Same-sex marriage and Constitutional rights

[Charlemagne_III]

There is no constitutional right to SSM. At the time the Constitution was written homosexuality was universally condemned and SSM had not even been thought of.

Linus2nd

George Washington had one of his soldiers drummed out of the army for sodomy.

Thomas Jefferson backed a law in Virginia that provided castration as a fit punishment for male sodomites.

The public horror of sodomy has long faded as our sexual morals have collapsed since the time of the Founders.

Today, instead of universal condemnation of sodomy, the sin is enshrined, protected by law, and practically elevated to a public sacrament of the secularists. This has been accomplished by massaging the public’s consciousness through the clever manipulation of the two great weapons of the lunatic left: the media and academia. The Churches have been complicit to the extent that they barely lifted and hand in protest.

 

[JimG]

“If marriage were simply a form of sexual-romantic companionship or domestic partnership, then the equal protection clause of the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment would require the Supreme Court to strike down state laws limiting marriage licenses to male-female partners.” . . .
“Historically, however, our matrimonial law has not conceived marriage as mere sexual-romantic companionship or domestic partnership; nor is there anything in the text, logic, structure, or historical understanding of the Constitution that commits the nation to such a conception of marriage.”

A Constitutional Defense of Marriage

 

[AyJSimon]

“If marriage were simply a form of sexual-romantic companionship or domestic partnership, then the equal protection clause of the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment would require the Supreme Court to strike down state laws limiting marriage licenses to male-female partners.” . . .
“Historically, however, our matrimonial law has not conceived marriage as mere sexual-romantic companionship or domestic partnership; nor is there anything in the text, logic, structure, or historical understanding of the Constitution that commits the nation to such a conception of marriage.”

A Constitutional Defense of Marriage

There’s nothing in the Constitution that commits the nation to any particular conception of marriage.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

There’s nothing in the Constitution that commits the nation to any particular conception of marriage.

There is something in common sense and sanity that ought to commit the whole human race to heterosexual marriage, and that is the way the human race has been since the dawn of human history. Same-sex marriage is a mental aberration that should be repudiated by all, in the same way that regarding black slaves as 3/5 citizen was finally repudiated as a type of social insanity.

 

[AyJSimon]

There is something in common sense and sanity that ought to commit the whole human race to heterosexual marriage, and that is the way the human race has been since the dawn of human history. Same-sex marriage is a mental aberration that should be repudiated by all, in the same way that regarding black slaves as 3/5 citizen was finally repudiated as a type of social insanity.

If your God is really up there running things, there should be something in his common sense and sanity that ought to commit the whole human race to being innately heterosexual. In which case, we wouldn’t be having any conversations about same-sex marriage.

 

[JimG]

There’s nothing in the Constitution that commits the nation to any particular conception of marriage.

Exactly so. Robert George makes essentially the same point. Consequently, there is no basis in the Constitution for the judges to now insert a definition which has never been there before, nor anywhere in any jurisprudence since the founding of the republic.

“In fact, the Constitution does not attempt to settle the question of how marriage should be defined. It dictates no choice among competing conceptions of what marriage is. It does not, for example, forbid polygamy or require states to permit it. Nor does it choose between marriage conceived as a genderless institution and marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife. Rather, the Constitution leaves the choice among competing conceptions of marriage where it leaves most policy questions, namely, to the judgment of the people and their elected representatives.”

crisismagazine.com/2015/a-constitutional-defense-of-marriage

 

[AyJSimon]

Exactly so. Robert George makes essentially the same point. Consequently, there is no basis in the Constitution for the judges to now insert a definition which has never been there before, nor anywhere in any jurisprudence since the founding of the republic.

“In fact, the Constitution does not attempt to settle the question of how marriage should be defined. It dictates no choice among competing conceptions of what marriage is. It does not, for example, forbid polygamy or require states to permit it. Nor does it choose between marriage conceived as a genderless institution and marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife. Rather, the Constitution leaves the choice among competing conceptions of marriage where it leaves most policy questions, namely, to the judgment of the people and their elected representatives.”

crisismagazine.com/2015/a-constitutional-defense-of-marriage

Problem is, the government had previously decided, absent any explicit guidance from the Constitution, on a definition of civil marriage. So, if it did it once, why can’t it do it again?

 

[Sarah_B_Good]

You know, there are many kind, generous and compassionate Catholics who are opposed to same sex marriage and are unfairly labeled as bigots.

And then there are “Catholics” who truly earn the title “bigot.” I would say once you are at the point of calling gay people diseased Nazi child molesters out to destroy the family and bring about the destruction of civilization, you earn that title and all of the social condemnation that comes with it. For that, I have no sympathy.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If your God is really up there running things, there should be something in his common sense and sanity that ought to commit the whole human race to being innately heterosexual. In which case, we wouldn’t be having any conversations about same-sex marriage.

God does run things, but he also allows for free will. We are free to sin, and we are free to go berserk with our sexual morality. And we are free to suffer the consequences we may come to deserve as a result of the devil’s work. We are having this conversation because God wants us to have this conversation about falling off the cliff where our culture is headed at a galloping pace.

 

[JimG]

Problem is, the government had previously decided, absent any explicit guidance from the Constitution, on a definition of civil marriage. So, if it did it once, why can’t it do it again?

State governments have defined marriage, as is their prerogative; the federal government has not. I doubt that it will even bother to define it when it makes it current decision on same sex unions. And if it does not define it in the traditional way, it de facto defines it in opposition to traditional marriage, thereby opening marriage to any and all unions. The judicious way to proceed would be for the SCOTUS to simply say, “the Constitution has nothing to say about this; it’s up to the state legislatures.”

 

[AyJSimon]

State governments have defined marriage, as is their prerogative; the federal government has not. I doubt that it will even bother to define it when it makes it current decision on same sex unions. And if it does not define it in the traditional way, it de facto defines it in opposition to traditional marriage, thereby opening marriage to any and all unions. The judicious way to proceed would be for the SCOTUS to simply say, “the Constitution has nothing to say about this; it’s up to the state legislatures.”

In recognizing the legality and validity of traditional marriages (for the purposes of taxation, SS payments, and a host of other benefits), the federal government has, in effect, defined marriage for itself. And on what authority do you presume to say they can’t do it again?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

In recognizing the legality and validity of traditional marriages (for the purposes of taxation, SS payments, and a host of other benefits), the federal government has, in effect, defined marriage for itself. And on what authority do you presume to say they can’t do it again?

This is a strained type of logic.

The federal government has never defined marriage. It has recognized marriage which had already been defined by society going back to the dawn of human history.

 

[AyJSimon]

This is a strained type of logic.

The federal government has never defined marriage. It has recognized marriage which had already been defined by society going back to the dawn of human history.

Why should the definition of marriage decided on by “society” (going back thousands of years) necessarily dictate how the U.S. government defines it today?

Is it even slightly possible, in your mind, that the traditions and customs people had thousands of years ago might be, if not wrong, then at least incomplete?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Why should the definition of marriage decided on by “society” (going back thousands of years) necessarily dictate how the U.S. government defines it today?

Is it even slightly possible, in your mind, that the traditions and customs people had thousands of years ago might be, if not wrong, then at least incomplete?

Has it occurred to you that the reason the definition of marriage has remained constant since the dawn of human history is that humans universally recognize that the institution is necessary for the survival of the family and the human race?

Men marrying men is certainly not necessary for the survival of the human race, and I don’t see how sodomite marriages can complete what had never even been imagined or desired until the modern lunacy took hold and the homosexual marriage was invented to satisfy the unnatural quest that the unnatural be dignified as equal to the natural.

 

[AyJSimon]

Has it occurred to you that the reason the definition of marriage has remained constant since the dawn of human history is that humans universally recognize that the institution is necessary for the survival of the family and the human race?

It probably did occur to me at one point, and I summarily rejected this notion when I remembered that the human race doesn’t require marriage of any type to procreate or form families, and that procreation isn’t guaranteed when people do get married and form families.

And I would further point out - nothing about gay people marrying gay people prevents straight people from procreating with each other.

And I would even further point out - overpopulation is a far greater threat to humanity’s long-term survival than not breeding enough.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Has it occurred to you that the reason the definition of marriage has remained constant since the dawn of human history is that humans universally recognize that the institution is necessary for the survival of the family and the human race?

Do people seriously believe this? This sort of proclamation is so obviously false I have no response but to laugh. It’s as though someone came up and proclaimed to you that the earth was flat and the center of the universe. Maybe that would be true if your definition of “since the dawn of human history” was like “In the past generation, in western civilizations.”

The definition of marriage hasn’t even been constant since the dawn of Christianity. There was the transition from polygamy to monogamy. The elimination of dowries, bride prices, and arranged marriages which emphasize marriage as a transfer of property or political currency. In the same vein, consider how it wasn’t so long ago that wives were not allowed to write checks without their husband’s permission. How about the acceptability of divorce? That certainly hasn’t been constant through all of human history. Chinese “walking marriages?” What about homosexual marriage in non-western cultures? Are they simply not “true -]scotsmen/-] marriages?”

I’m really unsure how someone could take this position without even suspecting that there might be cultures and customs they are not aware of that invalidate their position. It’s almost seems like a position that requires someone to have deliberately stuck their head in the sand.

 

[JimG]

Polygamy, monogamy, even polyandry, always involved opposite sex couples. That was the constant. Marriage was not always between one man and one woman but it was always between opposite sex persons. In all the history of western civilization, going back to the ancient Greeks and Romans, same sex couples were never legally accepted as marriage, even when they were accepted socially.

There is a reason for this. It is based in human anatomy and anthropology. Human beings come in just two varieties: man and woman. That has always been and will not change. That is the underlying reason for marriage. Man and woman can have a conjugal union, a marital union. Same sex couples can never have a marital or a conjugal union. It is not possible.

Carle Zimmerman traces the varieties of marriage in his book “Family and Civilization.” The common evolution was from polygamy (in periods of weak central government) to domestic families (man, woman, children) in periods when government could assure the safety of its population. On rare occasions, family structure did break down almost entirely, atomized to individuals rather than families. Those were the times of most social upheaval and chaos. Families really are the foundation of society, and marriage is the foundation of family.

Edit: The most serious problem in the coming century will be that of underpopulation and de-population. Most nations have declining fertility rates, which will drastically affect economies and social support systems in the near future.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

There is a reason for this. It is based in human anatomy and anthropology.

The actual reason is much more pragmatic: it was a common arrangement with outcomes that governments (probably rightly) felt were worth regulating (i.e. they dealt with so many marital disputes, they made laws about them.) I’ve also noted that you’ve wisely restricted your consideration to “post-roman western civilization” instead of “everywhere since the dawn of history.” The smaller you make your sample, the easier it is to find universal patterns. In this case it’s almost too easy, since your sample consists primarily of “civilizations which were heavily influenced by, if not based on, a Christian tradition which opposed homosexual marriage.”

While I’m sure you would quibble over exactly which sorts of marriages enjoyed legal recognition, it certainly seems to me that other Catholic sources have no problem recognizing that ancient Rome had gay marriages:

catholicworldreport.com/Item/1367/gay_marriagenothing_new_under_the_sun.aspx

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The actual reason is much more pragmatic: it was a common arrangement with outcomes that governments (probably rightly) felt were worth regulating (i.e. they dealt with so many marital disputes, they made laws about them.) I’ve also noted that you’ve wisely restricted your consideration to “post-roman western civilization” instead of “everywhere since the dawn of history.” The smaller you make your sample, the easier it is to find universal patterns. In this case it’s almost too easy, since your sample consists primarily of “civilizations which were heavily influenced by, if not based on, a Christian tradition which opposed homosexual marriage.”

While I’m sure you would quibble over exactly which sorts of marriages enjoyed legal recognition, it certainly seems to me that other Catholic sources have no problem recognizing that ancient Rome had gay marriages:

catholicworldreport.com/Item/1367/gay_marriagenothing_new_under_the_sun.aspx

Unfortunately for you, the article you cite refers only to Nero and Caligula, two of the most lunatic emperors who ever lived. You surely don’t want to use them as evidence that the Roman civilization accepted and approved of same-sex marriage and generally followed and approved those two nut cases.

 

[JimG]

The actual reason is much more pragmatic: it was a common arrangement with outcomes that governments (probably rightly) felt were worth regulating (i.e. they dealt with so many marital disputes, they made laws about them.) I’ve also noted that you’ve wisely restricted your consideration to “post-roman western civilization” instead of “everywhere since the dawn of history.” The smaller you make your sample, the easier it is to find universal patterns. In this case it’s almost too easy, since your sample consists primarily of “civilizations which were heavily influenced by, if not based on, a Christian tradition which opposed homosexual marriage.”

While I’m sure you would quibble over exactly which sorts of marriages enjoyed legal recognition, it certainly seems to me that other Catholic sources have no problem recognizing that ancient Rome had gay marriages:

catholicworldreport.com/Item/1367/gay_marriagenothing_new_under_the_sun.aspx

An excellent article reference from Catholic World Report, and I encourage everyone to read it. The pagan culture of the time was quite corrupt. Corrupt emperor’s could get by with flaunting same sex “weddings,” but there is some question as to whether such unions were ever considered legal marriage under Roman law. Tacitus writes of them not with praise but with disparagement.

Still, there is no doubt as to the general sexual licentiousness rampant at the time. And I particularly agree with this statement in the article: “The heterosexual moral disrepair in Rome therefore formed the social basis for the Roman slide into homosexual marriage rites.” A push for same sex unions never occurs in a vacuum; rather, it occurs in eras in which sexual morality has already been long corrupted.

The same is true today. The sexual revolution of the 20th century and continuing today leads in a direct line from contraception to abortion to fornication, cohabitation, serial marriage, no fault divorce, and same sex unions.

That is similar to the point that Tyler Blanski makes in this article when he says “Long before anyone dreamed of normalizing sodomy, heterosexual ideology contended that sex should be first and foremost recreation. The only problem with this contention is that sex is naturally creative.”

Legalization of same sex unions can not occur until heterosexuality is first debased. As it has been in our current culture. That’s where we find ourselves today.