Posted on 12/01/2016 10:38:38 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
It's true that the Left has perpetrated a cultural coup by flooding the country with pro "gay marriage" propaganda. But the polls showing majority support are probably inaccurate.
I think it's the Brexit-effect again. I.e., people are afraid to tell pollsters their true feelings about "gay marriage," feelings that have a lot more depth and complexity than the Left wants to admit.
Most Americans are genuinely tolerant; but they resent being forced to change the very meaning of a tradition like marriage, on the whim of a strident Leftist minority.
Quit trying to cheer me up.
“Marriage equality?” You mean state-approved perversion? Yeah, I would hope it’s “vulnerable.” In fact, I’m hoping it’s crapping in its diaper. It’s an insanity that never should have been permitted to begin with.
Why couldn’t they be invalidated? When laws were passed forbidding polygamy, the redundant marriages were anulled, but society didn’t collapse.
Actually, there are both secular and sacred dimensions to marriage, although you can make the case that in its purest form, any covenant outside the religious sphere is little more than a business partnership.
OK, but we need to get clear about what the actual LAW says.
The Law of the Land, the Constitution, is the ONLY source of power and authority for the feds. If is ain’t in the Constitution, it doesn’t belong to the feds. Marriage ain’t in the Constitution and is thus outside of federal power. Period.
States are another matter. outside the Constitution, states are sovereign, so it is up to the people of a state to decide what to do with marriage. We all have personal views about it and that’s fine, but when it comes to government interference, we need to get real clear about what is valid and legal and what is invalid and illegal.
To invalidate or annul a marriage, in most states, there must be fraud, fraud in which one party of the marriage was deceived, not qualified or incapacitated at the time of the marriage procedure.
In same sex marriages that have taken place, unless one of the above standards is met, there are no grounds to invalidate the marriage.
Additionally,
The Constitution does not allow states to pass ex post facto laws.
And again, the Court would be drawn into questions about the Equal Protection Clause as various classes of people would be established.
Unlike the overwrought Stuart Milk, the only ‘dark days ahead’ I see are the ones we face if the Supreme Court doesn’t reverse itself with another Obergefell v. Hodges type case. Or better yet, recognize that it overstepped its limited power regarding states rights in the original ruling.
Of course, the best outcome would be an amendment stating that marriage will only be legal between one person born a male and one person born a female with allowances for the rare case of a person born with physical ambiguity. Anything else is just a domestic arrangement.
As for gay conversion therapy, I’d like to see a shakeup in the entire field of psychology regarding homosexuality. They need to return to sound medical practices and that includes once again recognizing homosexuality as the mental illness that it is. There are too many quacks in that branch of medicine.
“equal rights, yes.”
They have an equal right to get treatment so that they will no longer be compelled to engage in loathsome perversions.
They have an equal right to stop trying to start an AIDS epidemic among normal people by going back and forth from men to women and back.
They have an equal right to maintain a thousand-yard distance from anyone under thirty years of age.
They have an equal right to hide their disorder from the view of decent people.
They have an equal right to shut the hell up about their “sex” lives.
That’s about it.
This has precedent. When Prohibition was passed as a constitutional amendment, those with stores of alcohol were “grandfathered” into a right to keep them. Similarly, churches and other religions using alcohol (wine) in their rituals could keep purchasing/making those beverages.
Were these brought up on charges of “equal protection?” That clause has been abused more than a ghetto “wife.”
“Fake” marriage.
Prohibition was a matter of a constitutional amendment and as a constitutional amendment can stand by itself.
The Court’s decision on same sex marriage should have been based on standing amendments.
The remedy would be marriage amendment.
I don’t see that happening.
I don’t see any constitutional amendments passing in our lifetimes.
“Marriage equality” is every bit as Orwellian as the lefties other favorite meme “gun safety”.
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.