No.. For thousands of years marriage had been defined as between a man and a woman… and sexual conduct between person’s of the same sex was viewed as a “perversion” with practitioners of same being considered “perverts”.
Most state laws, even those not related to marriage, are based on “common law” which is a sort of unwritten law. These unwritten laws were adopted over the years as a way to keep order in a society. While many of these laws would fall in line with the “10 Commandments” the reason had more to do with the keeping of order, rather than a religious proscription.. This is why many none Christian countries had laws similar to those in Christian countries, as society understood that certain acts would conflict with the common good, and order, of a properly working society. Murder, robbery, rape, theft, and things such as libel were know to creat disorder and were therefore prohibited. The family, being important to the structure of society, was proscribed as being between a man and a woman, with added prohibitions against such things as being married to more than one spouse, marriage to certain blood relatives, and being married to a spouse under a certain age. As for the last two the degree of prohibition varied by area.
In the United States there are a number of law that prohibit the practice of sodomy, which would seem to invalidate homosexual marriage, as well as incest, which had resulted in that prohibition.
The United States Supreme Court seems to be about to decide if the marriage of homosexuals in a constitutional right, or not. Not being a constitutional scholar I don’t see the connection but, I can see the possibility of them striking down the bans against the marriage of homosexuals, which leads me to wonder how long it will be before they also strike down the other prohibitions.
A lot of the conversation has to do with what people think about homosexuals, Are they really a perversion that society must be protected against? I don’t know though I would have to go with the idea that they are not the norm, and to allow them to marry would help to diminish the concept, and purpose, of marriage.
I am reminded of an old episode of the TV show “West Wing” where several White House staffer were holding a discussion with several mid range military offices on what the President stance on this subject of “Gays” in the military would be. At one point one of the staffers, makes that statement that “the President, as Commander n Chief of the Armed Forces can say that they can stay, and that is “it””. The Military staffer points out that the Uniform Code of Military Justice still prohibits sodomy and that since that is a law passed by congress it doesn’t really matter what the President says, it is still illegal conduct. The UCMJ also prohibits adultery.
Could the Supreme Court decide in favor of homosexual/Gay marriage? Yes, it is possible. What the constitution says is often a reflection of the Justices views and might have little to do with what the Constitution says. Look at Justice Sotomayor who made the statement during her confirmation hearings, which she later took back, that she would bring her “hispanic viewpoint” to the Supreme Court. This is a sure indicator that she considers her viewpoint to be more important than what the Constitution actually says… and she has voted with the Liberal block ever since… All the Justices do is make the Constitution say what they want it to. So the question is : are there enough Justices on the Supreme Court who understand that society, and the institution of marriage, must have a stable framework, or are there enough Justices who feel that marriage is just another legally recognized relationship that can be molded to fit their view?
We will just have to find out.
That Joe Guy.
- Supreme Court On Gay Marriage: ‘Sure, Who Cares’ (thetylerhayes.com)
- SCALIA: ‘When Did It Become Unconstitutional To Exclude Homosexual Couples From Marriage?’… (businessinsider.com)
- These are the exchanges you need to read from today’s Supreme Court arguments (washingtonpost.com)
- Say NO to Gay Marriage (budgetnomad.blogspot.com)
- Letter: Speak out against same-sex marriage (nj.com)
- Commentary: What might happen? (scotusblog.com)
- Legislating from the Bench on Gay Marriage (americanthinker.com)
This part of your presentation strikes me as the most plausible: “A lot of the conversation has to do with what people think about homosexuals, Are they really a perversion that society must be protected against? I don’t know though I would have to go with the idea that they are not the norm, and to allow them to marry would help to diminish the concept, and purpose, of marriage.”
<arriage has been defined by our society far longer than any toleration of homosexuals, and therefore I think that a prudent Judge (hard to find nowadays!) or Group opf Judges (as in the Supremes) would have to go with the traditional views of marriage as the need to produce legimate heirs, or offspring to a man/woman coupling. Test tubes have no place in this argument, nor do adoption proceedures. Those are clearly only a means to circumvent the traditions of our society. I know that traditional couples unable to conceive normally (through sexual intersourse) sometimes have to resort to these altermatives. BUT, as a real parential couple (man + woman) they can best seve the needs of their offspring, regardless of their means to achieving their goal. Their offspring are given certain legal rights, which protect them not only from most of society but even from their own parents! I see no reason to allow a non-procreational "couple" (man/man, woman/woman) the same rights per se. Protection from abusive "parents" is in the law books right now, and it would be wise to think about these children's forced-parentage rights.
Overall it is ridiculous to allow same sex couples the hard earned priviledges of a traditional marriage, since they have no way to create biological progeny…
As for the religious implications — people will have to look in to their own heart of hearts to see the wisdom of the Bible, which (unfortunately) has been so overanalized as to become just any layman's opinion, rather than the guide it has been for alm ost 1,500 years or so, depending on your beliefs. And also look to the Torah and Koran…