Part 2: Supreme Court Must Rule for State Defined Marriage

Chelsea - holy family

[This article is Part 2 in a series. You can read Part 1 here.]

In order to justify denying state government the right to decide who can marry, the court itself has to use the definition of marriage used by that state, or substitute some other definition within it’s power. Any current case regarding laws that restrict marriage to a man and a woman also conforms to what it has meant in America historically; our Christian heritage and natural law. If the court denies that historical definition or the specific state definition then it must take it upon itself to define the meaning for the whole country; a legislative prerogative.

Marriage is currently not denied to anyone in accordance with the requirements in law wherever a marriage law is enacted. There is no right to marry at all from any source higher than the state except for the mandate from God himself. This natural right is given to us through our particular creation as man and woman. We are separate, unique, and complimentary individuals.

In previous legal cases the requirement to be a man or woman as told to us in Genesis was not allowed to be modified to include racial sameness. Modified as to description of a human being, not a behavior of a human being. Race is not a legitimate subset for a human being, it is merely one of many descriptions of a human being. This of course conflicts with the opinion of the strange and famous radical feminist Gloria Steinem, who claims that “There is no such thing as gender, race or class. . . .”, who has been inducted into the apparently non-existent National Woman’s Hall of Fame.

The landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 tells us in part:

All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin. (bold is mine)

In other words, persons cannot be subdivided by these selected features in order to exclude them. These subsets of personhood should be ignored. Race, color, religion, national origin, and homosexuals do indeed exist. Today in 2015, we are asked to consider persons not based on their personhood but on a particular sexual desire. We are asked to create a special legal subset of persons and include them with special recognition.

The problem with this reversal of things is that the particular person of a particular race, color, religion, or national origin, was not given the right to decide exactly what goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations shall exist. Just that (s)he have the same equal enjoyment as every other person who has not been subdivided into a special class. This also puts everyone into the exact same position of NOT enjoying the particular goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations – equally.

This Is The Point

Just as the various states have determined the legal age to marry, if a subset of personhood defined by sexual desires is selected to be given special recognition in law to marry, then can the law legitimately deny any subset of personhood that claims a different desire, the same privilege? Is our Supreme Court going to settle this question by taking it on themselves to legislate, or is SCOTUS going to leave this up to the states’ citizens. Probably the most popular subset would be polygamy. There are other strange desires to marry such as:, bestiality, marrying ones self, marrying a corporation, marrying an object, marriage clubs (fifty shades of marriage?) that would unite many people together for a shared experience. Do you have a favorite – or a desire? Marriage in a social or governing context is simply traditional and open to change by the will of the people in a democracy.

There is certainly no right to marry according to ones own set of preferred qualifications, as there is no right to build a house using ones own private measurements and methods. The potential act of selling that house makes control of the construction process by the state necessary in order to protect the future buyer. The act of marrying that wishes to involve same sexes is a change to the definition of marriage and a removal of procreation from the institution, the benefits of opposite sex parents to a child, and replaces it with the ability to purchase a product – a child. Proof of love or even fondness is not a requirement but proof of age and residency as if one was applying for a license plate for a car.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion in the case of United States v. Windsor, or the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) case decided June, 2013, that overturned a law that denied federal benefits to same-sex couples:

Here the State’s decision to give this class of persons the right to marry conferred upon them a dignity and status of immense import. When the State used its historic and essential authority to define the marital relation in this way, its role and its power in making the decision enhanced the recognition, dignity, and protection of the class in their own community. […] After a statewide deliberative process that enabled its citizens to discuss and weigh arguments for and against same-sex marriage, New York acted to enlarge the definition of marriage to correct what its citizens and elected representatives perceived to be an injustice that they had not earlier known or understood. (bold is mine)

Falling all over himself to praise states rights could be taken as a prophetic indictment of our federal court system for insisting on interfering in a state matter and creating the necessity for the issue to be decided at the Supreme Court level. Or, is it actually just personal approval of the legislation. Approval that changes depending on a state creating marriage laws which conflict with the personal opinion of Justice Kennedy. We shall see. Class is just legalese and synonymous with subset in the marriage issue.

Justice Scalia remarked in a dissenting opinion:

To the extent that the Court takes the position that the question of same-sex marriage should be resolved primarily at the state level, I wholeheartedly agree. I hope that the Court will ultimately permit the people of each State to decide this question for themselves. Unless the Court is willing to allow this to occur, the whiffs of federalism in the today’s opinion of the Court will soon be scattered to the wind.

Marriage is Becoming Less Important to Americans

The efforts of the homosexual lobby in America and elsewhere has been to normalize homosexuality which has nothing to do with marriage at all. It has to do with the sexual component of a relationship, hence the description homosexual. Sympathy from the tragic incidents of violence against homosexuals has been used to gain support for the lifestyle instead of the using the legitimate argument of respect for all human life. That argument allows for criticism of others, but not violence. There is a rather childish emotional plea that homosexuals are nice people (fondness) which translates to a demand that you should support their sexuals desires without any objection. This sometimes even works on Catholics who should know what underlies natural law; as in the case of the well known catholic writer Joseph Bottum’s essay, telling us confusedly how he would sacrifice his Catholic doctrine in order to please a homosexual friend.

Normalization Happens Slowly.

Without understanding we give license to desire. It is true that in my lifetime and a little before, we had voluntary attempts to promote morality in public. For example restrictions in the form of saying certain words or showing certain actions in the movies. As the movies grew in popularity and became the central entertainment medium in the world, private lives and desires of the persons making them, as today, influenced content.

The Motion Picture Production Code beginning in 1930 was brought into being as a counter to a movement towards governmental censorship of movies. Later in television, certain words such as “pregnant” only had a metaphorical alternative like “with child”, to give variety to language. As the power of the code was eroded over the years by exceptions granted and leniency given to accommodate business interests catering to human weakness it was eventually replaced in 1968 by the current rating system. A remnant of the recognition that morality exists, but a rejection of the original source of those values. The code could not teach morality but only enforce it’s precepts. Without an understanding of the reasons for moderation and restraint any code will fail because it is perceived as a restriction by an unwanted power imposing behavior capriciously.

If you have had children you understand this concept of gradualness towards normalization from experience. The first time your child tried to stand up you understood where (s)he was headed. Every try and failure only reinforced your faith that (s)he would walk eventually. You knew what the end result would be. Walking the rest of his/her life bar disease or accident.

Sex Has Become a Public Preoccupation

The British version of this show lasted only a few weeks. People actually having sex live on stage on television. They are hidden for now. The next step in this progression towards normalization of sexual activity and it’s variations has to include the removal of the box that hides them. Then the removal of fencing in America’s zoos and the training by America’s public schools of boys and girls to drag their knuckles on the ground when they walk. The incredibly popular Fifty Shades of Grey book and movie is another example of this trend with a new component that glorifies violence.

The big problem with all of this is that there is nothing new going on here except the attempt to normalize this in public for profit. Sex has always happened in private – I can prove it! Making it public only challenges ones view of what is proper to share or do and what is not. Those social leaders, or at least those with a voice to the masses, give whatever their favored idea is to be challenged the support of their group to affect the lemmings of society – the greater part of society. It takes an educated and independant thinker to determine the value of a moral question without the satisfying numbing effect of a loud aggressive group presenting an idea. The group being always those with a voice. Public voices are chosen by those with money to spend on printed works and broadcasting. These controlling entities mostly exist for profit or political control. Some like my fellow writers explain the dangers and support the word of God.

State Defined Marriage Can Turn This Mess Around

There is a suspicious connection between the rise of homosexual sympathacies and the decline in interest in marriage, decrease in the understanding of what marriage is, and the increase in public sharing of personal sexual pleasure. Now the court is asked to join the parade of sexually oriented public foolishness and take the lead and force a change of marriage into a perverse governmental institution, totally disregarding the well being of family life and the raising of children. In other words change American the Beautiful into American the Perverse.

And above all, attempting to defy Our Father who art in heaven . . . . well, good luck with that!

Facebook
Google+
Twitter
LinkedIn
Pinterest

59 thoughts on “Part 2: Supreme Court Must Rule for State Defined Marriage”

  1. Trimelda McDaniels

    What is fascinating is the push to make same sex marriages and relationships acceptable to the general public. People who have never said they were homosexual or bi now have the press “outing” them, whether it is true or not. Look at this “story” that Gerald Butler was supposed to be bi-sexual. They said he “admitted it.” The problem is that it was a LIE. Here’s the truth below.

    :Movieline was reported to be the original source of this 2004 article however when contacted, they determined that in fact, they had only done one interview with Gerard in 2003. The context of that interview was for a film that was being promoted. Movieline made a statement today, 9/23/2009 that this interview NEVER TOOK PLACE and that the comments reported were never made by Mr. Butler. They believe the true source of the fake interview is a blogger from NYC under the username Marianne Tidings. This can be verified on Movieline.com.

    For the record, I have had the wonderful opportunity to work with Gerard on not one but two films. He is a very respectful and classy guy; fun to be around and just couldn’t be a nicer, more gracious person…always accomodating to fans and just a very well-liked person. It is a shame that people on these websites are so nasty about someone that they know only through what they have read in trashy tabloids. Shame on you!

    The only reason why this is being done is to brainwash us into thinking that homosexuality is everywhere and in every one and every thing. SAD!

  2. Dear Mr. Duncan,

    I appreciated your thoughtful reflections. I think your writing would be more effective if you could pay attention to more rigorous stylistic concerns (grammar and spelling —– ones= one’s, it’s=its, independent=independent, sympatacies=sympathies, etc). Keep up the good work.

  3. Pingback: Supreme Court & Gay 'Marriage': Day of Destiny - Big Pulpit

  4. Pingback: Part 1: Supreme Court Must Rule for State Defined Marriage : Catholic Stand

  5. None of this would have happened if Adam and Eve hadn’t covered themselves in shame after hiding what they did; enter the burqa and we clearly see the extreme spectrum of it. Where does the center lie ? Stay tuned for the next hundreds of
    years and find out.

    1. “None of this would have happened if Adam and Eve hadn’t covered themselves in shame after hiding what they did”

      Does anything change if we recognize that story as a fable to teach us the importance of obedience and not as something that actually happened and affected us in the manner you describe?

    2. I remember the good Sisters who related the shortest poem
      in the world, they said. It goes
      like this : Adam had’em. What ?
      Problems. Any of us would have
      done the same thing – screw up.
      The lessons drawn are as varied
      as the creation ideas that have
      arisen in every culture. Science
      will never stop digging for the
      source,

    3. What an absolute waste
      of your time – and a mind
      is a terrible thing to waste. Hopefully, some
      subliminal remnants of
      those soul saving lessons will kick in at
      some point when you
      reach full maturity.

    4. “Soul saving lessons” from the nuns? That’s a good one. I now know how little they knew.

    5. Trimelda McDaniels

      Well, you don’t sound like you’re any smarter than those nuns you’re dissing. At least they knew that women have baby humans. Apparently you fell asleep in that class.

  6. “Is our Supreme Court going to settle this question by taking it on themselves to legislate, or is SCOTUS going to leave this up to the states’ citizens.”

    It is not legislating to rule on the constitutionality of a state law that restricts the definition of marriage in a way that discriminates against a whole segment of society.

    1. Marriage remains unchanged other than allowing it to be enjoyed(?) by same sex couples as well. The change from being a union between a man and a woman to being a union between two people is not going to disrupt the time-space continuum or cause the problems those opposed to it are so concerned about.

    2. So the change is to add homosexuals to the marriage definition where they have not been before. You realize that homosexual activists have denied that they are changing anything. What do you say to them to make them understand what we understand?

    3. “You realize that homosexual activists have denied that they are changing anything.”

      Marriage remains the same for all others. It does not change for heterosexuals. It just becomes an option for same sex couples. Whether activists are correct in saying that nothing changes is not that important. No one ever guaranteed that there will never be any change in this world. Why would anyone want to live in a world where nothing ever changes? What is wrong with new and improved?

    4. I think you have not understood the issue. This is part of the subtlety involved in this entire marriage issue. You have stated it correctly when you said, “The change from being a union between a man and a woman to being a union between two people…”

      That is the change being denied.

      The REASONS it has always been a union of a man and a woman are being put aside and replaced with nothing else. It is being redefined so it represents the image of a two lane road that allows two cars of any make or model to drive side–by-side.

      Utility without purpose.

      A complete abandonment of marriage to adopt something quite different.

    5. “The REASONS it has always been a union of a man and a woman are being put aside and replaced with nothing else”.

      The reasons people apply for marriage licenses include their love and commitment to one another. They are not denied for any type of reason that would preclude the issuance of a license to a same sex couple unless a state passes a law specifically intended to prohibit same sex marriage. That is just wrong.

    6. You are still not understanding the issue and denying what you have said. Embracing confusion is a large part of this issue. INCLUDING love and commitment is not marriage, it is merely love and commitment (if they last). You have that with friendship, family ties, etc. That is not marriage.

    7. There is enough reason to allow same sex couples to marry. We don’t get into all the whys and wherefores before we let two people marry. This is a civil issue and religious people have no say in it other than to not have the marriages performed in their churches.

    8. “The change from being a union between a man and a woman to being a union between two people…”

      Remember this from yesterday?

      Then just now.

      “We don’t get into all the whys and wherefores before we let two people marry.”

      So is marriage to you just as purposeless as you claim life to be?

    9. You have decided that your life has meaning and purpose. You have either had that meaning and purpose dictated to you or you have come up with it on your own, or maybe a little of both. It seems to have worked for you and I am impressed with what you appear to have done with your life.

      However, there really was no meaning and purpose to your life other than what you chose to give it (or what was imposed upon you by the conditions you faced).

      We cannot tell two men or two women that marrying one another serves no meaning or purpose. It is up to them to decide what meaning and purpose they find in loving and committing themselves to one another. Maybe they will raise children. Maybe they won’t. Etc.

    10. So this is your understanding of how our country and our law works. Tell me if I am correct.

      We must not legislate importance, meaning or purpose to what citizens do or do not do. They supply that themselves and they should be free to do whatever they find is meaningful to them. It is up to the courts to prevent legislatures from doing that. So we have set up a legal institution called marriage that must let citizens give it whatever purpose they wish.

      This means that it cannot be restricted to a certain number of people married
      together because that would be restricting their chosen purpose of having a
      larger family. It means that we cannot restrict persons to other persons only if
      their purpose is to copulate and love an animal such as a dolphin or horse.

      The only problem with this utopia is that the act of creating a legal institution in the first place is meaningless. Why do it at all? Let the polygamists polyyg. Let the animal lovers love. Let the homosexuals homosex. What does the government bring to this orgy that the citizens don’t already have?

      .

    11. “We must not legislate importance, meaning or purpose to what citizens do or do not do. They supply that themselves and they should be free to do whatever they find is meaningful to them.”

      Yes. All of that presupposes that this freedom ends where others’ begin. We are always responsible for the potential effects our actions and lifestyles have on others and others can always take legal actions against us if those effects are negative.

    12. Two comments:

      Why does all of that presuppose anything? Aren’t you just imposing your belief that a condition is necessary on others.

      Please answer all that have asked you.

    13. “Please answer all that I have asked you.”

      All I can say is that we disagree on how much freedom people should have before that freedom becomes a detriment to all of us. I believe same sex partners should be free to marry. You don’t. Let’s just leave it at that. I don’t condone polygamy, beastiality or anything else you think same sex marriage will open the door for, but that is just my opinion too.

    14. So it comes down to your vision of life is free and glorious and just-do-it-man just make up your own purpose…UNTIL…you decide that you don’t like something. I had enough of that crap in the 60’s where running from mommy and daddy was cool man – do your own thing man.

    15. I let you duck out on some hard questions already so talking to this concept is probably not going to happen. We are probably done.

      You have presented a classic argument, if you know it or not, for a totalitarian regime. That is, you loudly declare that people can make life any way they want it because there is no purpose already. They are in charge, they define their purpose, then you give them the small print. If “I’ decide to impose limits on your freedom then you must comply.

      There is no objective morality to follow in your ideal state, therefore you the strongest power, will dominate with whatever ideas you prefer. Then, when the paths of opposition have been suppressed, you become really scary. Please note the many times this has been tried in the 20th century.

    16. I’m not getting you. It seems that you are blowing things way out of proportion. So, we make our own meaning and purpose in life. Big deal. So, we let gays marry. What is the BIG problem?

    17. You are marvelous. I think I see your God given purpose…at least on this thread. You are a goldmine for example.

      As you comment you perfectly illustrate a manifesto at the same time denying to have one. Let me explain using these two quotes of yours:

      “Then we will move on to discuss bogus RFRA claims and state laws regarding discrimination and religious freedom.”

      “…there is really no meaning or purpose to this life other than what we give it and when it’s over, it’s over.“

      The WE in the second statement could be taken to mean each of us individually as was always meant by the expression, “Do your own thing man.” That is what you seem to be implying. But, the first statement is really what you mean isn’t it? The WE is your group, your vision for purpose isn’t it?
      History is much more important that science.

      Despots always reveal their plan for control slowly so as not to alarm before power is attained. Some good advise to you now is watch out for the real leaders in your crowed, they will toss you aside like weeds in a garden because you are too transparent.

    18. “Despots always reveal their plan for control slowly so as not to alarm before power is attained.”I’m only seeking freedom and equality. How does that make me a despot?

    19. Discrimination against people based on sexual orientation is bad. I can’t speak for all discrimination.

    20. But this isn’t discrimination based on sexual orientation. Gay people aren’t being denied marriage because they are gay; they are being denied marriage because marriage can only be contracted between a man and a woman. For example, a man can marry a woman even if one or both of them is also homosexual.

    21. “they are being denied marriage because marriage can only be contracted between a man and a woman.”

      So you say. We’ll see if your argument is considered by SCOTUS. Don’t hold your breath.

    22. They’ve been right many, many more times than they’ve been wrong, including Roe v. Wade.

    23. Nevertheless, the fact remains that they have been wrong. For example, Roe versus Wade, where they maintained that it was acceptable to kill innocent human beings. Given that they bowed to social pressure in that regard, it would sadden me but not surprise me if they do the same with marriage.

    24. It really doesn’t matter if you think SCOTUS is wrong about abortion, gay marriage or anything else. Their decisions are final.

    25. SCOTUS is like a referee or umpire in a sporting event. They make mistakes but their calls must be accepted and respected. Consider Dred Scott as a bad call. The ref blew it. Unlike the Pope and Magisterium, which, to people like you, can never be wrong, courts, referees, umpires, etc. can be wrong because they are human. SCOTUS is the ultimate authority only as it pertains to the interpretation of the Constitution and applicable federal laws. Its decisions can only be evaluated as they pertain to the applicable laws at the time. Apparently, the laws at the time of Dred Scott were not sufficient to protect him from being owned by another human being. They are now.

    26. God willing, Roe v. Wade will someday be considered among those “bad calls” as pro-life legislation continues to pass and unborn human beings are given protections. And if the Supreme Court does what is easy instead of what is right and rules against traditional marriage, that will be another “bad call” on their parts, which history will eventually recognize.

    27. “which history will eventually recognize.”

      I’m surprised that you have faith that history will show who is right. I would have figured that the world will just keep falling into more and more error which will eventually lead to the Last Judgment and a new creation. Or is that what you mean when you say “which history will eventually recognize”?

    28. Short of a second coming, I don’t think you are on the right side of history. If there is a second coming then maybe the tide will turn in your favor. Maybe.

    29. Apparently the entire civilized world for the last several thousand years has not been on the right side of history, by your logic. I’m sure slaveowners thought that they were on the right side of history too, especially after the Supreme Court ruled in their favor.

    30. You’re not understanding what it means to be on the wrong side of history. Slave owners were on the wrong side of history. Prolifers are on the wrong side of history. People who oppose gay marriage are on the wrong side of history. Get it?

    31. I just see the direction the world is going in. You see it as the world’s moral values are in decline. I see it differently. You are hoping for either a republican administration or a second coming, either or which will bring justice to all this.

    32. I really doubt that a republican administration would improve matters any. (I’m not republican, btw.) so your answer is that you don’t know, that’s just your opinion. Is is possible you could be wrong?

    33. I doubt that I could be wrong about the future of gay marriage. I doubt that abortion will ever be illegal again. But I could be wrong.

    34. Trimelda McDaniels

      I don’t understand how someone like you who lives in the 21st Century and has been exposed to:

      1) “Baby” showers which are given before birth

      2) People asking whether the “child” is a “boy” or a “girl”-again before birth

      3) People being nice to pregnant “mothers”-before birth (How can you be a “mother” unless you are bearing a “child”?

      4) Ultra sound pictures that do not show a pig, a puppy, a kitty or a colt but the sex of a “baby” boy or girl

      can then say that “prolifers are on the wrong side of history”?

      Haven’t we already been through the whole insanity of saying certain people aren’t human?

      They said it about my ancestors even though the world had thousands of years of history showing that Black people were human.

      They said it about Jewish people, even though the Bible said they were human.

      They said it about Native Americans, even though people like Bartomelo Las Casas said they were human.

      ENOUGH!!! Until women start giving birth to monkeys, rocks, skunks and goldfish we can safely say that that kicking in their wombs is a human being. Science bears that out with DNA tests and pictures. It is a human being.

      Unborn babies are human just like women, Jews, gay people, Black people and Native Americans. It doesn’t matter if the Supreme Court “votes” that they are not. And you don’t need God, Buddha, or the Great Pumpkin to figure that out.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *