Skip to comments.Same sex marriage: big government power grab
Posted on 06/29/2014 1:16:53 AM PDT by NetAddicted
The 2-1 ruling by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, on Wednesday, June 25th, knocked down the state constitutional amendments to protect marriage in Utah, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Wyoming. The decision is pending appeal.
During this same week, a federal judge declared Indiana's Marriage Protection Amendment as unconstitutional. His decision allows for same-sex marriage to begin in the Hoosier state immediately.
Same sex marriage, mostly by judicial fiat, is now legal in 20 states: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois Indiana, Iowa, Main, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.
Regarding the 10th Circuit ruling, dissenting Judge Paul J. Kelly Jr. brought out an aspect to the legalization of same-sex marriage rarely mentioned. He said, "If the States are the laboratories of democracy, requiring every state to recognize same-gender unions contrary to the views of its electorate and representatives [it] turns the notion of a limited national government on its head."
Kelly is right. Moreover, it should be recognized that same-sex marriage is the biggest government power grab in the history of the United States. It is not, as some want to claim, a new aspect of freedom taking shape, but the state's legal redefinition of a foundational institution that will ultimately be expanded coercively over all families.
Paddy Manning, an openly gay man, who is a columnist and surprisingly speaks out to preserve natural marriage in Ireland, has written: "Marriage is being redefined, not because the nature of the family has changed, but because those seeking change either do not understand the purpose of the institution, or worse, are actively hostile to that purpose. They may sound like talking Hallmark cards, but their reasons are far from pretty...A debate about marriage is fundamentally a debate about the legal structure of families and the relationship between parents, children and society."  Manning goes on to argue that Totalitarian regimes always aim their sights on taking down the family. "Family," he says, "is not just some fractal, quantum of the state's power; family is a competing, often oppositional power structure to the state." 
In other words, says Manning, traditional families, are self-made and self-perpetuating and generally speaking, independent, "of outside consent or interference."  The children of heterosexual unions are undeniably their own and the way they are raised and educated belongs to the parents, albeit the rights of the child are in some way severely infringed. But homosexual unions with children are exactly the opposite. They not only must have the state to prop up their existence, but also laws that determine how and by whom their children shall be brought up in the world.
Manning rightly argues: "Homosexual partners with children are the exact antithesis of that independent self-generating entity: they always require an outside force to establish rights since they are never the uncontested natural parents. At best, only one of the partners will be such to any of the children involved, leaving a power grab the state is only too willing to fill. Adoption, the extended prostitution of surrogacy, all leave a possibility of contested relationships that must be settled by the state."
"This fundamental difference in relationship is what makes same-sex marriage a state power grab. By redefining marriage as a degendered, one size-fits-all-model, the state grants itself effective approval of all familial ties."  This is why whether one wants the government to allow for same-sex marriage, or whether one wants the state to get out of marriage altogether, the fact is when gay marriage is legalized, big government is inevitably expanded into the heart and life of society's central entity, the family, where its power has largely been resisted and restrained. It will result in numerous unforeseen and confusing legal scenarios, negatively affecting couples in divorce proceedings, children and custody issues, adoption issues, etc. The list will grow to monstrous involvement by the government into familial relationships that even traditional families will not escape.
Manning concludes, "[I]t is a recipe for enormous state power over families...[T]he redefinition of marriage proposed in same-sex marriage gives all families a denatured, state dependent set of relationships." 
These are powerful conclusions, especially coming from a gay man.
Each time the federal courts rule in favor of same-sex marriage, citizens should tremble. This country has yet to see the interference, the meddling, and the growth of the government's power as shall be, when, or if, same sex marriage is finally legalized for the whole country.
,,, , "Thickerthantalk: Same Sex Marriage, Anti-Freedom, Anti-Rights and Pro-State What, No One Told You?" Thickerthantalk: Same Sex Marriage, Anti-Freedom, Anti-Rights and Pro-State What, No One Told You? N.p., n.d. Web. 27 June 2014.
I married my shovel yesterday. I demand equal protection.
Key phrase: “by judicial fiat.”
Democrats are managing to set aside laws they don’t like—passed by citizens voting in their states, through democratic process—by using their black-robed henchmen.
I’m marrying my Unimog. When I die, I’m leaving it my house.
I’ll trade my house for your Unimog.
The cynic would say we no longer live in a republic, and elections alone cannot excise the rot.
By these and other precedents, every aspect of our work, lives, customs and manners are subject to the whims of these people.
James Madison wrote that his generation did not fight and die to create an elected tyranny. Well, that is what we have.
What to do about it?
Marriage is part of the natural law.
When any government is formed, it is formed in a world where marriage already exists. Marriage pre-exists the state—every state—and exists outside and above the state.
Giving the state the power to define marriage is the equivalent of giving a 5 year old the power to run the household.
The effort to protect marriage should have started fifty years ago, when no fault divorce degraded it from a lifelong commitment to a simple contract that can easily be broken. If marriage had maintained its biblical ideals the same sex crowd never would have wanted it.
“Now, since the family and human society at large spring from marriage, these men will on no account allow matrimony to be the subject of the jurisdiction of the Church. Nay, they endeavor to deprive it of all holiness, and so bring it within the contracted sphere of those rights which, having been instituted by man, are ruled and administered by the civil jurisprudence of the community. Wherefore it necessarily follows that they attribute all power over marriage to civil rulers, and allow none whatever to the Church; and, when the Church exercises any such power, they think that she acts either by favor of the civil authority or to its injury. Now is the time, they say, for the heads of the State to vindicate their rights unflinchingly, and to do their best to settle all that relates to marriage according as to them seems good.”
—Pope Leo XIII, 1880.
I’m opposed to same-sex marriage because I don’t want my government pretending that homosexuality is normal. It’s not. It’s simply not normal for a member of any species to behave in such a manner that would cause the entire species to go extinct if the practice is widespread.
King Henry VIII had a liberal view of sex and marriage in the 1500’s and used the power of the state to impose it including creating an “establishment of religion” called the Church of England.
People were arrested, executed and died in civil conflict as a result.
Some of the later dissenters from the Church of England would end up in the New World and their descendents would come up with a First Amendment to protect us.
Now that amendment is being whittled away through the backdoor of gay marriage.
Redefinition the liberals favored word it clears the path for the unconstitutional act they love to use one of the many forms communism comes in.
I married my shovel yesterday.
...I don’t mind calling a spade a spade, but I’ll be darned if I’m going to call it a spouse...
I have no way of knowing your religious beliefs, and it really is none of my business. But as a former member of the ECUSA for 48 years (left in 2003), and still a practicing Protestant, I have to salute your comments about KH8 and the CoE. They are direct, succinct, correct, and not inflammatory, unlike what others have written on FR. 11
Everybody is afraid of the answer to that question.
There are lot of angry people in this world including myself and as one sees the LGBT movement increasing its influence in general and its grip over business and government, one must consider its plans for religion as well.
Anger and emotion have to be set aside to find an understanding of what’s going on and the appropriate response to it.
This is a power grab in that the people in power want to eliminate organized religion. This was done in the old Soviet Union. They know what organized religious people can do.