The Supreme Court Quietly Gave In To Gay Marriage:

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Why do gays not look at it like Aquila and say I do not need the government to sanction our union. Marriage is sanctioned by God not the U.S. so why do homosexuals want their unions to be recognized. By saying we need to keep our christian values out of government, in essence, we are really saying I don't care if someone else builds our nations value system.

I'm not saying that we need to keep Christian values out of government, I'm saying we need to keep all RELIGIOUS values out of government. No religious value system be it Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, etc. If we don't, we'll have a nation wherein second marriages are prohibited, buying and selling of pork is prohibited, women not wearing burkas are penalized, no business will operate on Saturdays, and restaurants are only allowed to serve fish on Fridays.

Constitutional values are easy. Protect life, liberty, property. If something doesn't endanger another's life, liberty, or property... there is no reason for the GOVERNMENT to be involved.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Fionn mac Cumh

Because married couples get rights that non married couples dont like benefits ect...

Exactly, the GOVERNMENT has hijacked marriage and made it another social program with benefits. Now, because it's GOVERNMENT provided... it must be open to all citizens. If marriage had remained in the private domain... marriage would be considered a private issue. We'd not have such a vehement public debate.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Originalist

A true libertarian would also be a Constitutionalist. Libertarians understand that libertarian ideas must be encouraged within the framework of the Constitution. To cheer activist courts imposing their values on the sovereign States without any Constitutional authority is not libertarianism. The authors of the 14th Amendment would laugh if you were to go back in time and tell them their amendment was going to one day be used in such a manner. It was the same with the 1962 ruling that outlawed prayer in school. We're supposed to believe that for 200 years we really did not understand what the constitution meant until a modern day court told us. It's the same as saying these modern judges understand the Constitution better than the men who wrote it.

Yes, a libertarian leaning Republican would wish to keep marriage a state issue. However, states recognize one another's statutes. If you're married in Ohio, Florida will recognize your marriage if you move there. Therefore, if one state authorizes gay marriage... all have to recognize it even if individual states do not authorize them themselves. And if it is recognized, a sizeable number of citizens of that state may wish to have their unions authorized. And so, even under the Libertarian construct... liberty prevails... even if men use that liberty to sin.

The Court simply refused to hear the case. They didn't legislate anything from the bench. They basically closed shop and said, "Let freedom ring", tossing the issue back at the states. What they did was Constitutional.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Aquila
To be a libertarian you started out on this thread to say that you agree with the federal govervnment making laws quietly without the people. Sounds to me that you are doing things that you accuse christians of doing. You agree with the government pushing things in as long as they agree with your values.

What law did the federal government make??? What's the name of the Bill??? When did it pass through the legislature??? When was it signed off by the President???

The Federal government didn't make a law. The Supreme Court refused to hear cases that challenged or defended the right for gay couples to marry, thereby leaving lower court rulings in place. This essentially allowed gay marriage to move forward in areas where lower courts have ruled in favor of the right to marry. It also doesn't interfere with states that have banned or prohibited gay marriage. However, it does open up legal precedence in those states to legally challenge those prohibitions and rulings against gay marriage. But again, these prohibitions will need to be challenged on the state level and in lower courts.

So, the federal government DIDN'T make a law. The Supreme Court simply refused to hear cases wherein a lower court has already ruled one way or another.

[Fionn mac Cumh]

Originally Posted by Originalist

A true libertarian would also be a Constitutionalist. Libertarians understand that libertarian ideas must be encouraged within the framework of the Constitution. To cheer activist courts imposing their values on the sovereign States without any Constitutional authority is not libertarianism. The authors of the 14th Amendment would laugh if you were to go back in time and tell them their amendment was going to one day be used in such a manner. It was the same with the 1962 ruling that outlawed prayer in school. We're supposed to believe that for 200 years we really did not understand what the constitution meant until a modern day court told us. It's the same as saying these modern judges understand the Constitution better than the men who wrote it.

Explain this please? What does equal protection under the law mean?

[Fionn mac Cumh]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'm not saying that we need to keep Christian values out of government, I'm saying we need to keep all RELIGIOUS values out of government. No religious value system be it Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, etc. If we don't, we'll have a nation wherein second marriages are prohibited, buying and selling of pork is prohibited, women not wearing burkas are penalized, no business will operate on Saturdays, and restaurants are only allowed to serve fish on Fridays.

Constitutional values are easy. Protect life, liberty, property. If something doesn't endanger another's life, liberty, or property... there is no reason for the GOVERNMENT to be involved.

Winner. Again, this should be the end of it.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Fionn mac Cumh

Explain this please? What does equal protection under the law mean?

What did the author's of the amendemnt mean? Why is it that you won't consider that? Would the authors have have thought a State law defining marriage as violating that clause?

Remember, the Defense of Marriage Act was tossed because it violated States' rights. You cannot have it both ways.

And instead of actually responding to my points you asked a question. Interesting.

[good samaritan]

What if a christian store owner ran a sale for valentine's that was for married couple's would he be forced to honor homosexual unions? (wouldn't that be a violation of their civil rights) Marriage is recognized in government because it is practical. With our population as large as it is important to recognize a spouse legal rights to one another without having to tote around a private contract to prove everything.

some benefits that married couple's have:
-legally shared property
-automatic power of attorney in certain situations
-accessibility in emergency rooms to partner
-legal heir of estate when partner dies (married partners have rights to property instead of state government seizure)

Do I think homosexual's should have these same rights? I do, but not being termed as marriage.

My marriage certificate reads:
This certifies that ----- and --------
were united by ------- in the "holy bonds of matrimony" on the --------- in the "year of our Lord"

Do you see how the government has recognized marriage to be a religious practice. Marriage is not established by the united states government, but by God. If homosexual came up with another bill that legalized their unions without infringing on other people's religious freedoms I see no problem legally. To call those unions marriage and expect others to honor it violates others freedom to religion. If gay marriage is legalized it will be another way that freedom of religion is decreased and eventually freedom of religion is going to become abolished.

Come up with a union for gays, term it something different than marriage, let it be legally recognized, but don't force individual people to recognize it as a married union. I haven't a problem seeing their partnership (although I disagree), but I don't want to ever be mandated to counsel gay married couples or any similar services that violate my freedom of religion. It will be an issue if they are allowed marriage.

[Fionn mac Cumh]

Originally Posted by Originalist

What did the author's of the amendemnt mean? Why is it that you won't consider that? Would the authors have have thought a State law defining marriage as violating that clause?

Remember, the Defense of Marriage Act was tossed because it violated States' rights. You cannot have it both ways.

And instead of actually responding to my points you asked a question. Interesting.

Cause I didnt under stand your points. Thats why I asked a question.

You dont think equal protection of the law is violated when you give married couples certain rights that single couples have, then you turn around and tell people they cant marry who they want?

[good samaritan]

The US constitution was never intended to violate one persons civil rights in order to give someone else theirs.