Constitutional Discussions

Well, husband and husband still isn't a marriage as understood forever, but I see what you are gettin at.
If you allow the oxymoronic "same-sex marriage" as a premise, the Constitution does not preclude it.
The problem is the marxist agitators know this is a vital wedge issue to pry our society apart, and they have worked wonders, so to speak. I think  it is an effective subversive campaign.

-hydrogia

Hydrogia, I understand your point, however that is essentially the same argument that was used "forever" to oppose freeing the slaves, to prevent allowing women and blacks to vote, and to prevent inter-racial marriages.  The fact is that our Constitution is designed to maximize liberty for everyone, even if the majority disagree with it, otherwise we'd be living in a Democracy, where everything is done by "majority rule" which everyone understands is the worst possible form of government.

We need to remember that although there is no doubt that America was founded by Christians, and that we are a "Christian nation" despite the protestations of the extreme left, we are not a Theocracy, so the Bible is not our primary law, the Constitution is, and we can't run around stoning people for simply being homosexual any more than we can for cheating on their spouse, eating pork or shellfish, and we certainly don't require women to move out of the house during their "time of the month" as Mosaic law demands.

Not the same argument. Slavery meant and means slavery, voting meant and means voting, and marriage means a husband and wife. You are implying that the advocacy of homosexuality to undermine the strength and character of our society is a misguided effort that is not working?

Firstly I'm not "advocating" anything other than the Constitution, which demands that everyone receive "equal protection under the law", and that means homosexuals too. As I pointed out earlier, the Supreme Court has already ruled that marriage is a basic human right, and as such cannot be denie to anyone based on their sexuality.  As far as marriage meaning "husband and wife", that's a cannonical, not a constitutional distinction, and as such is irrelevent in a constitutional discussion.

As I said at the very beginning, if you can find any Article, Secion, or Clause in the Constitution that disputes my position, PLEASE present it, because nothing would make me happier than to be wrong on this, but unless or until someone can provide such a constitutional provision I am bound by my Oath to "...support and defend the Constitution..." whether I like where it takes me or not.

Well, husband and husband still isn't a marriage as understood forever, but I see what you are gettin at.
If you allow the oxymoronic "same-sex marriage" as a premise, the Constitution does not preclude it.
The problem is the marxist agitators know this is a vital wedge issue to pry our society apart, and they have worked wonders, so to speak. I think  it is an effective subversive campaign.

-hydrogia

Think, Rules For Radicals!

How can we interpret or apply the Constitution if the definition of words is not clear?
The whole concept of the federal government dabbling in marriage is repugnant to the Constitution.
Where is any canon in the definition of marriage, which precedes any canon?
Where is the push coming from to redefine this word and create rights for a specific
type of person?

The government has created legal conditions on marriage, like taxing married couples at a different rate than single people. Do those same tax laws apply to the civil union contracts?

How can we interpret or apply the Constitution if the definition of words is not clear?

-hydrogia

The whole concept of the federal government dabbling in marriage is repugnant to the Constitution.

-hydrogia

Again, there's not redefinition involved, but the push is coming from the same place where the push came to end slavery and to allow blacks and women to vote, from those who support the concept of LIBERTY!

The government has created legal conditions on marriage, like taxing married couples at a different rate than single people. Do those same tax laws apply to the civil union contracts?

-veritas

The first point that I need to disabuse you of is that it doesn't matter if they call it a "civil union", it's still marriage.  What do you call it if someone stands up in front of a preacher from the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and gets married without a state issued marriage license?  Are they really married?  To each other they are, but as far as the government (for tax purposes) they're not.
Look at it this way, in the Catholic Church, if you get married outside the church, they don't recognize your marriage unless or until you meet their requirements.  If you are married in the church, but later you get divorced the church will not recognize your divorce (unless they have granted an anullmant), but as far as the government is concerned your previous 'contract' is null and void.  Even if you get married again, as far as the church is concerned, you're still married to your first spouse, and they will not recognize your second marriage (because that would make you a bigamist), but as far as the government is concerned, your NEW 'contract' is the legal one.

This is why it's so important to keep cannonoical marriage and civil marriage separate when we're discussing this issue as it relates to the Constitution.

I once took a class called Ancient Athenian Law.  If I remember correctly, we learned that the Greeks codified the institution of marriage between a man and a woman as a way to manage society and control the human sex drive.  The laws were rather draconian.  For example, homicide was A-OK if a man came home and found his wife with another man.  Monogamy was a goal as was moderating homosexuality by favoring man/woman marriages and "traditional" family units in Athenian law.

Much of this ancient approach to establishing a moral code gave rise to a kind of "western" thinking that's expressed in the religions that most of us associate with today.

A good book on this kind of thing is "The Athenian Republic: democracy or the rule of law?" by Prof. Raphael Sealey.

The question remains, is the advocacy of homosexuality to undermine the strength and character of our society a misguided effort that is not working?
Marriage existed Long before Athens and has never included same sex unions.

The question remains, is the advocacy of homosexuality to undermine the strength and character of our society a misguided effort that is not working?
Marriage existed Long before Athens and has never included same sex unions.

-hydrogia

Would you say that the founder of the Boy Scouts fit your description? Joan Baez? Elton John? Freddy Murcury? Mary Cheney (daughter of the former VP)? Montgomery Clift? Emily Dickinson? MATT DRUDGE? Jodi Foster? Sir John Gielgud? Cary Grant? Rock Hudson? J. Edgar Hoover? Leonardo Da Vinci? Joseph McCarthy? Michaelangelo? Sir Issac Newton? Rimbaud? Elanor Roosevelt? Socrates? Andrew Sullivan? Pete Townsend? Tennessee Williams? MY GODSON? The hundreds of thousands, if not millions of homosexual men and women who have served honorably in our armed forces over the past 200+ years?  All of the homosexual firefighters, policemen and women, paramedics, doctors and nurses that make this country the greatest on the face of the Earth?  Are THEY the ones who are undermining "the strength and character of our society"?

I presuppose no such thing, It is a question.
A quick review of the Communist Manifesto will reveal a fervent view which is different than yours, 03.

I presuppose no such thing, It is a question.
A quick review of the Communist Manifesto will reveal a fervent view which is different than yours, 03.

-hydrogia

 Secondly, your question is conditional, based on a supposition that I have seen no evidence in support of.  Simply put, it's a loaded question, no different that "have you stopped beating your wife".  Now, if you would care to re-phrase your question in such a way that I can honestly answer it, I'll be more than happy to.

Again, I am advocating nothing but the Constitution, and the concepts  that are contained therein. If advocating for liberty for ALL Americans, including homosexuals is a "bad" thing in your book, then so be it, but the same thing was said about my parents when they were advocating for equal rights for black people, especially when they marched with Dr. King from Selma to Mongomery (with me riding on my fathers shoulders most of the way), and then my his shop was FIREBOMBED for the effort!  We didn't flinch then, and we're not going to flinch now.

What I find confusing is why you wouldn't want ALL Americans to have the same rights, freedoms, liberties, and protections that you enjoy, and that you yourself would scream bloody murder over if they were denied to you.

OK, let's try something different. Can anyone explain exactly why the proposed "healthcare" legislation before Congress right now is not Constitutional? 

I think the thing most Americans find repugnant is that we like to think of marriage as a special union ordained by God and as such is much more that a cold contract instituted and directed by the state. We do not want to, because of our faith or beliefs or even I dare say ego, want to put what we have with our mate (mates as determined by a male and female) on the same level as something that no mater the contract or union, has absolutely no expectancy of producing a procreational outcome. Or as is needed by nature to continue the species. If two people of the same sex want to have a union, then let them jump a broom or whatever they want, but if it is construed as a Civil Right, then all churches may be forced to preform these ceremonies or else lose their tax exempt status.

Again V, you're failing to account for the difference between cannonical and civil marriage. When "Gay marriage" (and notice I said when, and not if) is finally the law of the land, it doesn't mean that the Church, ANY church, can be compelled to perform the ceremonies as that is a Cannonical marriage.  If a pastor doesn't want to marry someone, he/she doesn't have to, for any reason, or for no reason at all.  That's what JP's are for.

When my wife and I got married (23 years ago) we were turned down by the Pastor at our (then) church because we had both been married before, and since he didn't believe in divorce as far as he was concerned we were still married to our previous spouses.  Since he wouldn't do it, we simply called the JP and he was more than happy to come and perform the ceremony at my best friends home and TA-DAAA we're married!!

As far as the religious aspect, that's why I was very clear that I wanted to keep this discussion limited to strictly Constitutional rather than religious arguments, because the two are completely differerent things, as the FF's intended.  They feared the church running the government as much, if not more, than they did the government running the church, which is why the First Amendment specifically prohibits the government from establishing a religion as the "official" one, from giving precedence to any one religion over any other, and why they made it clear than everyone was free to practice (or not) their own religion as they saw fit.

Take the FLDS for instance.  In their religion polygamy is a basic tenet of their faith, yet the government is telling them that they cannot do so, which is a blatant violation of the First Amendment!  Do you want the government telling you whom you may, or may not marry like they were doing before the Loving decision?  I don't, and I don't want them telling anyone else whom they may and may not marry either, even if I find the entire concept to be personally repugnant.  This nation was founded on the concept of liberty, and that means for everyone, even when we disagree with them, otherwise we'd be reduced to a democracy where 50.1% of the population could do anything they wanted to to the remaining 49.9% of the population, and there wouldn't be anything that they could do about it.

Mothergoose brought up a point that I believe deserves an answer, and even though she doesn't want to enter the discussion herself, I'll provide my answer for her here.

As far as marriage being for the purpose of bringing children into the world, I both agree and disagree. Marriage provides a legal protection for the spouse and children of a marriage that they would not necessarily enjoy outside the bonds of the marriage contract, and specifically property rights.

On the other hand, there are many people, such as myself who cannot have children of my own (service related injury), so are we to be disallowed from marrying because we can't have, or in some cases simply choose not to have children?  What of couples who find out after they're married that they can't have children?  Is their marriage any less valid? What of widows(ers) who are beyond child bearing years?  Are they to be prevented from marrying because they can't have children?

03, that is all fine and good, but laws have already been enacted when it comes to marriage, Gays are at the forefront because of things like HIPPA.  If I am gay, I can't find out about a loved one
s treatment, because of HIPPA rules. If I am married to them, the Doctor can tell me all!

That's a very valid point, but there are exceptions to the HIPPA rules, one of which is if someone has a Power of Attorney for the patient.

As far as the laws concerning marriage, that's the whole point of this discussion isn't it?  You and I both know full well all of the law that are on the book that are unconstitutional on their face, yet they are enforced every day.

The First Amendment clearly says that We The People have the Right to "peaceably assemble", yet we're required to obtain a 'permit' from the city/county if we want to "peaceably assemble" to hold a "Tea Party" aren't we?  How can they require a 'permit' for something that is guaranteed as a Right in the Constitution? 

Are we not guarantteed the Right to exercise our religion freely, yet are not school children routinely suspended from school for the heinous offense of taking their Bible to school and then having the temerity to read it, or horror of horrors, PRAYING during lunch?  Are there not now laws prohibiting invocations at ball games? Are the FLDS not precluded from engaging in polygamy even though it is a basic tenet of their faith? 

Even though the First Amendment guarantees our 'freedom of speech', can we not now be arrested, charged, tried, and convicted in a court of law for the crime of "hate speech"?

Does not the Second Amendment guarantee our Right to "...keep and bear arms..."?  Yet, depending on where one lives, are we not denied that Right, or if it is "allowed", are we not first required to obtain a permit to purchase our 'arms', and again if permitted, to carry them?

I could go on and on, chronicling how almost EVERY one of the Bill of Rights (with the exception of the 3rd Amendment) has been trampled on, but it would be a bit of overkill for the purposes of making my point.