Bans on homosexual marriage are "substantially related to an important governmental interest": health

... he ruled that "the classification imposed by the marriage laws based on sexual orientation is not substantially related to an important governmental interest" and is therefore unconstitutional.

Source: Same-sex marriage ban ruled unconstitutional in Pennsylvania - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Tom1

Tom Usher

Therefore, if it can be shown that restricting marriage to one man and one woman "is substantially related to an important governmental interest," it is then constitutional.

Well, we knew that. So is it?

The issue will have to come before the US Supreme Court, unless it ducks it.

In preparation for that, it is necessary that all of the reasons and backup for those reasons (evidence) be compiled. Naturally, "scientific" research studies and reports will be utilized.

What are the methodological issues with the research on both sides of the issue? It will be necessary to anticipate the criticisms and be ready with the best rebuttals.

It will be important to raise much more than simply "'promotion of procreation ... child rearing and the well-being of children ... tradition' and business concerns." The actual mental ill-health that is the condition called homosexuality must be readdressed in full.

It is never a healthy mental state. Heterosexuals can have mental problems too, but unlike homosexuality, heterosexuality, per se, is not inherently disordered.

The arguments that homosexuality is genetic are extremely weak and should not stand up in court. The argument that it is epigenetically based cuts both ways, which opens the door to the fluidity-of-sexuality point: that "orientation" is subject to change, which it clearly is and which it is recognized as being by both the American Psychological and American Psychiatric associations.

Of course, the US Supreme Court is a secular body. The US Constitution is a secular, not sacred, document. The United States is not, and never has been, a Christian (or Judeo-Christian) nation. There have obviously been many people who've claimed to be Christians living and voting within it, but a truly Christian nation would be a theocracy, which the US has never been, quite the opposite.

I mention these things because true Christians should know that the laws of the United States are not, repeat, are not The Law. For Christians, no matter what the secular and Godless government does or says, marriage can never be between two or more females or two or more males.

Therefore, Holy Matrimony and secular marriage are two different things. Those who are lawfully wedded under the secular government are not necessarily lawfully wedded under the true Christian religion.

I do not, nor will I, recognize any homosexual marriage as being the same marriage meant by Jesus Christ:

But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (Mark 10:6-9 KJV)

That "one flesh" is the one and only condition of Holy Matrimony recognized in the true Christian religion and for excellent reasons, all of which argue against the utterly misguided, reported "federal or state judges [who] have knocked down bans on same-sex marriage" in 19 states now.

The problem is ancient, but the "modern" problem began with the US Supreme Court's completely evil decision in Lawrence v. Texas, wherein that court ruled that the state had no compelling reasons to outlaw sodomy.

Contrary to that court's sloppy reasoning, sodomy is a fundamental error fraught with untold negative personal-health and societal consequences.

There are deceptive and/or ignorant homosexual and pro-homosexuality propagandists who argue otherwise, and there are those who say that not all homosexual males practice sodomy and that many heterosexuals do practice it.

I won't give the laundry list of reason sodomy is unhealthy, but the idea that not all homosexuals practice it is irrelevant, as the exceptions make the rule in this case. Also, that many heterosexuals practice it doesn't render it healthy. It also simply is not relevant.

The fact is that if the US Supreme Court had ruled correctly that the State of Texas had a compelling governmental reason for banning sodomy (health reasons, as suggested above), the issue of homosexual marriage would not be before us as it is.

As for the reasons sodomy is unhealthy, knock yourself out: https://encrypted.google.com/search?num=100&newwindow=1&q=sodomy+health

Unfortunately, this is one of those issues where only the negative results of the direction taken by the government will change people's minds. It will unfortunately take time for the negatives to mound up and become glaringly obvious. It is unfortunate because there will be many casualties along the road caused by the myopic, inferior reasoning of the entire pro-homosexuality culture.

Donate


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)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.