special imprimatur upon a new definition ofmarriage.
Perhaps the time has come to examine whether or not governmental recognition of marriage is a good idea, for eitherparty.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
I read on another posting where someone stated that Congress has the power to remove any federal official, from the highest ranking Executive or Justice of a Court to the lowliest appointed bureaucrat. If so, I guess that is where the authority rests. But I won't bet the mortgage on this Congress doing anything other than jawboning and generating a lot of carbonic acid.
I think a smart candidate for president or congress could win on an “impeach the court” platform provided they are solid on other constitutional issues. I think Americans are waiting for a candidate to restore law and order to the Supreme Court.
Here’s the problem I have with that. Before, the states were taking a pro-biblical position: Marriage is one man and one women. Now they’re being forced by 5 reprobates to take an atheist position. Rand Paul is asking for an agnostic position. In either Paul’s or Kennedy’s case, the states are no longer reflecting the will of the people. There is nothing unconstitutional about a state defining marriage. If a few reprobates can force state government to ignore the will of the people, then the Republic is lost. You see what I’m saying. We didn’t want the people to stop defining marriage until 5 reprobates waved their rainbow wands and made Sodomite marriage a constitutional right.
Perhaps this is just recognition of fact, and the Republic is lost.
Also, this fails to recognize the agenda behind all of this. This won’t stop until Christians are thoroughly punished for making Sodomites feel bad all these years and until there is 100% affirmation by every institute that Sodomy is the greatest thing on the planet.
Secular government is a vacuum that WILL be filled by something.
There isn’t anywhere in the Bill of Rights or Constitution that says the government may write laws regarding marriage. I’m against them marrying as well, but the federal government has no legal authority on the matter, and as such all laws passed by them should be null and void, as they are unconstitutional.
The federal government is in charge of writing the laws in regards of marriage, for it's own dealings with the matter, so they do have some areas where marriage comes up, for instance, the military, immigration, federal employment.
You are selling snake oil and you refuse to engage with our posts.
You are a libertarian aren’t you, selling lies that you know are lies, in an effort to derail conservatives from fighting for marriage.
For a couple of years, several in fact, this new libertarian tact is to switch from your attacks of “statism” to a super religious argument about us being too holy, too pure of Christians to want to deal with these nasty ole politics about gay marriage and preserving marriage in America, and now you are trying the religion angle to get us to stop fighting against your culture war, in the political/government arena.
I know I am and I hope you are right, but my gut feeling is that the typical voter of today is more concerned with which candidate promises them more material benefits, and likely has little or no understanding of basic civics, let alone Constitutional principles. Some of those videos I see on MRCTV and the like, where people (college and high school graduates) can't answer basic questions about civics, current events, and US history, really make me wonder if even presented with the chance, voters would opt for a return to a more Constitutionally-based system.
I don’t care who you are, that last line is funny right there...and true ;)
IMO, the task at hand would be MUCH easier if govt wasn’t in the ‘social engineering’ to begin: No marriage penalty, exceptions, benefits...In fact, it should be standardized across-the-board.
My $.02, get govt out, make them all contract and, IF one wishes, sanctioned by the church/Creator.
Course, when it comes to the children, that’s a whole ‘nother ball of wax. There should still be father/mother (sperm doesn’t grow on trees [yet?]) and two men, two women still can’t get each other pregnant. Adoptions are for the betterment of the child = mom/pop (though, I suspect, if NONE can be found, a home that is not the State is better than the orphanage. Which means, making adoption easier/cheaper).
Yep, whole new can of worms with ONE ruling by the judicial oligarchy....
Government should have nothing to do with marriage.
This should be conservatives’ position.
AMEN!
Government should have nothing to do with marriage
interesting that “....The moral justification for its existence was not that it came from God or a monarch (or in this case an emperor), but because it was rational and just.... “
http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/thenapoleonsandempire/a/Napoleonic-Code-Code-Napoleon.htm
It is complex. One can have an initial reaction to it but would appear to be a change to the better from what existed prior? But definitely not a perfect system.
As a result of the Napoleonic code, my ancestors in Holland had to pick a new last name and record it at the county seat. No more “son of” type names. Some picked funny names like “outhouse” or “stuck in pants” as their way of protesting and thinking the code wouldn’t last, but then they got stuck with the name.
“In the American legal tradition, liberty has long been understood as individual freedom from governmental action, not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement.”
-Clarence Thomas, 2015
People lose the fact that we were once a people with a Government that was fulfilling it’s role by promoting healthy families. It is not wrong for a peoples government to promote strength for the future.
Of course it’s complete lunacy to even speak that way in this dump we live in now apparently.
People like Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and Abraham Lincoln?
This is America, we don’t have a state church to tell everyone if a marriage is valid or not.
correct. the gov can register domestic partnerships of any kind. marriage is a sacrament, not a government contract
“The fact that marriage falls under the purview of government gives authorities like scouts the ability to play social engineers.” Wow, so a civilian private organization, Boy Scouts of America, is practicing social engineering under US Government egress? Are you insane?
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.