Post by Hat In Ring on Apr 24, 2016 10:41:27 GMT -5
Marriage Is Not In The United States Constitution But Was Defined In The Constitution
Created By Hat In Ring | 9-8-2015
My own personal opinion on marriage goes along with the "Laws Of Nature" that doesn't do damage to a persons body or physical property and this is somewhat different than what's been shoved at us from the U.S. Supreme Court with
their discrimination ruling. The Supreme Court used the "14th Amendment" to push the discrimination laws passed by congress since the 1960's. Congress just needs to change the discrimination laws to say marriage is between a "Man And Women" according to the laws of what nature intended then pass an amendment that concerns "Laws Of What Nature Intended". Congress could also ban government weddings and say marriage between two people is only to be preformed according to ones religious beliefs and the laws of what nature intended. Marriage in the U.S. in its beginning was a religious thing only. The U.S. government took over marriage at some point for profit and control then decided putting, "Dogs In Heat" tags on us was appropriate.
Discrimination is bad but you can't tell people what to think or who they have to deal with or our prisons would be filled with mountains of people that have all kinds of hatred. The people discrimination laws were written to protect are being used to protect non white big bigots and racists themselves that discriminate against people they don't like.
Marriage is not in the U.S. Constitution because at the time the U.S. constitution was being drafted and installed as the piece of paper with writing on it that controlled our lives marriage was a
religious ceremony and held as a religious belief recognized by the government and never intended to be controlled by the government. Congress by all rights should kick marriage back to religion and the law of natural intent for atheists. The U.S. Constitution specifically states the "Separation Of Church And State" and there's no interpretation of that. Just to clarify it means the government cannot get involved with marriage on a religious level. Congress and states can recognize religious marriage's but cannot regulate marriages done by priests because there's no crime associated with belief or they violate the U.S. Constitution and the "Separation of Church And State.
The United States government and State governments can indeed do their own lawful marriages through judges and other government officials that are not of religious nature if enacted by federal and state congresses. The point is that priests and other religious clergy don't have to marry "Gay People" at all. The federal and state governments have to as is enacted by federal and state governments but anyone that is a part of a religious organization doesn't have to do gay marriages at all if gay is against their belief. The federal and state governments may be able to legally recognize religious marriages as legally binding unions between two people but the governments cannot regulate religious marriages at all.
Congress knows this and is in a struggle between the republican and democratic party to see which for or against gay marriage gets them the most votes and support. Civil Unions for gays were enacted to kind of make everyone happy to pull support to each side of the issue since there's nothing specific about marriage in the U.S. Constitution. Law for or Law against? Constitutional amendment the Supreme Court decided but had no business taking up the marriage issue.
The Supreme Court decided the marriage issue on the basis of discrimination laws and precedence set by state governments. Every time the United States Congress has tried to pass marriage amendments to the U.S. Constitution they have failed. In a social society the laws of nature are irrelevant but in a realistic society the laws of nature and what is real are relevant and marriage between same sex couples goes against the laws of nature. I've always stated myself that "Gay" is a birth defect and gays should have the right to collect all the benefits of a couple that are together as nature intended but should not be recognized in the same aspect as people that were born as nature intended.
As a matter of fact we all know the U.S. tax codes need to be "Overhauled" and I do not support the "Fair" or "Flat" tax but I do support the tax system being simplified in a massive overhaul process. Included in the simplification of the U.S. tax code is the removal of deductions for being married. Taxes should be calculated on individual incomes only with the removal of "All" marriage based tax codes, "Period". I'm not talking about deductions for children, "Just Anything To Do With Marriage". OK, lower taxes on individual incomes for everyone! Why the hell does marriage get lower tax rates when it's much harder financially for single people? The economy is based on married couples when it should be based on single people. Moving the tax system over to a system based on single individual taxes would indeed get government "Out Of Marriage". There should be special deductions on a single persons income for children but end "Marriage Deductions".
Marriage is not defined in the U.S. Constitution at all except for the "Separation Of Church And State". The U.S. Government cannot do anything at all about marriages done in a religious setting by ordained religious clergy. The federal and state governments can in fact create and install laws to marry people through government entities for legal purposes and recognize religious marriages as legal unions but that's about it.
The U.S. Supreme Court cannot tell gays they can or cannot be married. The only thing the Supreme Court can do and they did is tell state governments not marrying homosexuals is discrimination. The whole gay marriage issue is still up in the air and if congress passes a marriage amendment act the U.S. Supreme Court will proclaim the amendment as discrimination which settles the whole issue almost. The U.S. Supreme Court cannot decide "Anything" about religious based marriages or force priests and religious clergy's to preform gay marriages so ending government based marriages is the only way to go.
The issues about private citizens dealing with gay stuff cannot be dealt with by the supreme court because the Supreme Court cannot force you to do anything you don't want to do. As for businesses and the private beliefs of people working in a business, well, businesses are not people and they are not free. If a business becomes a part of a religious clergy then the U.S. constitution would protect them from serving gays. I'm sure businesses owned by the church could get away with not servicing gays if they cited the "Separation Of Church And State" on a belief basis.
THIS I HAVEN'T STUDIED TO MUCH BUT IT COULD BE DONE". The laws of nature could be in the U.S. Constitution but I haven't looked for it yet so I'm just speculating below.
The only possible way congress could enact a U.S. Constitutional amendment that overrides the Supreme Court ruling of "Discrimination" is to enact a U.S. Constitutional Amendment that defines the "Laws Of Nature" concerning beliefs, the way people were intended to be as intended in a natural occurrence of birth, people of a normal natural thought to decide what man made laws are unnatural, to live in a society with man made laws that coincide with the laws of nature that are not harmful to others or cause others personal financial distress and damage to personal belongings, etc........... "Work This One Out" for sure.
Also what can be done by congress is ban government from handing out "Marriage Licenses" because you don't need a license to get married. You should be able to get married and have the person that's a religious clergy and married you hand out legal certificates that you were married by them to present to the government. "Who The Hell Told Government They Were The Authority On Marriage And We Needed Their Permission To Marry Anyway". Some government dumbfcks as usual getting into the affairs of the heart.
In Ending, the best way for us persons that want a society based on the laws of nature and reality is to get congress to pass a constitutional amendment that defines "Marriage" as a relationship between a man and a women but also add that Gays can have a legal relationship similar to a relationship to the traditional married relationship of a man and a women with the same benefits but have to use different terminology to describe their legal relationship with a name of their own choice under a separate government entity. The only issue is traditional marriage doesn't want gays to use the symbolic name of "Marriage" to describe their legal relationship so if the gay relationships picked a new name plus traditional marriage and whatever the gays wanted to call their legal relationship were separated into two different legal entities the problem would be solved. Gays using the traditional word "Marriage" will never ever be accepted and their legal relationship being listed under the entity of a normal female and male will also never be accepted. If gays picked another name and formed their own entity in the legal system that would indeed be accepted by all and the battle would end.
