[GCFL-discuss] Marriage

[gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net]

       Many people would argue this & I am not about to start an argument
but I think homosexuality is wrong. For one thing Gods design was for one
MAN & for one WOMAN to  be together not the same sex together. Not only
is it disguisting but it is unnatural & unbiblical. There are many people
who try to argue & twist different scriptures to their benefit but it
doesn't change Gods plan & design. Thats my opinion.
  Jeff
 


On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 21:08:35 -0500 gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net writes:
> It has been awfully quiet this month. Dare I raise the subject of
> defining marriage?
> 
> I believe the controversial ruling by the Supreme Court of 
> Massachusetts
> contained a simple, obvious, but apparently overlooked flaw. I also
> believe inserting a definition of marriage into the federal 
> constitution
> is both dangerous and silly.
> 
> I believe there is a proper place for states rights -- although
> preserving racial discrimination is not one of them. Actually, 
> whether I
> approve or not, the constitution IS a contract by the governed
> authorizing the existence of a federal government, and it does 
> reserve
> all powers not explicitly delegated to the federal level, either to 
> the
> states or to the people.
> 
> Marriage has always been in state jurisdiction, not federal. Nothing 
> in
> the federal constitution delegates to either the executive or 
> legislative
> branch any jurisdiction to write laws pertaining to marriage. An
> amendment would change that of course, but writing an amendment to
> intrude federal authority into one narrow subject area that happens 
> to
> have created a lot of excitement is very dangerous. Marriage should
> remain a state matter.
> 
> The decision of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts (which was a 4-3
> decision, and may well be overturned by the legal processes of that 
> state
> in the next couple of years) is binding only in Massachusetts. Fears 
> that
> other states will be required to recognize any marriage licensed by
> Massachusetts are very premature. In fact, a landmark Massachusetts
> decision freeing a slave brought into the state by her owner's wife 
> on a
> visit from Louisiana provides an interesting precedent for NOT 
> imposing
> such a requirement. Without going into humongous length, if another 
> state
> has no such thing in its laws as marriage between two people of the 
> same
> gender, then that state has nothing to offer the parties "married" 
> in
> 
> 
> (The reasoning that freed the 14 year old slave: not because 
> entering
> Massachusetts triggered a process of emancipation, but because the 
> laws
> of Massachusetts did not recognize the status of slave, so that no
> authority existed in the state to restrain her movements or keep her 
> in
> bondage, no matter what her status in Louisiana).
> 
> Which brings me to the flaw in the Massachusetts court decision.
> 
> The court applied "equal protection of the laws," which is certainly 
> a
> vital principle of American democracy. The court reasoned that it 
> had
> before it two classes of people, one denominated "heterosexuals" 
> the
> other denominated "homosexuals." Both classes of people, said the 
> court,
> desired the benefits of the status of marriage. No rational reason
> existed to grant the status to one group, while denying it to the 
> other.
> 
> Very logical, and like much logical reasoning, based on a flawed 
> premise.
> No homosexual plaintiff desired to marry a person of opposite 
> gender. No
> man who sought a license to marry a woman had been denied on the 
> ground
> that they were a homosexual -- which would have been unwarranted
> discrimination. No woman who sought a license to marry a man had 
> been
> denied on the ground that she was a lesbian. In short, the 
> plaintiffs did
> not seek ACCESS to what other citizens enjoyed, they sought a NEW 
> status
> which only they would enjoy, and which did not exist.
> 
> (By the way, the court was very explicit that their ruling applied 
> only
> to civil acts of government. No church has an obligation to bless a
> "marriage" that violates its own faith and doctrine. THAT is
> constitutionally guaranteed too).
> 
> But the court was still wrong. Issuing a marriage license is an act 
> of
> overt approval on behalf of the happy couple's fellow citizens. If 
> a
> majority of the people of a state choose to adopt legislation 
> recognizing
> homosexual couples, they can. It doesn't seem like there is a 
> majority
> ready to do that right now. There is no constitutional right to 
> approval
> and respect.
> 
> At least 48 states seem to be moving in the opposite direction, 
> which is
> another reason not to play with the Constitution. State governments 
> seem
> quite competent to deal with the question. And at least seven 
> members of
> the U.S. Supreme Court are individually on record as saying that 
> nothing
> in their decisions would required any state to grant the status of
> marriage to two people of the same gender -- there hasn't been a 
> formal
> decision because no case has even made it into federal court yet.
> 
> Siarlys
> 
> 
> ________________________________________________________________
> The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
> Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
> Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
> _______________________________________________
> GCFL-discuss mailing list
> GCFL-discuss at gcfl.net
> http://gcfl.net/mailman/listinfo/gcfl-discuss
> 
> 

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!