- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 66,852
- Reaction score
- 30,122
- Location
- Rolesville, NC
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
You are confusing the sacrament of marriage with a blanket assumption about civil unions.
According to the Latin tradition, the spouses as ministers of Christ’s grace mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony by expressing their consent before the Church. "1623 Catechism of the Catholic Church"
You cannot prove that marriage is not a sacrament, nor will you be able to redefine marriage!
I agree. You know the Constitution requires Congress to have a super majority rule to overturn a President's veto. What do you think about new law requiring a super majority in the Supreme Court to overturn state laws?
Show me where I am forcing anything on you! Interracial marriage, between a man and a woman, was upheld a long time ago! What is it about that that has you upset today? It is a human right because of the need to procreate. A civil union maybe a marriage or it may not be, but a marriage is between a human man and a human woman!
Living and let living is about tolerance, something the LGBT movement and anti-Christian's repeatedly fail to consider when discussing religious issues.
I think there must be a collectivist website somewhere that is recommending the argument by analogy to Loving v. Virgian to all the comrades. It is sheer nonsense, for reasons I have gone into in detail several times here on other threads. The Virginia miscegenation statutes that made it a felony for a white person and a colored person to marry each other had its origins in slavery laws and was designed to maintain white supremacy. The statutes did the very thing it was the central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment to prevent.
The notion that the people who drafted the Fourteenth Amendment and ratified it in 1868 ever meant it to guarantee homosexuals the right to marry each other against infringement by the states, or that it had ever been understood after that to guarantee any such right, does not even pass the laugh test. Justice Scalia made the point concisely in his dissenting opinion:
When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so. That resolves these cases. When it comes to determining the meaning of a vague constitutional provision—such as “due process of law” or “equal protection of the laws”—it is unquestionable that the People who ratified that provision did not understand it to prohibit a practice that remained both universal and uncontroversial in the years after ratification. (citing Town of Greece v. Galloway for that proposition; emphasis added)
Nowhere had the Supreme Court ever suggested before Obergefell, in Loving, Skinner, Meyer, Reynolds, or in any other decision where it had affirmed marriage as a basic right, that it was referring to anything other than marriage between one man and one woman. The claim that the Court ever meant "marriage, period" leads to the absurd conclusion the Court meant to say there was not only a fundamental right to homosexual marriage, but also to child marriage, incestuous marriage, bigamy, and polygamy.
I agree. Anthony Kennedy and his four fellow philosopher-kings had no right to force their personal definition of marriage on the many tens of millions of Americans, a majority in seventy per cent of the states, who did not agree with it.
I'm sorry it took me so long to respond, I was out having a few drinks. It's Saturday, sue me :lol:
I perfectly understand where you're coming from. However, there are quite a list of bans/amendments which specifically singled out gay marriage
Those that don't specifically mention gay marriage were adopted within the same political climate.
Though your post doesn't deny that, I think it's pretty clear that the rest of the amendments/bans were adopted to fit that climate, and were also adopted with gays in mind.
There simply was no wide scale movement to legalize other types of unions at the time. There still aren't.
So while some efforts to ban gay marriage were pretty up front about their intentions, others simply used vague wording that would cover it. Don't you think?
Show me a single marriage law within the US, ever, that requires married couples be able to procreate with each other.
I can show you several that say the opposite in fact, that certain couples must show they can't or are unlikely to procreate with each other in order to be able to legally marry.
Irrelevant to the definition of marriage as many states have Constitutionally defined it as being between a man and woman. It is not discriminatory to then allow and recognize same sex civil unions and marriages equally within the law. Anything less is intolerant to the strongly held beliefs of society as marriage has been defined for centuries and the majority that still define a marriage as such!
No. Many state wrongfully placed restrictions on marriage based on relative sex of the participants, which has absolutely zero to do with furthering any state interest. Most of those states banned same sex civil unions with those amendments as well. And yes, it would be discriminatory to have same sex couples recognized by civil unions and opposite sex couples recognized by marriages, when they would be the exact same thing under the law in everything but name.
I don't care two squats about a few people's "strongly held beliefs". Strongly held beliefs were responsible for a good deal of the bad things in this country, including slavery, Jim Crow laws, women having less rights than men for a long time, segregation, interracial marriage bans, and more.
Read my post again and you will understand my position! What you want I will not give so stop your intolerance and try to understand.
Then again since you don't care "two squats" there is no reason for me to continue to discuss anything with you...another strongly held belief I am sure you disagree with but one I do not care what you think or reply over!
Your position is not based on any legal basis. States "defined" marriage at one time as being "between two people of the same race". That was just as much a spurious definition as defining it by the sex restriction. In reality, state marriage is defined in what it does, which is establishing a legal kinship between two people, a kinship that is known as spouses and that comes with certain rights, benefits, protections, and responsibilities under the law.
The Loving ruling was based on race and did nothing to alter the marriage definition from one man and one woman. A black woman is still a woman just as a gay woman is still a woman. If gender difference is not "required" (or even constitutional) then what (other than tradition) makes the marriage partnership, unlike a business partnership, limited to only two partners?
Show me where I am forcing anything on you! Interracial marriage, between a man and a woman, was upheld a long time ago! What is it about that that has you upset today? It is a human right because of the need to procreate. A civil union maybe a marriage or it may not be, but a marriage is between a human man and a human woman!
Living and let living is about tolerance, something the LGBT movement and anti-Christian's repeatedly fail to consider when discussing religious issues.
A civil union would do the same thing, but marriage would be upheld as it has been throughout history and is still widely accepted today as between a man and a woman. Both sides would be happy and the intolerance of the left would be forgiven by the Christian community thus we could have social harmony. Unless bigots and hate-mongers will not compromise with the deeply held beliefs and religious rights of the majority of society, this fight will continue and will become the Roe v. Wade of the 21st century.
A civil union would do the same thing, but marriage would be upheld as it has been throughout history and is still widely accepted today as between a man and a woman. Both sides would be happy and the intolerance of the left would be forgiven by the Christian community thus we could have social harmony. Unless bigots and hate-mongers will not compromise with the deeply held beliefs and religious rights of the majority of society, this fight will continue and will become the Roe v. Wade of the 21st century.
Government can't discriminate on any level; but, private citizens can, and businesses can. It's called freedom, and the right to freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of religion...
That said, society clearly has a vested interest in maintaining order, and some form of decorum. An example would be incest - at what point does a society simply say, "... to he!! with it, anything goes - go ahead and marry your 6 year old daughter".
Beyond that, history gives pretty clear examples of how societies collapse - they collapse from within... just as America is collapsing today.
It's a can of worms, that's for sure... but it is clear that the Establishment that controls our country is using the courts to rip our society apart, and enforce everything PC. It's fascist, and it's disgusting.
No, businesses cannot legally discriminate without facing legal consequences.
Like I said, the courts and our government have gone full-on fascist.
There's certainly no constitutional grounds upon which a private business can't refuse service to anyone.
But of course leftists have never cared about anyone's rights or the rule of law - they simply bully society thru the courts, and when they have enough power they pull out the guns. It's an old story.
There's really nothing in the Constitution that prevents such laws (Public Accommodation laws) either.
Like I said, the courts and our government have gone full-on fascist.
There's certainly no constitutional grounds upon which a private business can't refuse service to anyone.
But of course leftists have never cared about anyone's rights or the rule of law - they simply bully society thru the courts, and when they have enough power they pull out the guns. It's an old story.
So then ending Jim Crow laws was wrong?
Ok, interracial marriage. Nowhere in the constitution does it say you have a right to marry someone of another race. That was found unconstitutional for the same reason SSM was. And it wasn't just a few SCOTUS's, it was 13. Marriage is a fundamental human right and you don't have the right to force your definition on others. Live and let live.
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277
No, as I said in my earlier posts in this thread - the distinction lies between government and private individuals and businesses.
The government cannot discriminate against a citizen, but individuals and private businesses can. Everyone has the freedom to associate, or not associate with anyone they wish - it is called freedom.
If the government steps in and forces one party into a relationship with another party against their will - then the government is violating the rights of that party.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Only the government can violate someone's rights; whereas if an individual should visit harm upon another person or business, that may be breaking the law, but nowhere in the Constitution is the government authorized to force a private citizen or business into a relationship with another private individual or business - such a law would be unconstitutional and therefore itself illegal.
Hence my point that the government has violated the Constitution in such cases where it does force such a relationship. The government either by legislation or thru the courts has no such power.
So then they can make the anti-discrimination laws and private businesses can choose whether or not to actually be in that business and follow the law...or not go into that business? Is that what you mean?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?