american conervative news opinion politics the land of the fre

 

 

Ok, I can understand where you are coming from with why the Federal Marriage Amendment had to go down in flames.  However I think that there is also an equal concern that government should have a role in determining what does and does not constitute marriage because we are a nation founded on Judeo-Christian ideals.

Because of that, I think that the state has a compelling interest to maintain that base upon which we are founded.

Tom


Tom,

Yes, there is indeed an argument to that.  However I am basing my opinion on the Federal Marriage Amendment which I presented in Why the Federal Marriage Amendment HAD to be Defeated on more than just that.

We have a founding document, the Declaration of Independence, which states that we have certain unalienable rights; Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  That is a partial list because the founding fathers said that "among these are".  The DoI does reference God four times (notice that the references are also capitalized).  From that we have the United States Constitution (which references God once FYI) which exists only because of the DoI which gives governments the authority they have by the will of the people.

That Constitution says clearly that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".  We cannot separate that from our desires to "define" marriage legally.  The problem comes from the Federal Marriage Amendment that says flatly that marriage shall be defined as between a man and a woman.  It doesn't say "civil marriage".  It says "marriage".

Well, what happens if (for example) the Catholic Church decides to allow homosexuals to marry?  What happens is that the Catholic Church is now in violation of the Constitution.  It is now an unConstitutional entity and as such it has to be punished.  Congress has by default created a "law" that prohibits the free exercise of religion.

You cannot say, "Well he don't HAVE to punish them".  But you do.  They are violating the Constitution.  You cannot simply allow them a pass while not giving others passes as well.  If you do that then how would you be able to not support the government saying "Yeah, the 4th Amendment says we need a warrant, but hey we'll just ignore the Constitution in this case and search your house."

That is a question "conservatives" have to answer.

Its a hard one.  We want desperately to preserve the institution of marriage and keep it in line with its religious roots.  But we are fighting against an enemy with no regard for our religion, the religion of our founders and the Constitution.  But that doesn't mean that we should chuck our core values and stoop to their level and violate the Constitution as well.

We have to fight within the confines of what we claim to believe.  And if you and I do that, believe me, God's favor will shine upon us and lead us through these times and defeat those that wish to distort our laws and set up this nation for an even greater slide into immorality and to set up the Constitution for destruction.

The answer is to abide by the Constitution which says "
Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof".  That "law" must be properly worded however to not define marriage.

All that is required is a "law" along these simple lines:

"No State shall be compelled to recognize the acts of marriage conducted by another state within their borders if such acts contradict the standards of marriage within such a state."

Now, that is a simple thing that I just threw out however notice that:
  1. It makes NO reference to religion
  2. It makes NO prohibition against free practice of religion
  3. It does NOT establish a religion.
The simplest path is the best road to take in this case and it does not require New York to recognize "marriages" from Massachusetts that it finds objectionable.  We do not need to break the Constitution in order to save marriage.  If we work with the Constitution, we see that the mechanism to protect it already exists.  Don't throw the baby out with the bath water and lay the ground work for future infringements upon our rights.

And if the courts attempt to overthrow it, then there is a mechanism to deal with them as well.  It's called impeachment.

Jeffrey J. Jackson
The Land of the Free

The Land of the Free - A Conservative Politics Web Site

Return to Reader Mail







Land of the Free Site Map


Godless
Ann Coulter

 


Constitution In Exile
A. Napolitano
 


The Professors
David Horowitz


Unhinged
Michelle Malkin

Amazon.com
 

 





Visit our OLD Blog At
The Vast Right Wing Attack Blog

News Archive


Reader Mail

 

Support the Troops!!

Recent Articles

Feed Powered By Feed Digest

American Conservative Daily

WorldNetDaily Headlines

Washington Times Headlines
Political News
World News
FOX News Headlines

Want to be notified when this site is updated?
Send an Email with the subject line "Update ME!"

T-shirts & Gifts

24/7 Christian T-shirts
Patriotic American Eagle T-shirts
100% American Woman T-shirts
Real Dixie Chick T-shirts

Right Wing  RightPages

ConservaFind - Conservative Search Engine