The Supreme Court Quietly Gave In To Gay Marriage:

[Rudy]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

No, There is not any laws to enact against homosexuals either. They have the right to be openly gay. I am not trying to stop them. I just don't want the government to force me to participate or support their marriages even indirectly.

I ask you a question? why really are they wanting to cram all of this down people's throat any way. What benefits are so great about being legally married that they have to fight for this right. Marriage is a religious union between two people and even those who are not in church are really partaking in something that is rooted in religion.

I'm sure there is a way homosexual can legally bind themselves if that is what they want without calling one another husband and wife or what do they call one another. who is the bride? I'm confused. Call each partners, but not married couples.

To me they are cramming it in defiance. Shaking their fist at God and his church. Things get a little crazy when government meddles with religion.

Not getting a marriage license from the government seems more and more the thing to do. I think 9 states still allow common law marriage. They can go to them and stir up a hornets nest.

[Fionn mac Cumh]

Its the govt fault that we are even having this discussion. They adopted a religious term and tied benefits to it as well. Its discrimination to allow a group of people to have other rights that another group doesnt. Plain and simple.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Fionn mac Cumh

Its the govt fault that we are even having this discussion. They adopted a religious term and tied benefits to it as well. Its discrimination to allow a group of people to have other rights that another group doesnt. Plain and simple.

I completely agree that the FEDERAL government has no place or say in this, including the right to even hear cases about it. The income tax system is whet they use to control marriage.

[Fionn mac Cumh]

Originally Posted by Originalist

I completely agree that the FEDERAL government has no place or say in this, including the right to even hear cases about it. The income tax system is whet they use to control marriage.

Not just income taxes.

[Aquila]

I like Pastor Matt Trewhella's position on the issue...

"Christian couples should not be marrying with State marriage licenses, nor should ministers be marrying people with State marriage licenses. Some have said to me, "If someone is married without a marriage license, then they aren’t really married." Given the fact that states may soon legalize same-sex marriages, we need to ask ourselves, "If a man and a man marry with a State marriage license, and a man and woman marry without a State marriage license - who’s really married? Is it the two men with a marriage license, or the man and woman without a marriage license? In reality, this contention that people are not really married unless they obtain a marriage license simply reveals how Statist we are in our thinking. We need to think biblically.

You should not have to obtain a license from the State to marry someone anymore than you should have to obtain a license from the State to be a parent, which some in academic and legislative circles are currently pushing to be made law.

When I marry a couple, I always buy them a Family Bible which contains birth and death records, and a marriage certificate. We record the marriage in the Family Bible. What’s recorded in a Family Bible will stand up as legal evidence in any court of law in America. Both George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were married without a marriage license. They simply recorded their marriages in their Family Bibles. So should we.

(Pastor Trewhella has been marrying couples without marriage licenses for ten years. Many other pastors also refuse to marry couples with State marriage licenses.) ~ Mercy Seat Christian Church, Milwaukee, Wisconsin

[Fionn mac Cumh]

Originally Posted by Originalist

I completely agree that the FEDERAL government has no place or say in this, including the right to even hear cases about it. The income tax system is whet they use to control marriage.

So you think the States have a right to discriminate? Or are worried more about the states passing laws and the feds overturning them?

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Fionn mac Cumh

So you think the States have a right to discriminate? Or are worried more about the states passing laws and the feds overturning them?

Since there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the states from defining marriage, or that gives the federal Government the power to define it tothe States, then it is a right left up to the States. The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with marriage.

It is only in very recent history that a State defining marriage as being between a man and a woman would have been classified as "discrimination". That is ridiculous and sooner or later the States are going to smack down these judges.

Constitutionally the Federal Courts are not even allowed to consider this issue.

What Are the Enumerated Powers of the Federal Courts?

1. “Judicial Power” refers to a court’s power to hear and decide cases. Art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 1 enumerates the cases which federal courts are permitted to hear. They may hear only cases:

a) Arising under the Constitution, or the Laws of the United States, or Treaties made under the Authority of the United States [“federal question” jurisdiction];

b) Affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers & Consuls; cases of admiralty & maritime Jurisdiction; or cases in which the U.S. is a Party [“status of parties” jurisdiction];

c) Between several States; between a State & Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States;2 or between a State (or its Citizens) & foreign States, Citizens or Subjects 3 [“diversity” jurisdiction].

These are the ONLY cases federal courts have permission to hear! Alexander Hamilton says in Federalist No. 83 (8th para):

…the judicial authority of the federal judicatures is declared by the Constitution to comprehend certain cases particularly specified. The expression of those cases marks the precise limits beyond which the federal courts cannot extend their jurisdiction, because the objects of their cognizance being enumerated, the specification would be nugatory if it did not exclude all ideas of more extensive authority.