Thread: Marriage is Self-Evident

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

This famous sentence was not a statement of fact. Then, as now, governments across the world engage in denying these rights. This is why our founders made this policy statement explicit.

So, what had that got to do with marriage?

Marriage, when the founders wrote the Declaration of Independence, was also self-evident. Though in many forms according to culture and religion, it was always the union of male and female. Unlike the fact of tyranny around the world at the time of the Declaration, there was no actuality that would have made them add the statement that marriage is self-evident. It wouldn’t even come to mind.

After listening to both Supreme Court oral arguments, I thought the defense of “traditional” marriage was dreadful. Argument was down in the legal weeds, and it needed to come up for a breath of fresh air at the policy level much more than it did.

I have no personal issue with states providing some sort regulation that accounts for such unions—I have a homosexual friend, and I believe him that this is not a life style chosen because it is so good. But changing the self-evident definition of marriage is like calling a cat a tree. The Chief Justice got that part right.

Oral argument: Defense of Marriage Act
Transcript And Audio: Supreme Court Arguments On Defense Of Marriage Act : NPR

RELATED http://www.alipac.us/f19/rove-gop-co...it-gop-274821/

IMHO, the GOP reckons that Christians, Constitutionalists, "Values Voters," "Traditional America," "Taxed Enough Already," "Gunpowder Party," and "America First" patriots have already abandoned its sinking ship.

The DNC has become a "city of refuge" for the collection of rejects from the big tent of "All that is right and good about America." So the party pragmatists of the RNC are scrambling for a place at the table on the Titanic just to the right of the Socialist Democrats, attempting to gather what's left. They should be attempting to gather what's right.

They are failing hardcore at the argument on this issue anyways. The issue at the SC shouldn't be about if Gays should be allowed to marry. It should be about whether the Constitution in any part of the Bill of Rights ever had any intent on being used to grant marriage to same sex couples. The answer to that is clearly "No". There was never any intent do to social values at any of the times in question and the values after that gay marriage was simply NOT right (at least at that time).

This simply means its not a SCOTUS or any court decision about if gays have the right to marriage or not as their is no law or anything in intent in the Constitution that gives them the right or takes it away. This puts it in the lawmakers and voters hands to either legalize it or keep it banned. This is also a much more appealing answer for liberal judges as they don't have to appear to be against it but simply saying its not the courts jurisdiction as no law is against or for it. Sometimes passing the ball is the best option.