Despite their duty to defend the laws on the books, state attorneys general are increasingly taking an unusually supportive role in the movement to legalize gay marriage across the U.S. Some, like Herring, are refusing to defend their states' prohibitions against same-sex matrimony.
What that means is that the destruction of one man and one woman as the one and only recognized form of marriage by introducing same-sex marriage will effectively destroy marriage, period.
The same "constitutional" arguments for same-sex marriage apply to any group of any size in any combination of genders being married. In addition, there is no difference between a huge group of people in any combination of genders being married and that same group not being married.
You aren't effectively going to argue that the state would have some compelling reason to keep a marriage limited to 10,000 people who've decided to all be married to each other at the same time. Reasonably, you can't arbitrarily draw the line at two people once you use the equality argument to overturn thousands of years of marriage being the union of one man and one woman. Two same-sex people don't then have more rights than three same-sex people who want to be recognized as a married threesome. There's no logical way around it. This is why marriage was defined the way it was for the last couple of thousand years in Western civilization: logic, reason, rationality.
If they were all engage in sex with each other at the same time, which would be completely legal and constitutional if these ideas that same-sex marriage can't constitutionally be blocked, it would for all intents and purposes constitute an orgy that may as well be among unmarried people. What would be the practical difference?
Marriage is being rendered useless. It won't exist. It will be a term that applies to something that used to be.
In addition, there will be no meaningful line where a child has two biological parents.
Of course, homosexuals are looking forward to more and more artificiality in life in that they are keen to have children in vitro and the result of genetic technology such that two homosexual males will have a genetic child where both are the biological parents and no one else is.
No, ruling that it is unconstitutional that marriage is only between one man and one woman destroys marriage.
Everywhere where same-sex marriage has been made the law by the courts or legislature or voters, marriage actually no longer exists if same-sex is upheld by the US Supreme Court and the same legal reasoning (using that term more than loosely) is applied to other configurations, which it will have to be else the Court will be exceedingly hypocritical.
It's a Brave New World only worse.
You people are sleep walking into a dystopia of your own making. You say that same-sex marriage is the right side of history. I say that in the future, they will look back upon your choice as a time marking the beginning of the greatest confusion: the beginning of the end of the darkest age.
Now, all of that said, there will still be real marriages. They just won't be secular or performed by any religious body that recognizes same-sex or polygamous "marriages." They will be unions created by the God of one-man-and-one-woman-only marriages, who is the God of logic and righteousness and not of perversion and mental illness.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)