Gay marriage the law of the land
[NOTE: I’m writing something quite long on the subject, but I may end up sending it out to another publication, and I’m still in the middle of writing it. Meanwhile, I thought I’d provide this shorter thread for you to discuss the subject of today’s same-sex marriage ruling.]
In a move that probably came as no surprise to anyone, the Supreme Court made same sex marriage the law of the land. Legal Insurrection is always a good place to go to read about legal matters, so I’d recommend this post there as well as this one.
To me, this case is less about gay marriage and more about extending the Constitution in a way never intended by the Framers and detrimental to liberty because it extends further the power of the federal government. At PJ Media, Michael van der Galien writes that federalism is now dead in America:
The “right” of gays to marry has never existed. It isn’t protected by the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In fact, because of the 10th Amendment this issue (marriage) is completely left to the individual states. In other words, marriage is none of the federal government’s business; it’s up to individual states to decide whether to legalize it or not.
Combined with yesterday’s ruling on ObamaCare…we can only conclude that federalism is no more. America is now a centralized country, comparable to individual European states.
I believe that is the real significance of today’s ruling. Its predecessor (not in content but in process) was Roe v. Wade, in which abortion, another trend that was already gaining ground in the states and probably would have more slowly become legal in most if not all states, was forced on the American people as a whole by finding a right in the federal Constitution that previously had never been thought to exist. Both cases (today’s and Roe) also share the fact that they are a particular affront to many religious Americans and have the potential to violate their right to freedom of religion.
They lowered the Confederate Flag…Then raised the Rainbow Flag all in one week …
And, they’re not yet done ….
I blame the voters.
SCOTUS on the ACA – the intent of Congress matters most. All else is irrelevant.
SCOTUS on gay marriage – the intent of Congress with respect to the 14th Amendment (civil rights for former slaves) is irrelevant.
Honestly, I _was_ surprised. I must be hopelessly naive.
The failure of government to rise to even the lowest depths of our expectations proves, I believe, that we do not deal with those who target us with their malevolent intentions, nor do we suffer the ministrations of obtuse incompetents, nor are our problems the doing of even useful idiots and motile morons beguiled by ‘making the world a better place’, nor is it our sufferance of the laterally mobile sinecurists – the flotsam and tumbleweed that drifts and bobs or blows hard across an ever more fruity plain. And it’s not soulless, obsidian hearted inhabitants of our extragovernmental enclaves — the zombielands, the bureaucracies and czardoms, or the professional public servants that are our bane.
It’s not even a confederation of the above – a greater Union than even Honest Abe’s Union. The failure of government to rise to even the lowest depths of our expectations is entirely the fault of we, the people. We had thought Jefferson’s watering the tree of liberty with blood mere hyperbole. Now, were we up to it — fear not, we are not — it would take round the clock public hangings.
So, ultimately, as G6loq nearly always signs off — I blame the voters — utterly.
Scalia called it a judicial putsch. He is right of course. It is. In the sense that it is the culmination of a longstanding process, anyway. One perpetrated by enemies of self-government, who would sell your freedom for the sake of their emotional climaxes.
Again the left never ceases pushing, neither do they offer any option out. They do not know where they are going, nor even why – other than they have the urge; but they demand you accompany them nonetheless, while shouting hosannas.
If this SC decision, is not enough to cause people to sever social relations with those who applaud it, then nothing is; and our acquaintances never having been put on notice they cannot miss, they will keep on pushing until you are either crushed and totally complaint, or react with violence.
But what can remain of moral obligation to people who deny the very principles of self-government that make our continued relations with them worth bothering about in the first place?
Until we can figure out a way to use the system’s own structure to bring it down on the heads of the left, the least we can do is not pretend it doesn’t matter more than friendship.
By the way, and speaking of breaking the spine of the system on its own fulcrum point, note that while traditionalists and logicians may be confronted with a notion of marriage that is essentially meaningless, and preposterously contemptible in effect, the very vapidity of the new marriage provides opportunities to wreck the system.
Now although traditionalists no doubt want civil marriage to continue to mean something, it is plain that in terms of anything deserving of your respect, it no longer does.
How for example is a valid marriage even to be construed? Back when it was a contract between two people who were members of classes which when joined could in the absence of defect or age produce offspring naturally, it had some logical and socially significant basis.
Traditionally, and in line with this object, in order to be valid a marriage had to be “consummated”.
Shall the homosexualists insist on this test if some persons definitely not into buggery, detect an opportunity to leverage the now warped law for their own legal advantage or privilege?
Why should one grant “homosexual marriage forms” any more respect than one would any other contemptibly convenient legal fiction which will now allow X to draw socially provided benefits as the “marital” gift of Y.
And shall we limit the number of divorces and remarriages? Want to donate SS benefits to a second cousin, or two or three?
Do the parties to the “contract” actually have to “share a household” or bed, or place Kennedy style spectacles on their faces, tilt their heads back, and trill emotionalist nonsense as he does?
Shall Federal personnel perform bathroom and toothbrush inspections as in the movie “Green Card? Will state health nurses check for anal bleeding spots on the bedsheets in the morning, like some Medieval matron checking for proof of the bride’s virginity and the act of consummation the morning after the nuptial bed was first shared?
Shall the government after having been pushed out of the bedroom by sexual liberation, now be demanded back in by homosexualists as arbitrators, when clever heteros justifiably start gaming a system which the bum-f*ckers have themselves undermined?
Is there any reason for wasserman tests anymore before “marriage?
Well now, we may not have all the answers today, but I think that any rational man can see the path and opportunities that ought to be pursued.
All that stands in the way of conservatives following that path is their own misplaced consciences.
DNW:
Two points.
The first is that a Wasserman Test is almost never required anymore before marriage (see this list of states).
The second is that your assertion that “in order to be valid a marriage had to be ‘consummated’” is close, but not entirely true. In fact, lack of consummation can be grounds for either party to challenge the marriage if they so desire, and to get an annulment. But an unconsummated marriage is considered fully legal and valid (according to the state, anyway) unless and until it is challenged. If it is never challenged (and most are not) by either party, it is as legal as any other marriage.
Catholic law differs, placing a bigger importance on consummation, but we’re not talking about Catholic law here. Common law also differs in the same way, but that’s not what we’re talking about, either.
By the way, in some other English-speaking countries the question of consummation of same-sex marriage has been dealt with in these ways:
I voted for Reagan and both Bushes, who appointed Kennedy, Souter, and Roberts. So I guess it is my fault.
Off-topic:
Non-consummation does not actually invalidate a Catholic marriage. It does mean that such a _valid_ marriage can be dispensed from, but the procedure is separate from the one by which a marriage is declared null (as if it had never happened). If I understand the Canon Law correctly, it is technically possible to live in a valid marriage that was never consummated: the spouses commit to sexual exclusivity to one another, but there is no positive obligation for any intimacy to ensue.
As a libertarian I fully support same sex civil unions, or marriages, call them what you may. So I should be happy with today’s ruling, but am not. The left has used this issue to cudgel religion, specifically Christianity, into submission. They have cynically used a tiny (yes, willing) minority for their own purposes and in the process put that minority in jeopardy. I have a terrible foreboding that the left has created a focal point for conservatives to rally against, an easy scapegoat. Had this been achieved at the state level through referendum, as in Ireland, it would generally be accepted as legitimate. Not now. And gays I fear will live to regret it.
You’re going to bake them a cake whether you like it or not. Remember the feminist complaint about the patriarchy putting women barefoot and pregnant back in the kitchen?]
That’s where you all are going to end up, aka concentration camps working for the slave masters.
As for the voters, that’s more like calling blacks “voters” in 1851, because the South had some partial fraction additional votes with every slave they bred and owned.
So, I’m kind of right, but not inclusively right, just historically right overall, when I spoke of traditional marriage, and referred to the natural law logic of traditional marriage. And it is true, I never described the marriage ritual in 1st century Palestine, nor in 10th century Hungary, and so how do I know that what was done in France in the 1500’s or Wales in the 900s was done there.
And wasn’t Harold Godwineson involved in a Danish Marriage with Edith Swanneck? So there! DNW
Geez,
I know, and I know that we are talking about are present day statutory definitions of marriage being overturned, and not 1950s law (though non-consummation was until recently still grounds for annulment in a number of states), or Catholic marriage, or Anglo-American common law in the 19th century.
Which is part of the problem isn’t it. (No question mark that is a declaration)
What the hell are we supposed to be talking about? An effen social solidarity ritual again? State marriage, was already becoming a bloody incoherent concept; already divorced – no pun intended – from any natural law basis.
Pardon me for not weeping over the loss of something that had already come logically unmoored and was beginning to smoke … and for enjoying and indulging in the rhetorical spectacle of a complete conflagration.
“Anna Says:
June 26th, 2015 at 3:06 pm
Off-topic:
Non-consummation does not actually invalidate a Catholic marriage. It does mean that such a _valid_ marriage can be dispensed from, but the procedure is separate from the one by which a marriage is declared null (as if it had never happened). If I understand the Canon Law correctly ….”
Gawd Almighty. That’s what canon law says nowadays?
You know what?
From now on when I write mockingly about something, using information that I know from historical study to be generally correct, but don’t wish to engage in a community college Critical Analysis 101 “informal fallacies, implied, through generalizations not explicitly qualified” debate I’ll put up a big sign.
That way Artwhateverhisname is and others wont have to waste their time searching for the exceptions that prove the rule or trying to prove that slaves on Brazilian sugarcane plantations had it pretty good comparatively speaking … except when they didn’t most of the time, and died after a year of mortally debilitating physical exploitation.
Then we can save our energy for modus ponens and modus tollens types of analysis.
And gays I fear will live to regret it.
The Homos aren’t in charge, the Gaystapo is in charge. In fact, it would be better for the Left if homos were persecuted and killed and destroyed. Then they could blame others instead of creating fake nooses or burning crosses. They need a real domestic enemy, they can only go so far with the fake burning crosses, hate speech persecutions, and imaginary crimes. They want real deaths, like at Charleston.
This is standard SOP for a Maoist revolutionary. It’s not something new.
Way more than the death of federalism. Death of the Rule of Law. Death of the Constitution. Death of Separation of Powers.
I strongly urge eveyone read Scalia’s dissents.
But constitutional conservatives have taken a complete drubbing this week. I am especially disappointed in Roberts on the ACA case as I expected Tony Kennedy to write the political and policy opinion as he did on gay marriage.
John Roberts held himself out as the fair umpire. But it turns out the strike zone varies radically depending upon who is at bat.
If the Republic is to be restored a strong, fearless and competent leader needs to be elected. The only reason I am not totally despondent is because Carly gave an hour interview on Hannity last night. She may be the leader this country so desparately needs.
Our country is at the level of 1860 or 1929.
So who’s going to try to force a mosque to perform a wedding, gay type?
Anybody who signs an amicus should include address and where his kids go to school.
Consenting adults can apply whatever label they want to their relationship. I don’t really care. It is the homosexual’s insistence that I not only apparently approve but applaud their choice that ticks me off.
Intellectually honest lawyers are in agreement that the ACA and SSM opinions are not serious legal decisions. Raw political power.
Kaba:
Scalia’s dissent says he doesn’t care if a State votes for gay marriage. The problem is that 5 unelected Ivy League lawyers imposed their political views on 330M people. Democracy and the constitution be damned.
Ymarsakar:
They[leftists] need a real domestic enemy, they can only go so far with the fake burning crosses, hate speech persecutions, and imaginary crimes. They want real deaths, like at Charleston.
Are they going to get what they want?
And if it is not even clearer after one of the worst months in American history:
Hillary Clinton must be defeated.
Carthage must be destroyed.
Carly gave an hour interview on Hannity last night. She may be the leader this country so desparately needs.
Does this country deserve a leader like Palin or Carly?
Is this country worthy of the sacrifice of a Hero Leader?
So who’s going to try to force a mosque to perform a wedding, gay type?
The Republican black ops, which don’t exist, could run false flag operations where they video tape themselves, acting as Gaystapo, harassing or petitioning Mosques about this very thing. It would be hilarious to see the Left get behind it.
Tick tock, tick tock…. We now wait to see what the Republican party will do (nothing at all I believe).
Will they strip the courts of their jurisdiction?
Will they impeach them?
Will they eliminate courts?
Will they pass Article V Convention amendments?
Don’t hold your breath on the weak and feckless party doing anything.
When it, the parody marriage called “gay marriage”, enters the legal system as a valid status under law, and questions of division, and entitlement under law and equity enter into the picture, you are unfortunately in for more than just your grudging applause. At that point civil duty now re-purposed, clashes with moral truth, and natural law values.
Of course, the courts may also decide to do away with jurors as well as legislatures. In which case you, as a complete serf, will be free of any disconcerting issues of respecting civil versus moral duties: since to be an American citizen will have become about obeying judicial commands and not about self-government and constitutionally protected liberties.
DNW:
My sister who went to a Catholic high school, a Jesuit college and lives in Texas is applauding this farce on FB. I almost (almost!) commented under her FB post that there was no vote in Texas on this matter and five unelected lawyers made this up. But I didn’t.
She is a nice and good person. No one wants to be mean to gays. But this is not how a Republic is supposed to work and the Constitution leaves marriage law to the States.
I wasn’t going to poke her in the eye with a sharp stick.
We MUST win the next election and fix what we can while we can. (And I now despise John Roberts.)
Sullivan, the man who more than anyone is responsible for SS marriage decision today, responds after a 6 month hiatus.
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/
His seems a little bewildered that it happened so fast, and tries his best to claim it is a conservative value that won, noting that the left got on board late. But they were the deciding factor for sure, and will now claim the victory as theirs. Sullivan can claim he’s a conservative of doubt all he wants, but his complicity in the triumph of radical leftism is the reality. He gave the gay marriage issue to them, lock, stock, and barrel.
Bitch, bitch, moan, moan.
Look at the Big Picture, say from Hammurabi (4000BC) to the present, some 6000 years of human history, Next, consider the Enlightenment and the American Republic spanned just 400 years roughly.
So for roughly 6000 years, the American Republic was a one-off, a singularity, an almost spontaneous mutation. Athens and the Roman republic were mere flyspecks by comparison.
America has been slowly crumbling for the last 100 years, sometimes imperceptibly, but crumbling nevertheless.
This single candle is being snuffed out, and there is no fire from which to rekindle it.
We are sinking back into the slime and ooze that has characterized human governance of itself over the entire remainder of the planet. Why are we surprised?
“A Republic, if you can keep it.” Cannot.
We are sinking back into the slime and ooze that has characterized human governance of itself over the entire remainder of the planet. Why are we surprised?
“A Republic, if you can keep it.” Cannot.
Conservatives sit on sofa….lib gayz work the streetz….murica favors the brave.
Great men wake up to slay dragons. Most are content to chase lizards. Therein lies the difference.
Live brave.
Think Churchill and blame the voters, always ….
The SSM ruling has opened up endless possibilities. My understanding of the ruling was based on you cannot deny legal marriage based on two people that love each other.
Well the polygamy crowd is already crying … us too!
Why not father/mother and daughter?
Why not father/mother and son?
Why not man/woman and robot/AI?
Why not mans best friend!
How could this same court say no to them.
Change “same sex” to whatever and you have the same argument for allowing almost any union of two anything.
“It is now clear that the challenged laws burden the liberty of same-sex couples, and it must be further acknowledged that they abridge central precepts of equality. Here the marriage laws enforced by the respondents are in essence unequal: same-sex couples are denied all the benefits afforded to opposite-sex couples and are barred from exercising a fundamental right. Especially against a long history of disapproval of their relationships, this denial to same-sex couples of the right to marry works a grave and continuing harm. The imposition of this disability on gays and lesbians serves to disrespect and subordinate them. And the Equal Protection Clause, like the Due Process Clause, prohibits this unjustified infringement of the fundamental right to marry.”
DNW:
I am as appalled by this legally imposed redefinition of marriage as you are. It was an off-topic remark, as stated, because Catholic law was cited before. I simply thought it was interesting to add, as a stand-alone consideration; how did you jump from that to “Critical Analysis 101” is beyond me.
Cornhead Says:
June 26th, 2015 at 4:20 pm
If I was on Facebook, I would have said simply, “This is totalitarianism.” Make her defend it.
As a practical matter, gays are only about 2% of the population and maybe half will marry. Then another half will divorce. No big deal.
The gay rights movement drew great energy from the gay marriage issue. Now that the dog has caught the car, there’s not much left to do.
It would be beyond me as well if I had merely quoted or referred to your self-described obiter … which was ostensibly merely an elaboration in response to, what was a merely a precising correction by someone else, to what was merely a conceptual historical sketch on my part, as one element of a prelude, to a series of rhetorical questions related to: logic, philosophy, and the general western tradition.
Now I suppose I ought to offer more parentheticals, more qualifications, parameters- temporal and otherwise, brackets, footnotes, and academic citations when posting cynical diatribes mocking the insanity of current culture.
I know it’s not quite doing Russell or Quine type work, but perhaps above all else we should practice what is preached at the local junior college. Namely, that the highest of critical thinking and presentation skills is that “Thou shalt avoid hasty and inadequate generalizations!”, always and everywhere, forever and ever amen.
Or maybe I should just lard my comments with more “LOLs” so people would know when I was laughing as I wrote … which, even if it is often sardonic, is most of the time here.
Why bother posting to blogs if you are not getting some fun out of the comments of both yourself and others?
It’s not like we are plotting the real revolution right here. That is for elsewhere. This is less serious, possibly for mutual encouragement, and possibly to transmit some small amount of information that might be otherwise overlooked at first glance.
That is about it.
Perhaps something gets lost in the translation, eh?
This is supposed to be fun is it not? And I mean that seriously. In a fun-loving kind of way of course.
rickl Says:
June 26th, 2015 at 6:48 pm
Can’t find the “approve” button, or I would use it.
Selective-child. Selective exclusion 1 – class diversity. Selective exclusion 2 – trans marriage (limited to couplets?). This isn’t about trans marriage, but about the State-establishment of a pro-choice religious/moral doctrine. Progressive liberalism is in principle and practice a degenerative religion/moral philosophy and ideology.
To quote Scalia’s dissent on the gay marriage decision, “Even if it were acceptable for judges to make legislative decisions, the Supreme Court would be terribly unrepresentative of the people of the United States, Scalia says, because they are all lawyers, they all studied at the same 2 law schools (Harvard and Yale), not one is a Protestant Christian, and (except for one) they are all (as we say in Wisconsin) coasties.
Cornhead:
I’m also starting to take Fiorina seriously. We need a leader with real fire. The times are not suited for “good natured” or “polite”.
jack said: Change “same sex” to whatever and you have the same argument for allowing almost any union of two anything.
That reminded of this from 2008, Sisters lose European tax battle:
In light of that, it doesn’t seem fair at all for them not to be able to marry. And just why should sisterhood not be considered as important a relationship as that between between married and civil partners?
History might (probably will) surprise us in its upcoming dialectical swing.
Action. Reaction.
Most of America …sleeps …most of the time. We always have. It’s our nature. Our culture if you will.
Most of America …didn’t notice today. Not really. No normal person pays attention to politics, or the courts.
Frankly, they wouldn’t believe something this stupid if they had noticed. It’s simply too weird. Too foreign – too antithetical – to their fundamental beliefs.
They’re not pundits, nor “political”. They have lives: real ones. Their focus, and their world – and rightly so – is living those lives.
The idea of an adjudicated same sex “marriage” decision somehow disrupting their everyday faith and beliefs hasn’t, yet, risen to the level of their attention. It hasn’t yet entered their lives.
It will.
At which point the words of Isoroku Yamamoto will surge from whatever past they’re filed under and envelope us – all of us – in their prescient forecast.
…the sleeping giant has been awakened before.
That slumber has just been …disturbed. The giant’s sleep is becoming …restless.
Soon that judicial decision will – try to – enter their church doors …and we’ll see just how little attention they’re paying then.
They weren’t paying attention, because they were going about their busy lives.
But the federal government is, soon, going to be pounding at their very doors.
They will hear that sound. That sound will fully awaken the giant.
And we will enter the Hegelian (if you will) swing of the pendulum.
The left, the Academy …you know, their numbers were never very great, right? Comparatively? They have certainly seemed – disproportionately – loud enough …but in the final analysis, that will be seen as all sound and fury. Merely words.
And …in hindsight …too few to really matter.
They underestimated the giant.
The Armies of the Faithful – the descendants of those who fled persecution – will have their say in this.
And oh, but it will be an active and a final “say”, sort of (history always repeats itself).
We’ve burned witches before.
We’re not past that, y’know.
“The right of same-sex couples to marry that is part of the liberty promised by the Fourteenth Amendment is derived, too, from that Amendment’s guarantee of the equal protection of the laws….” SCOTUS majority opinion
The consequence of this ruling is three-fold. First, if the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of the equal protection of the laws… makes the limitation of marriage to the one man-one woman standard, unconstitutional discrimination, then so too does it make limiting marriage to two people unconstitutional. Thus the banning of plural marriage is unconstitutional discrimination.
Secondly, this ruling makes unconstitutional any standard other than the ability to consent. As the age of consent is necessarily arbitrary and thus discriminatory.
Thirdly, since same-sex marriage is NOT about the desire for equal protection under the law but is instead, (for the LGBT crowd) about compulsory societal acceptance of any professed sexual identity by the individual and, (for the Left), about the dissolution of traditional American societal mores… this ruling by the current SCOTUS is simply a signpost on the path toward those goals.
Great, now that some of us are past the “denial” phase, now we’re in the “anger mad” phase.
When will they get to the other stages?
This, as Daniel Greenfield says (Sultan of Knish), isn’t about gay rights: it’s about destroying the meaning of marriage and attacking the foundations of Judeo-Christian faith.
Now that they’ve established the precedent that they can eff with what the churches do (look out, there goes your nice tax-exempt status, you bigots!), the churches will face a stark choice: hold true to the Word of God, or violate it to keep their finances above the line.
Note too, that the Marxists won’t go after the Orthodox Jews or the Moslems: only the Christians. I’ll bet you everything I have in the bank that it will play out that way: it has so far. No one has targeted any non-Christian religious for “anti-gay bigotry,” unless I missed something.
I used to have a live and let live attitude towards gays, but their relentless hostility toward us Christians has greatly angered me. And yeah, it’s a real threat, backed as they are by Marxist scum who’ve weaponized them against us.
From the Book of Common Prayer, the Sacrament of Marriage:
DEARLY beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this company, to join together this Man and this Woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church: which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence and first miracle that he wrought in Cana of Galilee, and is commended of Saint Paul to be honour-able among all men: and therefore is not by any to be entered into unadvisedly or lightly; but reverently, dis-creetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God. Into this holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined. If any man can show just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace.
¶ And also speaking unto the Persons who are to be married, he shall say,
I REQUIRE and charge you both, as ye will answer at the dreadful day of judgment when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed, that if either of you know any impedi-ment, why ye may not be lawfully joined together in Matrimony, ye do now confess it. For be ye well assured, that if any persons are joined together otherwise than as God’s Word doth allow, their marriage is not lawful.
¶ The Minister, if he shall have reason to doubt of the lawfulness of the proposed Marriage, may demand sufficient surety for his indemnification: but if no impediment shall be alleged, or suspected, the Minister shall say to the Man,
N. WILT thou have this Woman to thy wedded wife, to live together after God’s ordinance in the holy estate of Matrimony? Wilt thou love her, comfort her, honour, and keep her in sickness and in health; and, forsaking all others, keep thee only unto her, so long as ye both shall live?
¶ The Man shall answer,
I will.
¶ Then shall the Minister say unto the Woman,
N. WILT thou have this Man to thy wedded husband, to live together after God’s ordinance in the holy estate of Matrimony? Wilt thou love him, comfort him, honour, and keep him in sickness and in health; and, forsaking all others, keep thee only unto him, so long as ye both shall live?
¶ The Woman shall answer,
I will.
— I invite you ladies and gentlemen to consider whether, in all truth, sexual perversion belongs in this scenario? Yes, perversion.
“Live and let live” is one thing: the Marxists forcing their way into our very Sacraments and presuming to dictate what it is we must believe about what is holy and Godlike is monstrous. And that’s what they’re about.
The spineless clerics of the mainstream denominations will cave. But Huckabee has actually loosed a tremendous salvo of anger and disagreement: on this issue, he’s being very brave. God bless him for that.
Here is the traditional English Book of Common Prayer [from 1662 until well into the 20th century] Order for the Solemnization of Matrimony, which is even more explicit about the purposes of marriage (If you saw the marriage of the kitchen maid and footman in Downton Abbey, you’ll note that they used this form):
“DEARLY beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this congregation, to join together this Man and this Woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man’s innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church; which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence, and first miracle that he wrought, in Cana of Galilee; and is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men: and therefore is not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men’s carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.
First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.
Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ’s body.
Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. Into which holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined. Therefore if any man can shew any just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace.
And also, speaking unto the persons that shall be married, he shall say,
I REQUIRE and charge you both, as ye will answer at the dreadful day of judgement when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed, that if either of you know any impediment, why ye may not be lawfully joined together in Matrimony, ye do now confess it. For be ye well assured, that so many as are coupled together otherwise than God’s Word doth allow are not joined together by God; neither is their Matrimony lawful.”
HOW DARE THEY defile this Sacrament!
[Beverly Says:
June 26th, 2015 at 8:47 pm
Oh, I think they’ll go after the Orthodox Jews eventually, but not the vast majority of American Jews whose most important religious tradition is voting Democrat.
And I don’t foresee any “test cases” where (suicidal) gays demand to be married in a mosque.
You’re right. This decision was a declaration of war against Christianity, full stop.
Mike Huckabee fires a salvo of dissent:
“The Supreme Court has spoken with a very divided voice on something only the Supreme Being can do-redefine marriage. I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch. We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat.
“This ruling is not about marriage equality, it’s about marriage redefinition. This irrational, unconstitutional rejection of the expressed will of the people in over 30 states will prove to be one of the court’s most disastrous decisions, and they have had many. The only outcome worse than this flawed, failed decision would be for the President and Congress, two co-equal branches of government, to surrender in the face of this out-of-control act of unconstitutional, judicial tyranny.”
“The Supreme Court can no more repeal the laws of nature and nature’s God on marriage than it can the laws of gravity. Under our Constitution, the court cannot write a law, even though some cowardly politicians will wave the white flag and accept it without realizing that they are failing their sworn duty to reject abuses from the court. If accepted by Congress and this President, this decision will be a serious blow to religious liberty, which is the heart of the First Amendment.”
http://preview.tinyurl.com/qysubn7
I despise Mike Huckabee. He’s another one of those “compassionate conservatives” who loves big intrusive government so long as it espouses what he thinks it should. I would never vote for him under any circumstances.
But I agree with his statement today. Good for him.
So what is Huckabee going to DO about it? What CAN he do about it?
He’s just angling for a segment of the electorate.
What can be done?
1. Federal constitutional amendment.
2. Convention of the States to make major changes in the structure of government and the constitution.
I’m sorry, I haven’t read the full post, or the comments. I’ve just had this visceral fear coursing through my body all week… an apprehension that they are ready to complete the program, now.
“federalism is now dead in America…” Yes, Jean (Neo.) On FB, I’m laying the grounds to tell my online friends (who don’t know what my close one’s do – that I am on my way out of the US.
Raised in patriotic story of my youth – and our youth – on the story of Nathan a Hale as a “A Man Without a Country,” I am emigrating for citizenship in my ancestors land. To take up a new language and culture in New Europe, to prep myself for unburdening myself of the burden soon coming to my friends here who stay.
Since I’m a night owl like you, I will catch up on all the deeply sad but compelling posts you share with us to, in recent days, tonight.
I’ve been pondering this query – which I believe will interest you, until them. (Rough draft….)
Where does Obama’s ideologically driven final half-term” go from here? His Marxist past seriously suggests this: the evil of institutionalized racism demands extirpation under the first black president through US reparation for slavery? If it was good enough for the Japanese wrongly incarcerated during World War II, why isn’t this good enough for the black man? Given the White Man’s sin of chattel slavery?
Racism is our DNA, he says. Haven’t recent events show us that racism is deeply embedded within the American people? The campaign to deracinate – or uplift through the roots – all of our evil past must continue.
Therefore, the logical end of Obamunism will be his calculated plea or opportunistic legislation or proposal for America’s chicken to come home to roost with gelt – just compensation for the sin of slavery, from the living to those tragic, innocent descendants of Southern slavery.
Will it come next summer? Or maybe during the campaign of fall next year? A wedge issue to indict the dangerous non-Left? To drive unity among the Democrat” Left, yes!
Or will it come as a whisper farewell address, before he leaves office in 2017? Given the ideological zealotry of Obama since last November, I’ve sure the last possibility is least likely.
Regardless, THIS is coming, my friends. In battle, all is preparation – so prepare! Prepare! Sharpen your insights, facts, and acumen.
Batten down your hatches and strategize.
Me? I’m learning a strange and difficult tongue. I shall be wishing everyone the best outcome. (Yet that chance has passed.)
The Founders were right. Self-government demands virtue. And responsible Republics are rare in history and short-lived. We American’s had a good run under liberty. But it’s over – everything bu the shouting. We are not anywhere near the equal of the framers. Who could be?
Regardless, THIS is coming, my friends. In battle, all is preparation — so prepare! Prepare! Sharpen your insights, facts, and acumen.
Batten down your hatches and strategize:
Be the best saboteur you can be.
Been doing it retail for a while.
I am G6loq….
davisbr:
We’ve burned witches before.
We’re not past that, y’know.
How well you know our history and the feel of the country. I couldn’t agree with you more about the Hegelian pendulum swinging back. This, the same sex marriage ruling, will be the final straw.
Orson Says:
June 26th, 2015 at 10:34 pm
You’re learning Arabic?
Seriously, Europe is farther down the rabbit hole than we are, but we’re racing to catch up.
Amazing thread … so heartening to know all you folks are out there. So many wonderful thoughts and comments.
I just want to quote one of the more poignant from DNW:
The bitter humor of it all (and of DNW’s other wry comments – – I liked the blood on the sheets).
And Y: “Great, now that some of us are past the “denial” phase, now we’re in the “anger mad” phase. When will they get to the other stages?”
Well, the Republican party has long since gone through the bargaining and depression, and are well into total acceptance.
I will never bargain or accept. And despite some gloomy feelings, my attitude is one of personal resistance in any way I know how. If I were more clever, I would be actively subversive.
Y, I have said on occasion that we need a leader as a prerequisite for any hope of preserving our America, but you may well be right, we are not worthy of a Palin or a Fiorina or a true leader.
But everyone here (in this thread) has been amazingly eloquent and insightful (I loved Beverly’s cites – – wow – – so eye opening) and I feel gratitude and comfort to read your words.
ymarsakar…I enthusiastically salute your 7-26 comment at 4:17pm!!! YES..!!! C’mon, Homosexual Matrimonial Kids, let’s see how getting all homo-trothed in a mosque works for our spirited/tolerant/Left Worshipped Muslims.
Yep, ymarsakar, you nailed it. It would have to be faux Gaystapo from us Evil Cons doing it to “test” the system. LOVE IT!!!
@Orson
Raised in patriotic story of my youth — and our youth — on the story of Nathan a Hale as a “A Man Without a Country,”
Nathan Hale was not the “Man without a Country.” Nathan Hale was on of Geo. Washington’s spies who, upon being caught and about to be hung declared, “I regret that I have only one life to give for my country.”
Y, I have said on occasion that we need a leader as a prerequisite for any hope of preserving our America, but you may well be right, we are not worthy of a Palin or a Fiorina or a true leader.
So far it’s only a question, one I wanted people to think on.
The answer probably changes depending on the decade and the environment.
Did the Spartans deserve a leader like Leonidas? Can the Greeks volunteer to become better than their weak corrupt leaders?
I will never bargain or accept. And despite some gloomy feelings, my attitude is one of personal resistance in any way I know how. If I were more clever, I would be actively subversive.
The words are only a superficial description. Acceptance merely implies accepting the reality of the consequences and or events in question. It doesn’t pre determine what that really means for the moral agents involved.
For example, if I accept that the Left has massed a massive army totaling more power than can be physically seen in 2008, what would that require to defeat? It’s easy to reject and deny that as being fantasy or some tinfoil hattery, that way there’s no reason to be pushed into coming up with a desperate ploy. There’s no reason to utilize the ultimate power, Death, to overcome some rainbow non existent unicorn Army of Utopian Totalitarianism.
Elections are enough to solve this problem, Iraq is recovering, they thought in 2008.1
Elections are enough in 2012.1
Elections have never won a single war in human history, although plenty of wars have been lost because of an election.
Breitbart and O’Keefe were doing a lot of good work. Breitbart died… conveniently. O’Keefe is still out there. But that’s why individual hero units are not enough to win a war. That’s why the IRS was more focused on killing the logistics. No money for Conservative 401s mean no army, since there’s nothing to feed or train them with.
A leader is pretty useless without an army, and an army is pretty useless without hero units.
Teo – thanks for the correction.
rickl – my like-minded friends decided to go in 2010. If there was a Romney win, there might have been a delay of 5 to 10 years more. If not, then less.
Our targets of interest range from New Zealand to Chile tothe Caribbean, or Canada and the Czech Republic (for divergent career opps, interests, language needs, etc), naturally. In other words, all over the map – almost no one wanting to go the same place.
You add that “Europe is farther down the rabbit hole than we are….” Of course, but perhaps somewhere in New Europe can hold the line longer?
Another perspective is that without federalism, and with agreement on American Exceptionalism among the you falling under 50%…who here will keep the flames and ideals of Americanism alive?
We remain Patriots and American partisans. Tom Paine wrote about needing to go where ever there might be liberty – and spreading our visions there to allow others to flourish! That’s the thing.
There is a complimentary role for this goal by expats vis a vis the too rooted to leave home. And there are also personal advantages to be achieved. I think this explains the diversity of landings among us.
All of us have varying time horizons. One couple had to delay moving last year to manage the losing fight against brain cancer, for instance. The surviving widow left recently.
It is all so sad to go – but we must: at least more and more of us are voting with our feet.
This.
Two swords.
Only one is rhetoric.
The second is cold steel.
Armor up.
Two swords.
Only one is rhetoric.
The second is cold steel.
Armor up. And, train each and everyday and,
The Benedict Option.
It’s happened before. In our times the voters are to blame ….
In this moment of pessimism, my suspicions are that the best outcome (“best” meaning “least violent”) will be the breakup of the states; so a “Benedict Option” of sorts, if you will.
The effectiveness of specific and overt Nuremberg type laws probably will have been blunted enough by the strengthening of the 2nd during the past 15 years to stave off a Kristallnacht “event” (I dunno if the Left has the fortitude, frankly); but it remains to be seen whether the Christian right will form a united front in time to avoid more outright persecution.
This thrice accursed Court has dealt a death sentence to the concept of e pluribus unum, and set in motion the dissolution of a blessed way of life.
Idiots.
…we’re living in interesting times. If this proves to be the “interesting times”, emigrating won’t be an escape.
å®ä¸ºå¤ªå¹³çŠ¬ï¼ŒèŽ«åšä¹±ä¸–人
Indeed.
set in motion the dissolution of a blessed way of life.
Wasn’t set in motion by them. If it appears that way now, it’s because people lack accurate eyesight and wisdom to see it coming.
LOL. I was melodramatically referring to a “final push” kind of thing Ymarsakar. I fully agree that this goes back further than late last week.
Much, much further back.
The Left may not be too far off from implementing their Final Solution. But it may still be a decade away if they are husbanding their death and rape squads, or much else of their military war assets.
Reid already tried taking over the ranchers in Nevada, and got most of them kicked out using federal or his mercenary shoot em up thugs. There was some resistance at the end, but they won’t stop harassing those people.
They’ll keep pushing, sending black and Islamic thugs to do most of the work, in Republican neighborhoods. Some blowback can be expected, especially if they think the rest of us are as meek and pacifist as the city serfs of Democrats.
…we think alike, at times, Ymarsakar lol.
The left is a pawn. An artifice. The master behind all this plays a long game, and they are just one of its pieces.
In my current analysis of what is going on, the fallen doesn’t plan for its triumphs on what does or doesn’t happen during mere decades.
The end result, though, will be the same.
…rather my concern is about seeing it as it unfolds. I’m not particularly brave; I’d rather not have to be.
But, too, I’d rather know, than not know, and be unpleasantly surprised.
I think the middle is done. Friday marked the beginning of one part of the end.
In their ignorance, the foolish will celebrate.
Perhaps, after all, ignorance really is bliss lol.
Correction:
In my current analysis from within my current worldview/gestalt of what is going on, the fallen doesn’t plan for its triumphs on what does or doesn’t happen during mere decades…etc.