The American Constitution and SSM

[Flavius_Aetius]

For the record I am not a supporter of Same-sex Marriage.

However in the Declaration of Independance it says we have the right to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." Now this isn’t the consitution but this line has been used to justify things before. Loving v. Virginia is one but that time it was for racial mixing marriages.

Now since we’ve seen court cases in the past, do you think that people supporting Gay ‘Marriage’ can justify it in American society by this simple quote in the Declaration of Independance?

Also what is a defense against this besides perhaps making a new amendment that makes marriage one man and one woman?

 

[as-a-child]

When the constitution was written:

happiness meant intrisic good, not just it feels good.

The only way to clarify the constitution is to apply real and definitive definitons to:

LIFE
Liberty
& Happiness…

That will never happen cause those questions are above politicians “pay grade”

 

[Orogeny]

Now since we’ve seen court cases in the past, do you think that people supporting Gay ‘Marriage’ can justify it in American society by this simple quote in the Declaration of Independance?

No. Pursuit of happiness does not extend to any and all things. For example, an arsonist cannot pursue the happiness he/she gets from starting fires.

Also what is a defense against this besides perhaps making a new amendment that makes marriage one man and one woman?

There is nothing to amend. You are quoting the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

Peace

Tim

 

[manualman]

You have correctly identified where the slippery slope leads to.

Our culture has moved to a place where it rejects the christian assertion that homosexual sex is inherently self destructive to participants. We got THERE by first forgetting that the whole reason that government recognizes the largely religious meaning of marriage out of recognition that stable society depends on stable families. Instead folks started to think that government recognition of marriage was about benefits, rights and happiness. Given the substitute rationale, it DOESN’T make sense to deny it to a man / man couple, man / sheep couple or even 2 men, a woman and a goat. If that’s what they want and it makes them happy, how can you deny them their right? Lost is the recognition that real families create stability, provide mutual support, raise the next generation of responsible adults and generally add to the maturity of the culture. Inherently self-destructive relationships, on the other hand, contribute to its decline.

Now that the effective definition of “family” is anybody who lives together for a while (I’m not joking, ask any municipal law attorney), that stability is gone which is, in turn, leading to a rapid destabilization of our society at large.

Don’t misunderstand me. Marriage between heteros is no guarantee of stability as our divorce rate clearly shows. But it is an enormous stabilizing influence.