Skip to comments.No one has the power to redefine marriage
Posted on 06/12/2012 9:21:24 PM PDT by ReformationFan
It is not for federal judges to redefine marriage for us. When they do, it is tantamount to cultural suicide, and we should not be surprised at the cultural and social degradation sure to follow.
William Bennett writes in his book The De-Valuing of Society, Our common culture embodies truths that most Americans can recognize and examine for themselves. These truths are passed down from generation to generation, transmitted in the family, in the classroom, and in our churches and synagogues. But the truths of our culture and the traditional American family are now being attacked and demagogued like never before in our history in the name of tolerance and rights.
Granting homosexuals a newly created right to marry will have unimaginable detrimental effects on society. The fact that the federal courts have no constitutional authority to grant rights is only one aspect of the problem. They positively have no authority to define marriage for us.
It is really no surprise that it has come to this. After all, we have been given many such rulings by the courts in the past: no-fault divorce, abortion rights, and nude dancing in public and burning the flag the latter both defined as free speech. This is what happens when the Constitution is understood to be a living document.
The fact is that no court, no lawyer and no churchman can redefine marriage or grant new rights based on a new definition of marriage. Their pronouncements to the contrary, marriage is what it is and nothing else; and when these judgments are disconnected from any moral grounding, a just and decent society should not respect or accept them.
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
G-d defined marriage.
Governments can call a cat a mouse if they wish.
Considering that God has defined marriage ... no one has the right to “redefine” marriage.
Governments / states have no power to redefine a thing.
I asked my “stated” gay nephew this simple question:
“Do you think marriage is any contractual relationship between 1:n adults (for the moment). If so, what is therefore the theoretical basis for “marriage?” I have thousands of years of the societal basis for marriage. What is the theoretical basis for marriage of 1:n adults?
He sputtered and was never able to answer that simple question.
When my liberal nephews and nieces make their emotional arguments they never can make arguments beyond “because I think/want so.”
>>Governments / states have no power to redefine a thing.<<
I beg to differ — they defined the “thing.” They can redefine the “thing” but they must also define the basis for the definition of said “thing.”
If the legislature says a “balloon” is a “person” it must be able to defend that definition.
No human has any greater power to define marriage than does any other.
True, but it was defined later by Black’s Legal Dictionary for decades which is what our laws are based on—a union between one man and one woman.—Lots of laws are based on this fact and tradition.....inheritance, private property, etc.
There is no Right to Sodomy. It is evil. Our Rule of Law is based on “Just Law” which is derived from Virtue—that Virtue—Justice. There is no Justice in laws that promote evil, dysfunctional, nihilistic behaviors, which deny Natural Law—the fundamental Theory which our entire legal system is built upon. Natural Law Theory’s moral law states there is a teleological meaning to human beings. It never can embrace Sodomy.
Just Law has to be inline with Natural Law Theory to be Just. Unnatural behaviors can not be promoted in a Just society.
It is Marxist ideology that is designed to destroy traditions and history so they can redefine human nature. Marxism is incompatible with our Constitution because Marx throws out God (our God=given Rights) and throws out Natural Law so they can put in artificial constructs in the children’s reality-—like two men can “marry”. Such insanity is irrational and Just Law is enshrined in Reason and Logic and Science.
From the beginning of creation,
God made them male and female.
For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother
and be joined to his wife,
and the two shall become one flesh.
So they are no longer two but one flesh.
Therefore what God has joined together,
no human being must separate.
Not to dispute this, we may say that God defines marriage not only through pronouncements but in nature, and I find evidence for this, in particular, in the outrage that the Roman satirist Juvenal felt and expressed in his description of "gay marriage" as he saw it being practiced in decadent Roman society circa 100 A.D. He presciently noted, "Yes, and if we only live long enough, we shall see these things done openly: people will wish to see them reported among the news of the day." I feel sure he would have been amazed that this would come true at an interval of 2000 years hence, although he did say as well, "To these ways of ours Posterity will have nothing to add."
So “marriage” doesn’t exist at all?
Once marriage no longer means “marriage” then the majority of Americans and Western Civilization will have to come up with a new word to describe real marriage, so that we don’t have to go through the 20 questions game every time normal humans are mentioning their friends and family getting married.
Marriage is a concept, not a physical object. Different cultures define it differently. Are you allowed to choose your partner, or must others do that for you? Does one family owe anything to the other, and if so, what? Can the relationship be terminated, and if so why and how? Does one party to the relationship have either rights or duties the other does not, and if so, what? What's the minimum age at which can a marriage rightfully/legally be consummated? Is it valid if the wife is not a virgin? Can the state control who may or may not be married? To be valid, must the ceremony be performed by a state official, or by a religious official? Is it still "marriage" if the required official doesn't perform the ceremony?
Note, please, that despite splinter groups to the contrary, successful civilizations generally accepted that one man with one woman was the normal familial arrangement, even in the absence of Judeo-Christian teachings.
Ever wonder why that was?
Because it is the most stable framework for raising children, the one which has few conflicting interests besides raising the children in the family of two parents, which provides the stability necessary to care for and pass the culture on to those progeny.
Multiple wives create conflict over which children will receive most heavily of resources available to the family, something which happens even today in 'Brady Bunch' style families (the TV show, not the anti-gun advocates).
Despite all our supposed 'maturity', there is a definite and instinctive tendency to protect and nurture our own progeny ahead of others in the immediate environment, which can be overcome to provide an egalitarian environment in which all children are loved and nurtured the same, but often is not.
So, as social 'concepts' go, the most viable, after centuries of testing has proven to be the traditional one man one woman marriage. Those tend to be better formed if the union is not taken lightly as in the case of readily available divorce, and longevity provides the structure by which a society, a culture, and its traditions can propagate and continue into the future.
Otherwise, the tendency is for disruption of a culture (as we are seeing in America today), with the crumbling of the nuclear and extended family. Once the traditions, the values, and the essence of that culture is no longer passed along in that context, each successive generation can be set against another, and the culture crumbles--easy fodder for those who would seize control of the rudderless and lost populace.
Whether one chooses to believe the religious material in the Bible, at the very least there is sound advice for a stable and civil culture to be found there.
And so you concede my point. All else is irrelevant.
Read the rest of the post.
One doesn’t even need to use religion to know that two men do not and cannot make a marriage. It’s simply not possible. That’s not to say people can’t create artificial constructs that temporarily seem to defy reality, but truth is what it is regardless.
In an electric circuit, one must have a difference of potentials, a negative and a positive. Without that difference, there is no circuit, and it doesn’t matter if millions vote otherwise.
I just know of no plainer way to say it. Man and woman each make 1/2 of a real union. The parts don’t work any other way. Now we might try to be nice to those poor souls who have unnatural urges, but I refuse to deny reality for their sake.
That’s where I draw the line. It is one thing to tolerate nonsense. It is something entirely different, and far more serious, to say sodomy equals marriage. They can’t even describe it themselves without calling it “gay marriage.” Why? Because “marriage” is something else. Gay marriage is a modification, a distortion, to what everyone instinctually already knows to be true!
Again, it’s very difficult to describe reality to people who willingly blind themselves to it. Many of us understand these self evident truths, but how do we reach those who don’t?
One duty of government is secure liberty; it is not to promote licentiousness, that which is detrimental to the civil society.
At creation the woman was taken out of the man. In marriage they are re-united.
By definition, marriage cannot be between two people of the same sex.
So marriage doesn’t exist in America? Doesn’t exist in Western Civilization?
Sodomy is a sick, degenerate, abnormal, unhealthy sex act that will surely put you in your grave if you engage in it.
The anus is for exit, not entry. Anyone that disagrees with this and thinks sodomy is natural is not knocking on all 8
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.