I get a newsletter from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank, and this week I got one concerning the Supreme Court’s taking on Prop. 8 and the Defense Of Marriage Act. I thought to myself that this might be interesting; it also was infuriating to my personal philosophy. Here’s a link here so let’s take a look.
Those pressing the Supreme Court to overturn the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California’s Proposition 8 essentially argue that marriage as we’ve always known it is not constitutional. But redefining marriage would make marriage about the desires of adults rather than the well-being of children.
That was the takeaway from a media briefing Tuesday at the National Press Club featuring Heritage’s Ryan T. Anderson, Claremont Institute legal scholar John C. Eastman, and Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Austin R. Nimocks (who is also co-counsel in the Prop 8 case).
“Government is not in the marriage business to regulate citizens’ romantic lives,” Anderson said. “Encouraging marriage is the only way to ensure adults take responsibility for their children.”
And what is DOMA? Regulation.
Redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships would further separate marriage from the reality that every child needs both a mother and a father, Anderson said, and transform the institution into whatever emotional bond the government says it is.
Say what? The damn welfare state and irresponsible heterosexual people are doing a bang up job of screwing up the ‘sanctity of marriage’. Look at Hollywood and the amount of kids on food stamps, government insurance, etc. And you know what? Everyone of them came from a heterosexual relationship. Let’s move on…
Among the consequences: erosion of religious freedom and growth of the welfare state.
There is nothing “equal” about redefining marriage, Anderson said, a point he also made in a piece this week in The Washington Post. And the Court has held that same-sex marriage is not a fundamental right, said Eastman, author of Heritage’s legal memo on the marriage cases.
Religious freedom? Is someone else’s actions in their life going to come between you and your God? Does your God not realize it’s not your doing? Not very omniscient if it doesn’t. It’s not Biblical? I offer this…
Welfare state? You know what grows that? Democrats do. Republicans do. A supermajority of straight politicians. Excuses. The real growth comes from politicians bribing constituents with ‘free’ money.
This line…”same-sex marriage is not a fundamental right” If it’s not, then neither is heterosexual marriage and in the name of equality all marriages should be annulled or government gets the hell out of it and stays out.
“What is at stake is the constitutional authority of the American people,” Anderson said.
To that I offer this…
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 Tenth Amendment. There is nothing in the Constitution that supports DOMA as legal. However, State’s can define marriage under the 10th, however it’s not right. The Constitution is flawed after all, but I can argue with this point from the Declaration of Independence...”We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
All men and women, straight, bisexual, homosexual, all races and creeds, are created equal free to their Life, Liberty to do what they want without physically harming another and pursuit of happiness, such as marrying whoever they love. Stating that someone has power to limit this flies in the face of what this country was founded on.
What would you do if a majority voted that you couldn’t marry your sweetheart?
A Ronin's Journey 