Marriage was
created by God, not "the government."
Government
has a duty to acknowledge what God has ordained. Government has a duty to
follow "the Laws of Nature and of
Nature's God." Every single person who signed the Declaration of
Independence and the Constitution believed that homosexuality was
contrary to "the Laws of Nature and of
Nature's God," and that two (or more) people of the same gender
could not constitute a valid "marriage." The Framers of the
Constitution did not intend that instrument to confer a "right"
to "homosexual marriage."
Therefore no amendment to the
Constitution should be necessary to protect God's definition of Marriage.
But too many federal judges do not respect the Constitution. An amendment
might force rogue judges to stop their attack on democratically-amended
state constitutions and legislation which is consistent with God's
definition of Marriage. It's worth a try.
It's worth a try because any government which does not acknowledge itself
to be "under
God" is a government that thinks it is
God. A government that thinks it is God is the most
dangerous entity on the planet.
Ron Paul was Wrong
Having studied this issue and consulted with leading legal scholars,
including an attorney who helped defend the Boy Scouts against attempts
to force the organization to allow gay men to serve as scoutmasters, I
am convinced that both the Defense of Marriage Act and the Marriage
Protection Act can survive legal challenges and ensure that no state is
forced by a federal court's or another state's actions to recognize
same sex marriage. Therefore, while I am sympathetic to those who feel
only a constitutional amendment will sufficiently address this issue, I
respectfully disagree.
The
Federal Marriage Amendment Is a Very Bad Idea | Ron Paul
The Supreme Court has already ruled in precisely the way Ron Paul didn't
think it could. Ron Paul, it turns out, is just too optimistic about
government. He needs to be a little more cynical.
3. This is not just about marriage.
Redefining marriage policy is about more than just creating same-sex
marriage – it is about deconstructing the role and nature of marriage
in our society.
It’s about marginalizing the Christian sexual ethic and enforcing a
new sexual morality. Those who disagree with this new morality are
first marginalized, then punished. We’re already seeing this happen
with the
city of Houston issuing subpoenas for pastors’ communications,
the ousting of Mozilla CEO Brandon Eich, and attacks on Christian
business people, like Rob
and Cynthia Gifford of Liberty Ridge Farm, Jim and Mary O’Reilly
of Wildflower Inn, Jack
Phillips of Masterpiece Cake Shop, Barronelle
Stutzman of Arlene’s Flowers, Blaine
Adamson of Hands on Originals, Elaine
and Jon Huguenin of Elane Photography, and Melissa
and Aaron Klein, owners of a bakery called Sweet Cakes by Melissa.
For these people, and the many more who will risk everything for their
right to live by their faith, we will continue to stand for marriage.
And because we understand what marriage is, we will continue to promote
the truth, value, and beauty of marriage in our culture.
Two
Ways We Should NOT Respond to the “Redefinition” of Marriage «
Alliance Defending Freedom Blog
Either Congress must remove marriage from the jurisdiction of federal
courts (Ron Paul was an original cosponsor of the Marriage
Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of
Marriage Act from federal courts' jurisdiction) or amend the U.S.
Constitution to reign in oath-violating rogue atheist/homosexual judges.
- Government recognition of "same-sex marriages" provides
benefits for homosexuals.
- • Tax benefits
•
Job benefits
• Psychic benefits - Government recognition
of the Biblical
definition of marriage protects the rights of
children.
- Children have a right to be loved and raised by
their biological mom and dad.
- Protecting children is more
important than providing benefits to adults.
| I have written in support of a federal
"marriage amendment" on my blog, here
and here. |
- In the first link I say, "As a Libertarian, I oppose
all government laws regarding marriage." In a world in
which politicians keep their oath to "support the
Constitution," a "marriage amendment" would be
unnecessary.
- Changing the historic definition of marriage will
vastly expand the powers of government over families. See
Jennifer Roback Morse here
and Jeremiah G. Dys here.
- The second link explains why I believe that more rights of
more human beings would be trampled on by Washington D.C.
without a marriage amendment than with it -- and this claim
concedes for the sake of the argument that real rights
(as described in the Declaration of Independence, not the
Supreme Court) of homosexuals would be violated by a marriage
amendment.
- Don't believe in "same-sex marriage?" Too
bad: you will be compelled to bake a cake for their
wedding, and you will be locked in the gulag until you
become more "sensitive."
- Don't believe in "same-sex marriage?" Tough
luck: you will be compelled to use your photographic
talents to make their wedding look like a thing of
beauty, even though you believe it is something that
offends their Creator. And thousands of dollars of your
income will be confiscated.
- Your business and even your home will be sued,
picketed, and your customers, distributors, and suppliers
will be harassed until you change your religion or go out
of business. Say hello to politically-correct fascism.
Say hello to the "Gay
Gestapo."
|
I respect the views of some Christian observers who are cynical about the
virtue of the "Marriage Amendment":
I also respect those who argue that such an amendment is contrary to the
Tenth Amendment:
See also my analysis of the Fourteenth
Amendment.
But as I said, the rights of more human beings will be violated if
"homosexual marriages" are imposed on America by "activist
judges."
- A Marriage Amendment that upholds "the
Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" will lead to smaller
government in the long-run,
- because federal judges will be prohibited from expanding
government power over marriage
- unless there is a complete breakdown of respect for the Rule
of Law.
- and federal judges decide they're not going to respect the
Constitution as amended.