I appreciate the care with which the Justices interviewed the attorneys in yesterday's Oral Arguments before the Supreme Court. Thoughts:
1) Yes, "marriage," by dictionary definition, is between a man and a woman and has been so for thousands of years. The 14th amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law, is not compromised by maintaining this definition, as every man and every woman still has the equal right to enter into a (man/woman) "marriage." And many with same-sex attraction have chosen to do just that, and successfully so, demonstrating it is a viable option. Further, can a body of nine truly change the definition of so fundamental and timeless a word and concept as marriage, in which biology is inherent? I think not, anymore than someone could decree that the sun is not shining at noon day and have that be true. To paraphrase Shakespeare, a non-rose is still not, in reality, a rose, even if so named, due to even passionate desires of the minority.
2) Ten years of experimenting with same-sex unions and parenting is not enough to be conclusive, where children, who take at least 18 years to grow up, and more to demonstrate their ability to function as adults and parents themselves, are concerned.
3) Moral relativism, under which tolerance of homosexual behavior has been espoused for years, states that no one can know what is true, so all should tolerate others' values. We see, however, that Christians' rights of conscience are not being tolerated where so called sexual civil "rights" are gaining states' seals of approval. It appears that, in 2015, the homosexual agenda is no longer about "tolerance," and the "equal" application of moral relativism to their own contentions, such that neither can they know what is true. Instead, "tolerance" has been replaced by tyranny when it comes to others' beliefs. And tyranny goes against the very foundations of what America is all about.
4) The fact that religious freedom, our first, constitutionally-guaranteed freedom, is and will be compromised by redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, (such as a former Salt Lake policeman, a Navy Chaplain, various wedding service providers, and others have painfully learned) demonstrates that it is inherently anti-constitutional and unconstitutional for the Court to force states to accept same-sex marriage.
The Justices have a very hard job, under immense pressures. I hope that, as all the world looks on, they will rule in favor of the US Constitution, states' rights, first freedoms, the natural need of children for a mother and a father, and the American way, and maintain the definition and sanctity of marriage as between a man and a woman.
Comments | Return to Story
ParalegalApril 29, 2015
I appreciate the care with which the Justices interviewed the attorneys in yesterday's Oral Arguments before the Supreme Court. Thoughts: 1) Yes, "marriage," by dictionary definition, is between a man and a woman and has been so for thousands of years. The 14th amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law, is not compromised by maintaining this definition, as every man and every woman still has the equal right to enter into a (man/woman) "marriage." And many with same-sex attraction have chosen to do just that, and successfully so, demonstrating it is a viable option. Further, can a body of nine truly change the definition of so fundamental and timeless a word and concept as marriage, in which biology is inherent? I think not, anymore than someone could decree that the sun is not shining at noon day and have that be true. To paraphrase Shakespeare, a non-rose is still not, in reality, a rose, even if so named, due to even passionate desires of the minority. 2) Ten years of experimenting with same-sex unions and parenting is not enough to be conclusive, where children, who take at least 18 years to grow up, and more to demonstrate their ability to function as adults and parents themselves, are concerned. 3) Moral relativism, under which tolerance of homosexual behavior has been espoused for years, states that no one can know what is true, so all should tolerate others' values. We see, however, that Christians' rights of conscience are not being tolerated where so called sexual civil "rights" are gaining states' seals of approval. It appears that, in 2015, the homosexual agenda is no longer about "tolerance," and the "equal" application of moral relativism to their own contentions, such that neither can they know what is true. Instead, "tolerance" has been replaced by tyranny when it comes to others' beliefs. And tyranny goes against the very foundations of what America is all about. 4) The fact that religious freedom, our first, constitutionally-guaranteed freedom, is and will be compromised by redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, (such as a former Salt Lake policeman, a Navy Chaplain, various wedding service providers, and others have painfully learned) demonstrates that it is inherently anti-constitutional and unconstitutional for the Court to force states to accept same-sex marriage. The Justices have a very hard job, under immense pressures. I hope that, as all the world looks on, they will rule in favor of the US Constitution, states' rights, first freedoms, the natural need of children for a mother and a father, and the American way, and maintain the definition and sanctity of marriage as between a man and a woman.
ADD A COMMENT