A Rational Basis for Marriage between One Man and One Woman

Catholic World Report ^ | November 28, 2012 | Bill Maguire

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Reynolds v. United States in 1878 already defined marriage as one woman and one man.

[daniel1212]

Arguing against homosexual marriage on the basis of the procreation and education of children is substantive, but it is not its basis, and in time they will likely transplant wombs into men in their quest for equality.

The basis for the exclusion of same gender marriage is that God made men and women uniquely compatible and complimentary, in more ways than the physical aspect, and only joined them in marriage, which Jesus Himself specified. (Gn. 2:18-24; Mt. 19:4-6) And that homosexual unions are only condemned by God in the Scriptures by design and decree, in principle and in precept. Nor is motive the determinist factor in laws against illicit relations.

And attempts to force homosexual relations into passages it does not belong to extends even to pro homosexual apologetics on the Bible, and which typically have the effect of negating the authority of Bible and the immutability of any moral laws, which may be seen as a goal. An extensive examination of which attempts may be seen here: http://peacebyjesus.tripod.com/homosex_versus_the_bible.html

[SatinDoll]

Minor v. Happersett (1874) defined natural born Citizen thusly: a class consisting of citizens born in the U.S.A. of citizen parents. If you’ve ever noticed, our President claims to be a native born citizen but NOT a natural born Citizen. He knows the difference.

Thank you for bringing Reynolds v. United States (1878) to my attention. Do you notice how both cases are being ignored?

Neither SCOTUS case seems to be respected or treated with the weight of settled law, wouldn’t you agree?

So, what to do? In my opion get both SCOTUS determinations incorporated into state constitutions. That would be my answer.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Nobody wants to talk about the Reynolds case, but it was a landmark decision for more than just one reason.

[Jacquerie]

DOMA doesn’t regulate marriage.