What's More Sacred, Marriage or the Constitution?

June 30th, 2003 | Sabertooth

[Sabertooth]

With talk of a Constitutional Amendment preserving the traditional definition of marriage, this subject came up on another thread.

I thought I'd throw it out to the forum for discussion.

[Sabertooth]

I vote for marriage. It's divinely ordained, and has been around longer.

[Sabertooth]

((((((growl)))))

[ntnychik]

Sacred? Gotta be marriage.

[KantianBurke]

I hope it never comes down to an either or situation.

[Scenic Sounds]

Any marriage worth saving will survive any Supreme Court decision.

[ellery]

I don't think you can compare the two -- one is of Caesar, and one is of God.

[bluebunny]

Marriage of course.

[Sabertooth]

Over here.

[sourcery]

If a Constitutional Ammendment could be passed that prohibited same-sex marriages, then one could just as easily be passed to a) criminalize abortion, or b) repeal the Income Tax, or c) overrule the Supreme Court's bogus interpretation of the 'commerce clause,' or d) overrule the Supreme Court's bogus interpretation of the 'necessary and proper' clause, or e) deny the Supreme Court it's bogus use of the 'compelling state interest' justification for permitting whatever Unconstitutional government action they take a fancy to.

[xm177e2]

I vote the Constitution. Marriage is a social contract between two individuals, the Constitution is the political contract between our state and our people.

[Cathryn Crawford]

Good question.

Marriage is older. The sacred union between two people will outlast any Constitution, because in the end, constitutions always get amended, fall apart, and ultimately fail.

[Quick1]

Considering the current divorce rate, and the growing number of childless married couples, I'd have to go with the Constitution at this point. Personally, I'd take the same as well. If you really love someone and plan to be with them the rest of your life, do you really need a contract?

But then again, that could be because I'm a godless sinner agnostic. ;)

[DannyTN]

Yep, hands down Marriage. What's more likely to be desecrated: Marriage or the Constitution?

Well the Constitution has already been desecrated with the right to privacy overturning state's rights. That will lead to Marriage being desecrated.

[gitmo]

The Constitution was based on Biblical principles. Marriage was ordained as a Godly sacrament. The latter is more sacred.

[Sabertooth]

Yeah, kinda whets the appetite, doesn't it?

[longtermmemmory]

marriage. It is the building block of ever society. The socialists work overtime to deconstruct marriage and family because it is the threat. The roles of each gender in a family threaten the leftist. The possibility of loyalty to the family over loyalty to the state irks the left. (the old USSR had a special award to children who turned in their parents as enemies of the state)

Marriage, preserve marriage and you preserve the constitution.

[Victoria Delsoul]

Agreed.

[A Navy Vet]

If you're using sacred in the "highly valued" definition of the word, I vote Constitution. That paper is suppose to guarantee my right to marry whoever I prefer. Other societal contracts include arranged marriages. Besides, I believe marriage was invented by man - freedom was not.

Although I hate to see the slipperly slope this is heading down, I believe free consenting adults can join in whatever contractual arrangements they want. That said, I don't believe gays should be allowed to adopt.

[Sabertooth]

You do?

[Victoria Delsoul]

You know I do.