DGS49
Diamond Member
- Apr 12, 2012
- 16,418
- 14,377
Why am I the only Republican who understands this issue? Don't know.
Like it or not, the institution of Marriage that is created by your local state or the District of Columbia is not the same institution of Marriage that is created by your Church. I happen to be a Catholic, but the same principle applies, I think, to most churches.
If I get married by a J.P., the Catholic Church does not recognize that marriage, even if it lasts for a lifetime and produces bunches of little munchkins. I'm just not "married" in the Church's eyes.
On the other hand, if I'm married in both the Church and by the State, and get divorced by the State, the Church doesn't recognize that divorce, and calls me an "adulterer" if I later get married and - presumably - do "the nasty" with my new wife.
There are two different institutions of "marriage," that, unfortunately, both go by the same name. (Actually, many different "marriages," when considering for example, LDS, and other less conventional religious traditions).
So what difference does it make to me if the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in its estimable wisdom, decides that it wants to open up its institution of "marriage" to couples - or even small groups of people - to further some legitimate state interest - say, reduction in the spread of AIDS by encouraging monogamy among sodomites? No difference at all. The definition of marriage in my Church is not affected in the least.
As a matter of public policy, I would hope that the States tailor their marriage laws to make sense for the expanded concepts of a married couple, but that's not such a big deal. In fact, I don't much care. I would also hope that if a couple gets married by the State and are living together, they are compelled to file their federal taxes jointly as a married couple, but that's just me being spiteful.
I also believe that the Federal Government is constrained by the Constitution, and in particular the Tenth Amendment thereof, and ought to stay the hell out of matters that are not explicitly the Federal Government's purview, mainly as outlined in Article I, Section 8. And there is nothing in there that has even a hint of power over marital relationships or definitions.
If we Republicans want to see to it that the erosion of marriage slows down - or starts to reverse itself - the right way to do that is to reinforce the honor that rightfully accords to monogamous marriage and conscientious child rearing, whether its by traditional "nuclear families," or by non-traditional couples.
Which is not to say that I will relish the United States Supreme Court making a collective ass out of itself in trying to "interpret" the Constitution in such a way that "gay marriage" becomes a new "Constitutional" right.
Like it or not, the institution of Marriage that is created by your local state or the District of Columbia is not the same institution of Marriage that is created by your Church. I happen to be a Catholic, but the same principle applies, I think, to most churches.
If I get married by a J.P., the Catholic Church does not recognize that marriage, even if it lasts for a lifetime and produces bunches of little munchkins. I'm just not "married" in the Church's eyes.
On the other hand, if I'm married in both the Church and by the State, and get divorced by the State, the Church doesn't recognize that divorce, and calls me an "adulterer" if I later get married and - presumably - do "the nasty" with my new wife.
There are two different institutions of "marriage," that, unfortunately, both go by the same name. (Actually, many different "marriages," when considering for example, LDS, and other less conventional religious traditions).
So what difference does it make to me if the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in its estimable wisdom, decides that it wants to open up its institution of "marriage" to couples - or even small groups of people - to further some legitimate state interest - say, reduction in the spread of AIDS by encouraging monogamy among sodomites? No difference at all. The definition of marriage in my Church is not affected in the least.
As a matter of public policy, I would hope that the States tailor their marriage laws to make sense for the expanded concepts of a married couple, but that's not such a big deal. In fact, I don't much care. I would also hope that if a couple gets married by the State and are living together, they are compelled to file their federal taxes jointly as a married couple, but that's just me being spiteful.
I also believe that the Federal Government is constrained by the Constitution, and in particular the Tenth Amendment thereof, and ought to stay the hell out of matters that are not explicitly the Federal Government's purview, mainly as outlined in Article I, Section 8. And there is nothing in there that has even a hint of power over marital relationships or definitions.
If we Republicans want to see to it that the erosion of marriage slows down - or starts to reverse itself - the right way to do that is to reinforce the honor that rightfully accords to monogamous marriage and conscientious child rearing, whether its by traditional "nuclear families," or by non-traditional couples.
Which is not to say that I will relish the United States Supreme Court making a collective ass out of itself in trying to "interpret" the Constitution in such a way that "gay marriage" becomes a new "Constitutional" right.
