Sancitity of Marriage Unconstitutional?


I've seen this floating around for a while. I think it's time a post was dedicated to it.

The first problem with it is that it is clearly not invalid. It is not invalid because the argument against homosexual marriage isn't even fully presented. If no argument proper is presented, it cannot even fit into the categories of valid or invalid. So what we have here is the attempt to intimidate one and make one feel like the post or poster (apparently an Evan Hass) is smarter than he actually is. This is intolerable. 

Second problem is the the lack of understanding of their own argument. It is true that congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. But what does arguing for the traditional view of marriage have to do with Congress? And then Congress establishing a Church? Absolutely nothing! What in the world does this Evan think the 1st Amendment mean? 

Thirdly, let's assume this bizarre understanding of the 1st Amendment goes through. What follows? Well, if you notice the ellipses, you will realize that there is more to the amendment then quoted. So what else does it say? It says, "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." This entails that Christians who believe that same-sex marriage is a violation of the sanctity of marriage, you can't tell us to stop or not vote in accordance to our beliefs.

Fourthly, back to the issue of Congress. As I said, this has nothing to do with Congress. So, whose jurisdiction does this fall under? The Constitution makes no mention of marriage. Therefore, according to the 10th Amendment, this power belongs to the States or to the People. So, even Constitutionally, this has nothing to do with Congress.

Fifthly, it can be argued that marriage doesn't even belong under the jurisdiction of the state, but of the Church. The state had nothing to do with marriage up until the Reformation. When Martin Luther decided that marriage was not a sacrament, he stripped it of religious meaning, which was unprecedented at the time, and so we have no real reason to keep the issue up to the state. If you want a separation of church and state so when it comes to marriage, that's fine, but religion is going to take it back away from the state, and you better believe religion won't allow same-sex couples marry. 

So, no, there is nothing invalid and nothing unconstitutional about this.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Milo

Image
So I decided to go see Milo Yiannopoulos at UCSB yesterday. I was really hesitant to do so, and decided not to go, but a few of my friends wanted to go, and they're all losers who don't drive, so, I had to take everyone. I didn't know much about Milo, and I still don't, but I did learn some things. In some of the more, ahem, colorfully conservative pages of facebook that I follow, Milo has been something of an iconoclast, destroying the feminist narratives left and right. But I also know that he is an active homosexual and he is a rabid Trump supporter (even calling him "Daddy"). So, for those reasons, I was never interested in what he had to say. He was, to take a phrase from Lenin, a useful idiot. That was my impression. But I was wrong. A few days before the event, I had read somewhere on these pages I follow but wont name, that Milo believed himself to be a Christian, and a Catholic at that. I dismissed this immediately, and my opinion of him stoppe...
Read more

What Does The Bible Say About Birth Control?

From the early church up to 1930, virtually every church believed contraception was a sin. That fact alone should have us induce that contraception is in fact a sin. Yet, there are many Christians today, even in my own congregation, that will never entertain the possibility of contraception being a sin.
Read more

Is Canon 28 Binding?

In my previous post , I discussed Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon (you'll find the full text of the canon there). But I should have put an asterisk on the conversation because Canon 28 isn't properly part of the council. You'll remember from an earlier post , that what makes a council ecumenical is ratification from the Roman Pontiff. Canons are part of councils. And naturally, canons also have to be ratified. However, Canon 28 was not ratified by Pope Leo (Roman Pontiff at the time). So Canon 28 isn't part of the council and thus isn't binding.  If you are Orthodox, this may sound too convenient. I've already suggested why Roman Ratification is the correct theory in the previous link. However, I want to add two things. First, even Saints in the East agree with the Roman position, and second, a case can be made for Canon 28 not being problematic for Catholicism.  First, there are the sayings of Pope St. Gelasius (about 490 AD), and Pope St. Gelasius is...
Read more