Wednesday, December 28

Why We Need the Marriage Amendment Part II

The first post in this series looked at the reasons why homosexual marriage would be wrong direction to travel in. This post seeks to look at Wisconsin specifically. Why does Wisconsin need the amendment now.

1. Laws are Not Enough

The present statuary status of marriage is "a legal relationship between 2 equal persons, a husband and wife. You would have to be living in a cocoonto not realize however, that this law is not enough to protect marriage. Over the last six years, Vermont has created the equivalentof homosexual marriages with a civil unions bill, Massachusetts destroyed the word and institution, and Canadian courts also followed suit. I want to emphasis that it was the courts that did this, even if the laws dictated something different. Wisconsin laws will not protect us from the destruction of marriage. We are only one Wisconsin Supreme Court case away from homosexual, polygamous, or any other relationship that the court deems to impose on the state. When the Massachusetts Supreme Court ordered homosexual marriages, they called marriage an "evolving paradigm." If our Supreme Court took up that type of argument we could see marriage going anywhere.

2. An Amendment is Not a Duplication

Laws can be easily changed. Like I have already demonstrated, one ruling and they are toast. Our Constitutions are set up to stand as bulwarks against the storm. A constitutional amendment is different than the law that is already on the books. A constitutional amendment protects our most cherished rights behind barrier unassailableby the courts, governor, and legislature and equal in protection to the difficulty in getting it passed. A state court can call a law unconstitutional; it can never call the constitution unconstitutional.

3. Marriage Merits Protection in the Constitution

I think we should be able to drive 75mph on the interstates. Does that mean I want a constitutional amendment to ensure that I can? No. Such an issue does not rise to the level of a fundamental right or liberty and should be left to the legislature to decide by law. But certain foundations of civil society that should never change and are not dependent upon the circumstance or age we live in are to be rooted in the Constitution. Marriage rises to that level. The mini societalunit of thefamily upon which all other parts and forms of government are built is at stake. There is no reason why this would change; family and marriage have always been, always will be, and will always be a positive influence on society. An amendment is appropriate.

4. The Supreme Court is Ready


While not as far out as Massachusetts, our court is significantly enough liberal to be more than ready to force upon the state homosexual marriages. Do you really want to trust them with your marriage?

7 Comments:

PaulNoonan said...

Lucas, on the whole this is a pretty well stated case, though I do disagree with it. However what in blazes soes this mean?

Do you really want to trust them with your marriage?

And actually, a section of a state Constitution can be declared unconstitutional by a federal court if it violates the Federal constitution. It's rare because constitutional provisions tend not to deny rights, but it is possible.

I think that #3 is the real crux of your argument. It is the only possible justification for inserting this law into the constitution. And this is where I strongly take issue with you. You state, with regard to speeding, that:

Such an issue does not rise to the level of a fundamental right or liberty and should be left to the legislature to decide by law.

Here I would ask you, exactly what "fundamental right" are you protecting. I made light of your closing sentence above, but it really does speak to the matter at hand. Rights exist only in the positive. If some rogue court did suddenly legislate gay marriage into exist (which I would condemn, by the way), your rights would be unaffected.

It is unquestionable that this amendment restricts the rights of some people. Certainly, restricting a right does not meet your self-stated criteria of "rising to the level of a fundamental right."

Restrictions do not belong in the Constitutions. There currently are none. The only restrictions restrict government.

Constiutions protect the rights of individuals from the government. You're seeking to use the Constitution to "protect" a right from the people. That is undemocratic (and unrepublican), and tyrannic.

Joy in the Journey said...

Good afternoon. I have been dropping by occasionally. . .I wish you would write more instead of merely citing other news stories.

I live in Central Wisconsin, so a marriage amendment hits me right in the backyard.

In any case, I strongly believe in states rights. Our Founding Fathers wanted most issues that our federal government now controls to be decided on a regional basis. What's good in Wisconsin isn't necessary fitting for Tennessee.

If a state wants to grant homosexual unions that they should be able to. Not a whole lot of time will pass until everything in the state goes down the toilet because of the dimented, sick people that will move there.

One issue that the mainstream media never brings up is how many of these so-called homosexual unions fail. I believe that truthful, accurate research would show that their "divorce" rate is much higher than heterosexual marriages.

Homosexuals are perverts--they are on a constant quest for their next lay, no matter where it is. Those are just the facts, folks. The only person they care about is themselves. By the government "justifying" their sick behavior, reality is just that much further out of their grasp.

Finally, I would welcome homosexual neighbors--what a great opportunity to tell them about their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Lucas said...

Paul,

Please see the post above.

PaulNoonan said...

JITJ, there are many promiscuous homosexuals, that much is true, however, those seeking the commitment of marriage are less likely to be among them. To the extent that male/male relationships fail, the problem is not that they're gay, (with regard to failure rate), it's that they are guys, and guys are more promiscuous than women. It is simply a statiscal reality that male/male relationships will be les stable over a large sample size.

And, as expected, the lesbian population is much more committed.

Both parties would be less promiscuous if they were not systematically excluded from most major religions.

Most homosexuals are not "perverts." Most are fairly normal and non-flamboyant. But even if they are, so what? It's not anyone's business, including the state's.

Jake said...

JITJ I would love to see the "facts" as you call them. Your anecdotal hogwash means nothing. Your statement "Homosexuals are perverts--they are on a constant quest for their next lay, no matter where it is" could easily have heterosexual substituted for homosexual and would be no more or less true. That's despite the fact that hetero unions have the full support of government and the majority of society to encourage it. Your last comment is rather theocentric - how do you know the lord Jesus Christ is their savior?

Joy in the Journey said...

Dear Jake~~

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my thoughts.

Regarding the facts: during my husband's tenure in the restaurant business, he knew of many homosexual men that visited restrooms to have sex with other men. Their main goal in life was to repeat that choice as many times as possible.

Before I knew Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior, I too was on the same quest--to have sex with as many men as possible. Each night with a different man would have been fine with me--that's a fact I have lived. That was cheap, meaningless sex. You are right: I could have substituted "heterosexual" for "homosexual."

One trait that binds all humans is CHOICE. We can choose to do the right thing in accordance with God's will, or we can choose to serve The Father of Lies (the devil). I am looking forward to the day with overwhelming anticipation when that constant decision-making will end forever!

I know that Jesus Christ is the Lord and Savior of everyone--He died for everyone and their sins, even yours, Jake.

One day, every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that He is Lord.

Shawn said...

Hey,

I stumbled onto your blog. It wasn't on this topic, but I was interested in reading what you had to say. I also enjoy hearing and reading logical arguments for and against this topic.

I think the important thing to look at, as is commonly called, is the large elephant in this debate. The last person to post is a good example of this. There are those who believe that the union between two men and two women is an abomination. There is not mention of why this is an abomination or why the union of same sex couples will bring down the devastation of mankind. Bringing in religion, does it not seem more important to love one another then to judge one another? Wouldn't it seem more purposeful to argue and fight, in a religious sense, against those who wish to kill or hurt other people then those who want to love other people? Can you imagine Jesus saying that two men loving each other is worse then two men killing each other? And yet religion is being used, in the majority of cases, to promote fighting of other nations and to chastise gay and lesbians. That seems like it goes against christianity's teachings.
For Wisconsin, I think it is important to have conversations with different groups, before you pass judgement on them or push for legislation that diminishes the rights they already have. Also, you may like a woman by the name of Theresa Collette from Minnesota. She has good arguments supporting your side, though I still think she is wrong