Gay Marriage Vs. Religious Liberty

American Thinker ^ | April 30, 2015 | Daniel John Sobieski

[raptor22]

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case to determine whether the Constitution requires states to issue same-sex marriage licenses and requires other states to honor same-sex marriages performed in those states. A primary argument by the plaintiffs is that gay marriage is covered under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and that if straights can marry, then so can gays.

The counterargument is that marriage is a privilege and not a right, a union of one man and one woman sanctioned over millennia by virtually every culture and country over time as the stable foundation of any society, a framework for the bearing and rearing of children that are the future of any society:

That was the argument made by Investor’s Business Daily on the occasion of U.S. District Judge Vaughan Walker striking down California’s Proposition 8 defining marriage as between one man and one women which had passed in November 2008 with 52% of the vote:

[raptor22]

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY PING

[dp0622]

Well, gay marriage is an oxymoron so the winner should be clear

[oldbrowser]

Marriage between a man and a woman is also based on the survival of the fittest strategy. To think that a society of same sex couples would work is lunacy. It's unnatural, it's unproductive, to institutionalize same sex marriage into the societal structure is a net loss for the culture.

[DungeonMaster]

Without a biblical defense, there is no defense.

[raptor22]

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY PING

[Monorprise]

It really has nothing to do With homosexuals and everything to do with debasing marriage as a family unit, by removing from its definition the inherit function of binding PARENTS together for their children.

That is the destruction of marriage and with it the long term destruction of any culture foolish enough to embrace such a fundamental lie to the utter exclusion of real marriage.

As for our response the newly repressed christian population. We should do what we should have done a long time ago in regard to the Federal injustice system. Recognize them as the illegitimate tyrants they have made themselves to be and make every effort to undermined and destroy them.

Without law there can be no freedom and there is no such thing as a law that changes on a case by case discretion of 5 federal employees in black robes.

[Monorprise]

I don’t really see a future for this country and its Constitutionality faithless government should the Federal court effectively destroy marriage as a natural parenting organization.

Any culture foolish enough to accept such terms will fall apart demographically to be replaced by anther not quite so foolish. There is therefore no point in respecting or defending a government that tyrannically tries to enforce such a culture as the longer such a government stands the more likely it will destroy what is left of our posterity.

This is simply because a healthy population NEEDS real marriage to bind parents together for their children. A Government that works to suppress or write out of existences that institution is a threat to that vital function, and thus also the civilization itself.
In other-words the sooner such a Government collapses the better off our posterity’s chances for LIFE, liberty, and the chance to presue happiness.

The Let the lawless men in black robes pronounce one more edict to the destruction of our constitution, society, and by extension the very idea of law. And let the rest of us turn against them in reconicition of what they really are today, not as judges but tyrants. Not as defenders of law but dictators.

Let us let that truthful reconstruction sink in so that we yourself and our repository will no longer act to defend the lawless one and instead act more passively to more quickly bring about its collapse.