Here we go. Once again the Supreme Court is involved in changing social policy.It did not work well for Prohibition, or abortion( we still fight about it), and they were dead wrong about slavery ( Dred Scott decision 1857.)Every time they expand or change what the Constitution actually covers, there is trouble.
Why the government interest in marriage? hm. I guess because some federal benefits are based on marriage . But it is not in the Constitution. http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html so how does this work? why do individual states get to write marriage laws? oh yeah..the 10th amendment, http://marriage.uslegal.com/state-marriage-laws/ “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” In effect, states ensure that no one remarry while still married to another partner, decide on property laws, and deal with such issues as child custody. The US Supreme Court however, took exception to the miscegenation laws in Virginia and ended the ban on interracial marriage . Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) the basis was the 14th amendment. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Now you see why the issue of gay marriage is so confounding. Gay activists want all the same rights for those who identify as LGBT as other people based on the 14th amendment. As half of all heterosexual couples in the US are living without benefit of marriage,aren't worried about inheritance or child custody or the right to visit a federal prisoner I fail to see a compelling need for gay marriage, however, the Supreme Court does have the right to supersede state law in these matters. When did marriage become a governmental right instead of the more usual, around the world, religious right?Why should the government be sticking its nose in on our own morals, our own bedrooms? We are mostly based on English Common law.There is a difference between a legally married couple and what was called common law marriages.We, in effect, have always recognized couples outside the bounds of marriage in some fashion. What is really at stake is inheritance. a legitimately produced heir had no problem inheriting. Bastards were not recognized.As we entered the 20th century, and had courts dealing more often with divorce, child custody, and the like, regulations, state constitutions, and further layers such as issuing marriage licenses commenced.Polygamy was outlawed That this would leave the door open for a totally new kind of marriage...2 spouses of the same sex, never occurred to anyone of that time.In spite of some historical blips, such as the Caesar who married three different men, castrating two of them to look better in their dresses,the Pharaoh who married a man, and the Greek system of loving ( young) men as an ideal but still marrying and producing children, marrying off hopefully fertile people in the hopes they would have and raise children has been the norm throughout history.Why would laws not reflect what is for most people simply common sense? why do only a few countries world wide recognize gay marriage? Countries That Allow Gay Marriage Argentina (2010)England / Wales (2013)The Netherlands (2000)South Africa (2006)Belgium (2003)Finland (2015)New Zealand (2013)Spain (2005)Brazil (2013)France (2013)Norway (2009)Sweden (2009)Canada (2005)Iceland (2010)Portugal (2010)Uruguay (2013)Denmark (2012)Luxembourg (2014)Scotland (2014)Countries Where Gay Marriage is Legal in Some Jurisdictions Mexico (2009)United States (2003) (This is a European and European-derived culture phenomenon.) http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/19/gay-marriage-around-the-world-2013/ How can I say that with such authority?Marriage has always been seen as a way to regulate children born and the reduction of sexually transmitted diseases, that's it. the quality of the partnership was up to the partners. As we liberalized divorce laws, it became obvious that state and federal authorities are not equipped to deal with handling relationships in trouble, or of educating a couple before marriage (nor should they.)This has always been handled by families and religious leaders. As we come unmoored from our belief systems, we have allowed the government to make decisions for us..We have become secularized. Asking a judge to determine the difference between love and the rights and obligations of marriage is equivalent to asking a child if they prefer the red or blue crayon. the law does not work that way! It has been reduced to..what federal benefits have been denied to a group of people and, instead of fixing those laws so every citizen has equal rights, we are redefining marriage.. and will further be challenged by polygamous and polyamorous families, I am sure. Will this actually improve the lives of Americans? I doubt it. I doubt is as much for gay couples as I do for straight couples. marriage is not exactly in favor; divorce rates will be equal in short order (once again, I can state with authority, all humans, especially when you consider having the same culture.. have the same problems in relationship. and easy access to divorce) We wont be able to track it because marriage licenses is many states now say spouse and spouse not husband and wife.That does not change the realities. The real dangers here are the limitation of states rights, one of our bulwarks against federal intrusion. Witness the insane strictures placed on schools. the hodge podge of marijuana legalization which will I believe also be overturned by the Supreme court in favor of national acceptance, reproductive rights and state attempts to limit them,name fifty other issues and you will find the same. It has further placed intolerable barriers between gay activists and those of religious belief...fundamental religious belief. The law should not force any minister Muslim cleric or rabbi...(and others; I do not know the proper terms in Buddhism or Hinduism, for example) from marrying anyone outside their known congregation. Be that divorced couples, interfaith couples or gay couples, the right to freedom of religion needs to be maintained.Most of us had gay neighbors or co corkers and didn;t care. ( despite political pundits trying to scare conservative voters into voting). Now, WE are called immoral, unloving, and bigots. Works for those in control, doesn;t work so much on the local level.the job level. the family level. We have a fiction in the US, that churches, because they have non profit status, are somehow condoned or regulated by the government!That they are no more than charities or benevolent associations.That anyone who accepts a fee to conduct a ceremony is somehow a public servant performing a service and not a person of faith.That government sanction of gay marriage somehow supersedes any person of differing belief. We will be silenced, Take away our churches and we will meet in homes. take away our right to teach the whole Bible, and we will still witness to the truth, the truth is, every last one of us is a sinner,but God had an answer. As Christians, we are to live in peace and gentleness. Galatians 5:23 …22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,23gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 24Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.… We do not condone living outside of marriage, for the simple reason that is is based on lust and not on love. That living for lust is part of the condition of the human race., We teach a better way...humbled before God and seeking to live a holy life. Basic rules handed out to early gentile Christians Acts 15:29 …28"For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: 29that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell."... We have lived in a lot of cultures, sometimes sinned against and sometimes sinning,we have indeed been reactive and pointing fingers at one group, while our own children have babies out of wedlock, live with their partners, or we have dragged out children through several divorces or temporary "uncles" or "aunts" to meet our own sexual needs.We gamble we use drugs we drink. It is not a pretty picture. A call to holiness within the Christian church will not change what the Supreme Court will do. A complaint of religious persecution or just plain common sense will not stop this court from expanding American "rights." So, we face the next stage of life in America with some trepidation, not because we are "homophobes" but because we know what comes next. |
Faith and ReasonA grandma's perspective on a few things.. Archives
May 2020
Categories<a href="http://www.ontoplist.com/" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.ontoplist.com/images/ontoplist50.png?id=553a2c21e7ccf" alt="Blog Directory & Business Pages - OnToplist.com" border="0"></a>
|