While the current interpretation of 'freedom' says 'anyone can do as they please'... IMO (and my studies) this was not the way it was when the country was founded.
Most of the folks living in what we now call the USA, were of one or another form of Judeo/Christian (Biblical) faith. They all had similar moral beliefs (the traditional definition of marriage would be one of those). As we 'progressed' (there is debate as to whether this is progression or regression), other views developed growing numbers of followers.
This part is GA's opinion: It seemed to happen during the 'baby boom' generation in the 1960's, the babies born when WW2 ended and the GI's (service folks who survived the war) came home, married, and had families. Somehow, this generation of babies did not get the idea of Biblical and Christian principles as being the foundation of thinking... as their parents and grandparents had. (Sure, one can find evidence of other thinking before this generation... yet it was nowhere near a majority).
Is it not curious... that within only 2 generations (a generation is when kids grow to become adults and have kids... usually 25-30 years or so), we as a nation have gone from quasi-believing and operating from Biblical/Christian principles to one that does whatever they feel like? And is it not curious... that a society that used to be stable is now falling apart...
GA believes there is a connection between the two.
If one reads in the Bible about the nation if Israel... Specifically in 1&2 Samuel, 1&2 Kings, and 1&2 Chronicles... they see a pattern of behavior in the nation if Israel:
They would worship and follow the God of the Bible... then they would get full of their own ideas... then their society would decay... they they would be conquered by a foreign power and taken away into slavery. Then the next generation or so would come back to their God, traditional values would emerge (high minded thinking would be considered wrong)... and the israelites moved back to their homeland... And the process started all over again.
Seems to me a wise person (wisdom being the next step AFTER knowledge and logic) would see this pattern and learn from it.
Maybe because they are Americans? Why doesn't the "T" party go over and force all those commies to straighten up and become good capitalistic consumers?
Well maybe they have their hands full trying to do the same thing over here. Just kidding now. LOL Thank you, thank you very much
"I could have ended the war in a month. I could have made North Vietnam look like a mud puddle." "I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them." Barry Goldwater
But the establishment clause does not prevent voters within a given state from deciding such state matters in a referendum.
And clearly, the same constitution you reference does not give the federal government authority over marriage.
Yes states can regulate marriage as they see fit - this ruling does not change that. The Supreme Court will obviously have to rule on the rights of individual states to discriminate against LGBT couples just as they did for biracial couples in 1967. Please reference this part of 14th amendment, " No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". To the best of my knowledge amendments become part of the Constitution after ratification.
Yes states can regulate marriage as they see fit - this ruling does not change that. The Supreme Court will obviously have to rule on the rights of individual states to discriminate against LGBT couples just as they did for biracial couples in 1967. Please reference the 14th amendment, " No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". To the best of my knowledge amendments become part of the Constitution after ratification.
Yes, many want to misapply a poorly worded 14th amendment. It was all about slavery and legal immigration; to insure that those individuals received the full rights and privileges of whites and natural born citizens. The intent of the amendment has nothing to do with same-sex marriage.
And while we're at it....sexuality does not carry rights. The existing marriage laws do not discriminate because they apply to everyone equally. Gays can marry, they just have to do so within the boundaries of the laws in their state. True, in same states that means they can't marry someone of the same sex; but they are still governed by the same laws everyone else is, so it applies equally. No discrimination, only regulation. And the states have that right.
To say that homosexuals are discriminated against because they can't marry someone of the same sex is no different than saying an individual is discriminated against because he can't marry his sister. Neither are, because the law applies equally to all of them. They all have to follow the same regulations.
The 14th amendment has been interpreted by many courts and differs from "original intent" so by our laws it applies to more than slavery and immigration. Granting marriage rights to an individual is more about contractual rights than who you decide to share a bed with. Biracial marriage was a crime in alot of the southern states - so using the states rights angle the argument could be made that the bond between a man and a woman could become a criminal act simply because a state decided to follow a certain belief held in a geographic area. The slippery slope (marry your sister) argument is a straw man by the way, just because we allow same sex marriage doesn't mean you can marry your hamster.