Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

In Murphy v. Ramsey (1885) SCOTUS defined marriage as "the union of one man and one woman..."
3/27/2013 | Laissez-Faire Capitalist

Posted on 03/27/2013 9:37:31 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist

In Murphy v. Ramsey, SCOTUS defined marriage as "The union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony."

In Maynard v. Hill, SCOTUS spoke of marriage as being between one man and one woman.

Remember, liberals, Stari Decisis....right? Chuck E. Cheese Schumer seems to like to invoke those words whenever it suits him.

Marriage should be redefined, and those that are against redefining it are bigots? Then why are liberals bigotted against consenting ADULT Polygamists? Marriage is about love and equality? Then why don't liberals love consenting adult polygamists/polygamy and desire equality for them, too? We're talking about adults here.

Why do liberals act as if they only want to redefine something so far and no further --- but it never seems to end up that way?????

Liberals are NEVER done when it comes to changing/redefining things.....


TOPICS: Chit/Chat; Miscellaneous; Society
KEYWORDS: 113th; 2013; congress; democrats; elections; marriage; maynardvhill; murphyvramsey; obama; samesexmarriage; scotus; statesrights; tedcruz

1 posted on 03/27/2013 9:37:31 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist; All

How about a Constitutional amendment that says that only the states can decide - that the courts cannot intervene on this issue, and that the states have three options: ban it, allow it, or allow civil unions?


2 posted on 03/27/2013 9:40:20 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist
How about a Constitutional amendment that says that only the states can decide

You mean, like the Tenth Amendment?

3 posted on 03/27/2013 9:41:35 AM PDT by JRios1968 (I'm guttery and trashy, with a hint of lemon. - Laz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

I’m with you to a point. The problem here is federal taxes.


4 posted on 03/27/2013 9:50:21 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

I had a feeling something like this would surface to combat the liberal take on marriage. I am against gay marriage for other reasons than just saying it’s against Biblical morals. If you say there’s a constitutional right to marriage then what about the rights of those religious bodies who totally disagree with it? Will they be totally coerced into performing gay marriages or lose their tax exempt status—(well that’s what the left wants anyway).


5 posted on 03/27/2013 9:51:20 AM PDT by brooklyn dave (1st commandment THOU SHALT NOT BELIEVE THY GOVERNMENT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

You must be a racist

or bigot

or something.

How can you not support [insert liberal cause here]?

What are you a nutjob?

Or just mean.

You are a mean bully for not supporting [insert liberal cause here]


6 posted on 03/27/2013 9:52:41 AM PDT by Mr. K (There are lies, damned lies, statistics, and democrat talking points.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist; All

Did Jesus approve of polygamy or same sex marriage?

Apparently not... Jesus said that a man “shall leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the twain shall be one flesh.”


7 posted on 03/27/2013 9:52:44 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

Fox news JUST showed a blurbthat said “Supreme court indicates it may strike down DOMA- Not sure how they know the supreme court is indicatign htis ?


8 posted on 03/27/2013 9:56:28 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

[[How about a Constitutional amendment that says that only the states can decide]]

Why shoudl the states decide? The Peopel decided long ago they didn’t and don’t want it- california of all places the peopel decided they didn’t want it- Or are you talkign about hte peopel of the states? I personally don’;t think it shoudl even be left up to state govenrments- Marriage was a settled issue- between one man and one woman- period- Apparently in America nothign is sacred any longer- when an established moral and just institution such as marriage can be forced to be overturned, and hwne our very consitution can be overturned by rogue governments, we’re in serious serious trouble as a nation! When the rule of law no logner means anythign, and thsoe in power get to decide for themselves what laws stand and what don’t- then we’re well on our way toward socialism and dictatorship


9 posted on 03/27/2013 10:00:28 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist
Good find. Yes, I am quite sure that Schmucky will support Stare Decisis in this case too since he is such a passionate defender of SCOTUS precedent in all things and does not want it to change things in the law so much. /s
10 posted on 03/27/2013 10:07:59 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: brooklyn dave
If you say there’s a constitutional right to marriage then what about the rights of those religious bodies who totally disagree with it? Will they be totally coerced into performing gay marriages or lose their tax exempt status—(well that’s what the left wants anyway).

THAT, to me is the line in the sand. The pushback will come from that point.

11 posted on 03/27/2013 10:21:17 AM PDT by ScottinVA (Gun control: Steady firm grip, target within sights, squeeze the trigger slowly...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist
Media Bias in ILL-ANNOY. Slams Rs for Being Against Gay Marriage, Gives a Pass to Ds Who Are Opposed.
12 posted on 03/27/2013 10:24:43 AM PDT by SERKIT ("Blazing Saddles" explains it all.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

Not sure how they know the supreme court is indicating this?

Like I said yesterday... I believe this has already been decided among them, and they’re just going through the motions required by law.


13 posted on 03/27/2013 10:24:52 AM PDT by ScottinVA (Gun control: Steady firm grip, target within sights, squeeze the trigger slowly...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
The problem here is federal taxes.

And here is where conservatives need to get their poo in a pile. Until you get the feds out of sanctioning marriage and redistributing wealth from single people to married people, they will just have to deal with fedgov's strings attached to all those favors. Same goes for deductions for children and child tax credits. You want to start a family and welp out a litter, fine but don't think that entitles you to take a rock out of your backpack and stick it into mine. Yes, that's right suburban GOP and dem soccer moms, I just called you all a bunch of welfare queens.

14 posted on 03/27/2013 10:25:28 AM PDT by Orangedog (An optimist is someone who tells you to 'cheer up' when things are going his way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Orangedog

Exactly. I also get a lot of grief when I say we need to abolish the mortgage interest tax deduction. And I am a homeowner with a mortgage. Thing is, I don’t vote my wallet. I vote justice and liberty regardless of its personal effect on me.


15 posted on 03/27/2013 10:28:22 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: brooklyn dave

“If you say there’s a constitutional right to marriage then what about the rights of those religious bodies who totally disagree with it? Will they be totally coerced into performing gay marriages or lose their tax exempt status—(well that’s what the left wants anyway).”

Gay marriage goes far beyond churches being forced to perform gay marriages and violates each and every Christian’s Constitutional Right to live in a country where his religion freedom is not violated.

And a Christian cannot have religious freedom if gay people in the country have marriages recognized by the state.


16 posted on 03/27/2013 10:28:53 AM PDT by OKRA2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist
In Maynard v. Hill, SCOTUS spoke of marriage as being between one man and one woman.

How old fashioned!! /s

17 posted on 03/27/2013 10:30:20 AM PDT by ExCTCitizen (More Republicans stayed home then the margin of victory of O's Win...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist
In Murphy v. Ramsey, SCOTUS defined marriage as "The union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony."

Don't look now but they just struck down divorce.

18 posted on 03/27/2013 10:30:52 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist; All
Thanks for posting those references concerning marriage Laissez-faire capitalist.

I hope that Murphy v. Romsey, Reynolds v. United States and the Edmunds Act will help the USSC to support the constitutionality California's 10th Amendment-protected Prop. 8. The problem that I have with both Murphy and Reynolds is that they were not 10th Amendment cases, Utah a U.S. territory at the time these cases were decided if I read the opinions correctly, corrections welcome.

And since the states have never delegated to Congress the specific power to regulate marriage, the Edmunds Act may have the same problem that DOMA does imo.

19 posted on 03/27/2013 10:38:55 AM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: brooklyn dave

The US Constitution is silent about “Marriage”— WHY -because it was a States rights issue. In the 1800’s beginning with Reynolds v. the United States—and ending in 1890 with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v. the United States the supreme Court addressed Polygamy.In preparation of admitting Utah as a State. In that they did not change the common definition of “marriage”. I don’t care what any other person does in their own home—but “marriage” is as defined by the supreme Court in Murphy v. Ramsey and others,1885. The divorce issue was introduce dint he 60’s -for the children—which seems echoed by Kennedy in yesterdays arguments. The progressive dissolution of “marriage” began then as well.Current clamor for same sex “marriage” did not begin until the 70’s when the Court published that “marriage” was a relationship that could receive benefits including Government and property.Their neglect then led to this crap now.As for DOMA— it protects the Rights of those States (31) that have defined Marriage as between a man and a woman. To Colorado’s high flying Shame our State Legislature has under Hickenlooper been working to increase pot tourism- has divorced the State from the fundamental principles of Religion,Morality, and Knowledge necessary to good Government and the happiness of mankind.It has published that it does not recognize Matthew 19:4-6 -or the Sermon ton the Mount Nor the Ten Commandments all of which were published in Matthew 19:4-6 and twice “married” in civil ceremony ( by a Judge) in Colorado Both times they chose to reflect Matthew 19: 4-6. And they were right to do so.


20 posted on 03/27/2013 10:49:55 AM PDT by StonyBurk (ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

Those who insist on “marriage” equality Never mention the Constitutional of the people to keep and bear arms as extending to all people. and if pressed I bet they would say it is repugnant to suggest Marriage equality ought mean an adult male should be allowed marry a ten year old girl(except in Islamic Countries)?


21 posted on 03/27/2013 10:54:12 AM PDT by StonyBurk (ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist; JRios1968; StonyBurk

What about the military’s definition of marriage, is it based on whatever state you were married in?

What about when you move from one state to another and your six wives want to divorce you in a state which doesn’t recognize polygamy, or that will allow a wife not to testify against you, or child custody, or all the other things that make it necessary for all states to recognize a marriage?


22 posted on 03/27/2013 11:11:00 AM PDT by ansel12 (" I would not be in the United States Senate if it wasnt for Sarah Palin " Cruz said.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist
I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position. The Act confirms the right of each state to determine its own policy with respect to same gender marriage and clarifies for purposes of federal law the operative meaning of the terms "marriage" and "spouse".

Statement by Slick Willie Clinton when he signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

23 posted on 03/27/2013 11:33:53 AM PDT by Bubba_Leroy (The Obamanation Continues)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StonyBurk
To Colorado’s high flying Shame our State Legislature has under Hickenlooper been working to increase pot tourism

What's wrong with that? Should California not promote wine tourism?

24 posted on 03/27/2013 11:37:22 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: StonyBurk

thanks a lot very helpful


25 posted on 03/27/2013 3:44:13 PM PDT by brooklyn dave (1st commandment THOU SHALT NOT BELIEVE THY GOVERNMENT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson