Posted by: sonofliberty1787 | August 8, 2010

Updated: What’s Marriage?

This week was a tough one for our country.  While I couldn’t be prouder of my home state, Missouri, passing Proposition C.  This will help prevent the federal government from forcing Missourians to buy a product they may not want.  While this is a step in the right direction; unfortunately, a federal judge overturned California’s Proposition 8.  This federal judge stepped in and overruled over 7 million Californians who believed marriage is between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN.  What a crazy concept?  The main basis for the ruling was there is no logical basis to exclude gays and lesbians from being wed. Here’s what the judge wrote,

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

So, basically there’s no basis to assume marriage should be only between a man and woman?  If you think so then you are nothing more than a bigot, homophobe.  The “justice” went on to essentially claim that backers of Prop 8 were all being discriminatory.  Walker asserted the moral basis for the proposition was flawed.  He could not uphold a ban on gay marriage based morality.  I challenge anyone to give me a single example of a law not based in some form of morality.  Since gay marriages are no different than straight marriages there is no other explanation for the backers’ morality than discrimination and a feeling of superiority, according to the judge.  Beyond the fact this ruling accuses a majority of Californians of being bigots (side note: What difference does a person’s reason to vote have to do with Constitutionality or the basis of the law on Constitutionality for that matter?), what place does this leave marriage in?  If there is no basis to discriminate what defines marriage, since one man and one woman is no longer viable, what legal basis is there to prevent marriage to any group?  I know the left always calls this argument outrageous, but someone please explain how to defend marriage from any other assaults.  It was just declared open by a federal judge.  There’s nothing standing in the way of it being opened to any other group either.  After all, those attempts are probably based on bigoted opinions that marriage is between two people.  So please someone, tell me how we can now properly define marriage.

Finally, what ever happened to elections have consequences?  That’s all we’ve been told by the Left.  We’re passing healthcare and you can’t stop it, elections have consequences.  We’re nominating a justice to the Supreme Court with no experience, elections have consequences.  In this case, more than 52% of CALIFORNIANS passed this bill.  California, one of the most liberal states and it still passed this law!  Elections have consequences.  Stop over turning a majority, with phony “Constitutional” arguments.  Leave marriage alone, it’s worked since creation.  Elections have consequences.

From Rational Voice: Here is some good commentary on this issue. In it, the author begs the question, if we allow gay marriage, what is preventing us from going one step further and legalizing polygamy? It’s essentially the same. A man may love a man or a woman another woman, but what if a man loves two women? Why doesn’t he have the right to marry those he loves? If we want to be fair don’t we have to allow them to get married as well?


  1. Of course we make our laws based off of morality. Hopefully some ethics too. But we have to consider the reasons behind why we think that something is wrong. Is anyone getting hurt? Are their rights being violated? In this case no, gay marriage isn’t hurting anyone. It’s an absolute lie to even think that there are reasons behind this kind of discrimination other than religious ones and bad traditions. Our votes do not count in areas where the constitution is being upheld. Otherwise women wouldn’t get to vote and their would still be slaves. I challenge you to think hard about why you believe homosexuality is wrong. Try hard.

    • “Our votes do not count in areas where the constitution is being upheld.”

      I will agree with your point here. If the people vote for something that is unconstitutional, a judge should strike down what the people voted for. In this instance, however, there is no constitutional basis for this ruling. There is nothing in the Constitution dealing with marriage and because of that, any ruling on that issue is thereby left to the people of each state. The 10th Amendment says so, and quite clearly:

      The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

      The people of California voted, constitutionally, to ban same-sex marriage and the judge, with absolutely no basis, overturned the voice of the people, in essence violating the 10th Amendment in doing so. If there were something in the Constitution specifically dealing with gay marriage, he would have been well within his right to rule this way, though he should have let another judge take the case since he is openly gay and ruling on the case is a conflict of interest. And don’t turn around and say that the 14th Amendment allows this because that is not at all what the 14th Amendment is about. It is one of the most abused amendments we have. Take a look at the history of that amendment and why it was created and you’ll see what it was truly meant for. It wasn’t a catch-all amendment that allows people to do anything they want.

      The biggest issue overall is not the morality of gay marriage but the fact that this judge ruled from the bench. Personally, I couldn’t care less about gay marriage, but I would rather it be called civil unions since the historical definition of marriage was a union between a man and a woman. People are who they are. I just think that the states should be able to decide for themselves. If the people of a state want to allow it, good for them. I don’t care. If they don’t want it, good for them as well. I don’t care. I just care when the will of the people is overturned by an activist judge.

  2. If in fact you are right, then the courts will see to it that the ruling is overturned. However, this is obviously a case of civil liberties, the right to equality, anti-discrimination. As for the historical definition of marriage changing, I certainly don’t see Christians up in arms over Vegas weddings and reality TV show marriages. I’ve met plenty of heterosexual couples that get married for tax reasons, lower insurance, more financial aid; the list goes on. Like it or not, marriage is what people have decided it is, and that is different for anyone. I don’t see how your life will be affected by this at all. It isn’t even a religious institution. You are attempting to come off as someone whose hands are clean judgement and as someone who is only interested in upholding the law but it seems obvious that you would interpret the law to fit your own agenda.

    • Actually, there are people who dislike Vegas and reality TV weddings but the big thing with both of these is the fact that they still fit the definition of being between a man and a woman. I don’t agree with people who get married just for the tax breaks, lower insurance, what have you, but it happens. There are a lot of things that happen in the world that I don’t agree with.

      And where is this right to equality and anti-discrimination that you speak of? Pretty sure if you actually read the Constitution you’ll find that there is nothing in there that says it. And if you’re referring to the 14th Amendment, please, like I said before, actually check out the history of that amendment and what it was actually written for and what it really meant to do. It is one of the most bastardized amendments we have and this whole case further illustrates that point. And for discrimination, discrimination is not necessarily a bad thing but it has a connotation that it is a bad thing. I discriminate every day, as does everyone, and it’s shown in the choices we make. When I bought a Chevy Tahoe, I discriminated against Ford, Chrysler, Honda, etc. I discriminate when I pick my friends because I want to have people around me that I have things in common with or share similar values with. If I was an employer I’d discriminate when I hire someone because I want someone who is qualified for the job I’m offering. There may be “discrimination” by now allowing gays to marry but that’s because of how marriage is defined. Like I said, if the people of a state want to change that definition, fine. It’s their choice but don’t ram a decision down the throats of those who don’t want something.

      As for my life being affected, it really isn’t, which is why I really don’t care what the people of a state do in regards to this, but it does matter to some people for whatever reason. If you want to take issue with that, take it up with those who have the problem with it.

    • I’d to first say we’re glad to have you on here. You’re our first dissenter and I welcome that, so please feel free to continue reading. Now, to address your points. I do agree with RationalVoice that Constitutionally, there is nothing granting the Federal government the right to step in on marriage. It’s not relegated to the fed and should remain at the state level. Meaning, states should get to decide and I would assert a popular election is the best way for the states to determine something so important. But, my next point is where I differ from my cohort and goes against your “it doesn’t hurt anything argument.” Gay-marriage does hurt traditional marriage and that in turn hurts society as a whole. Scandinavia and the Dutch have both adopted Homosexual Marriage laws, these laws have slowly widdled away at marriage. The rates of marriage are small, while cohabitation is on the rise. This leads to instability and low birth rates. Many children in these countries are raised by single parents, because there’s no incentive to marry and it’s much easier to walk away from a cohabitation relationship. Beyond that, several of these countries have had to supplement child birth. The government offers women significant benefits to have children, just so the population doesn’t disappear and that doesn’t even begin to touch the problems have with a dwindling work force. Going past the actual examples of marriage being erroded, what legal basis is there to now defend marriage from being open to any other “committed” relationship? Getting rid of an “out-dated tradition” like marriage to accomidate one group will only lead to other groups to want the same “right.” This tradition is as old as mankind. Even the Roman and Greek cultures, which had openly gay tendencies, respected and upheld marriage. Bottomline, this destroys the framework of marriage and provides the legal framework for further assaults. You say law is based in morality, so where does it stop? And what makes your opinon the authority? Finally, this isn’t a civil right. Live, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness or right (by the way, happiness refers to the pursuit of “happenstance” or using your property to achieve), saying it’s a right, doesn’t make it so. Sure, they can have gay relationships and do whatever, but they can’t marry without meeting the definition. Every adult in the US can get married, they must first meet the critia to do so, marrying a person of the opposite sex.

  3. You’re right it doesn’t fit the current definition. that’s why the definition is going to have to change. It’s called progress, that is what we do. Over time we change systems that have become outdated. As long as we have been changing those systems there have been people to dig their heels in and say “No! This is the way it has always been.” But just because it has always been does not mean it is good. Tell me specifically, how will gay marriage change heterosexual relationships? Will kids just stop taking marriage seriously because “just anyone can do it” ? No, probably not. People who want to get married still will, and those who don’t won’t. Period. be specific instead of making vague generalizations.

  4. Did you read the article linked in my response? It talked specifically about how it will impact heterosexual marriage and what impact that has on childrens’ lives. Also, see what I said about it’s impact on birthrates and how these countries are subsidizing child birth, just to survive. But, of course I’m the one with the generalizations…

    While we’re progressing away from definitions, what else is up to change? Can I be a doctor because I love to help people? No, I have to meet the requirements, meet the definition. I can’t buy a house, even if I want to real bad, if I don’t have the money. It’s not discrimination, just the requirements the same for everyone else.

    How then shall we define marriage? Is it ok to discriminate against polygamists? Or should they be able to marry? What about someone absolutely commited to their dog or donkey, it’s true love, it’ll last a life time…really it will…

    Even societies that were open in their homosexual relationships (Greeks, Romans) recognized marriage as only between a man and woman.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: