According to Judge Von Walker, marriage has always been in the domain of the State in the United States. That is patently false, considering that the States imported marriage as they did banking and commercial behaviors from Europe, namely England. In fact England either operated under Catholic ideas of marriage or one very close to it Anglican ideas of marriage. That would explain why monogamy has long been valued and yet people will claim that they have no idea how that value surfaced and was maintained for so many years. In fact the Constitution of the United States says very little about marriage if anything at all.
"Marriage has a long history in the religious world. It has become so ingrained in the social fabric of the people of the nation, and indeed of the world, that the benefits of marriage to society at large became apparent. Because this religious rite had so many secular benefits, it became recognized by the secular world, and became subject to governmental definition and regulation."It is highly unlikely that as colonist or early Americans that many perceived as they do today that marriage by the state would be valid. When we simply look at the writing of President George Washington for instance, we get a sense of the temperament of men in his era.
"Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interposition of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us."This was when President Washington officially put in place the holiday of Thanksgiving, is it astounding to anyone that no public official today not even the president could would have the strength to make such an overt reference to God in their speech?
Now as to the question of whether the state even has the power to marry people, this requires a little thought, at least a little more than what N.Y. State assembly members and senators gave the issue. Not to mention the governor and the mayor of NYC. If the state is to marry people, how are they to do it? How are they to make two people bind together through law? When we place two pieces of metal side by side they do not bind together unless by fusion of some sort heat or some adhesive. When we put two magnets together, the two if at polar opposite poles will bind together through magnetic attraction. When for instance one goes to the dentist or the doctors office and is X-rayed there is some small preparation put in place such as the use of a lead apron and the medical staff member running behind a lead wall, why is that? It is because in each of these cases there is a power or a force or an energy that is binding that is in fact either binding two objects together or taking an effect upon a person to such an extent that another would literally take precautions to avoid. One cannot see these forces such as magnetism or x-ray but yet scientifically, we are well aware that they are there. It is in fact what is producing the phenomena of the binding or the x-rays. If marriage is more than ceremony and certificiates, how then does the state bind two people together as many of the gays would like to say, 'forever'?
The state primarily deals with extrinsic and material affairs such as property rights. The only time the state has been able to bind one to another is when one is considered property. In fact filial responsibility can be determined because a child will actually have the properties of his parents, such as DNA. Thus unless on is bequeath to another as property in a 'gay-marriage' there really is no binding covenant between the two because there is no binding force which governs the two, say as between two magnets. It is not a matter of fiat, because there is no state recriminations or retaliation incurred upon the married couple if they divorce. In fact, as far as the state is concerned, the only role it plays is at the inception and the end of the so-called marriage. The state has no arbitrary role in the marriage for as long as the marriage exists. Why is it that a marriage created by the state is itself free of state intervention during its entire duration. Say for instance it is one partners day to do the dishes and they refuse, where then will the other seek redress. the police station, city hall? Has the state even assigned roles for the two members of this so called marriage?
When two people get together in holy matrimony they sacrifice themselves to be part of a something larger than themselves for reason other than themselves. God, the children and their neighbors and country always comes first. For instance in a Catholic marriage, the marriage is in no way dissolved because the two get a divorce from the state. What God has joined together no man has the power to part. The binding agent here is spiritual and separation through adultery is actionable, it comes with spiritual penalization as wells temporal excommunication from from the Holy Eucharist. Homosexuals fail to realize this. Whenever someone becomes part of something larger than themselves i.e. a group or organization they give up a part of their individualism. When they become a part of a sports team they standardize or uniform into that team they wear the team uniform. When they become a member of corporate society they tend to wear the suit and tie or whatever the prevailing dress code is of that industry. people assimilate into an order such as the military and that is how and why they receive respect and honor. Homosexuals don't want to self sacrifice they do not want to enter into a holy covenant. they prefer to remain in a juvenile psychological state objectifying themselves and subjectifying all things around them to themselves.
When reading Perry v. Schwarzeneggar, a case tried and decided by a homosexual we see clearly that the homosexual is too psychologically immature to actually contract into marriage.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28Clearly marriage was not invented and support all this time because it had a 'special meaning'. Does it not stand to reason that if the person cannot at all clarify what that 'special meaning' is that they are not qualified psychologically to marry? Will it mean that gays will in fact be included "in the social fabric." ? I doubt it seriously.
WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SUPPORTS CALIFORNIA’S REFUSAL TO RECOGNIZE MARRIAGE BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THEIR SEX All four plaintiffs testified that they wished to marry their partners, and all four gave similar reasons. Zarrillo wishes
to marry Katami because marriage has a “special meaning” that would alter their relationships with family and others. Zarrillo
described daily struggles that arise because he is unable to marry Katami or refer to Katami as his husband. Tr 84:1-17. Zarrillo
described an instance when he and Katami went to a bank to open a joint account, and “it was certainly an awkward situation walking to the bank and saying, ‘My partner and I want to open a joint bank account,’ and hearing, you know, ‘Is it a business account? partnership?’ It would just be a lot easier to describe the A
situation —— might not make it less awkward for those individuals, but it would make it —— crystalize it more by being able to say * * * ‘My husband and I are here to open a bank account.’” Id. To
Katami, marriage to Zarrillo would solidify their relationship and provide them the foundation they seek to raise a family together, explaining that for them, “the timeline has always been marriage first, before family.” Tr 89:17-18.
Perry testified that marriage would provide her what she wants most in life: a stable relationship with Stier, the woman she loves and with whom she has built a life and a family. To Perry,
marriage would provide access to the language to describe her relationship with Stier: “I’m a 45-year-old woman. I have been in
love with a woman for 10 years and I don’t have a word to tell anybody about that.” Tr 154:20-23. Stier explained that marrying Tr
Perry would make them feel included “in the social fabric.”
Thus homosexuals who have been barred from marriage given what marriage is a union between two people and also one that allowed for one to enter into the community through a recognized family. For the physical proof of the union of one man and one woman is in fact the child, something that cannot be mimicked by the homosexuals. Still, the homosexuals would like to deny this religious derivative of marriage. They would like to have bestowed upon them the propriety and legitimacy often many seek in marriage but without following the marital norms. There is an effort through 'gay-marriage' to transfer these norms to the homosexual while deny the roots of such legitimacy namely that God blessed the marriage and that children where to come from the marriage. The vague notions of what marriage is to the homosexuals is therefore an extremely fraudulent description of the value of marriage and it is improbable that the state can bestow this title upon the two since marriage has no origin with the state. It certainly has no origin in the gay culture. So here we are again, how exactly does the state marry two people?
To this day the states authority is seen as derived from God. To this day 'In God We Trust" is bolted to courtroom walls and placed on the currency. To this day the President of the United States swears on a Bible when he takes the oath of office. Yet, unlike the Church which stated flatly that it doesn't have the power or authority to ordain women as priest the state has taken it upon itself to marry and to marry two people of the same sex no less. What's more, the people given this authority concerning the fabric of society are some of the lowest public servants, namely the state assembly members and the state senators. It is worth thinking about whether those of us who absent mindedly voted for these public servants if we can at all remember if we had were ever voted in with the notion that they would be deciding what the terms of marriage can be in the state. These are people who are other wise working on bed bug legislation and taking photo ops at the local public school, not strolling through the groves in deep philosophical thought as to the nature of man in society.
Summarily it seems clear that the state cannot marry as it has no means to bind two people together unless one is considered property. The extrinsic quality of the homosexual and their relationships does indeed lead one to suspect that the nature of their relationships are merely extrinsic and in fact the nature of their relationship being abusive would can only lead one to suggest that a form of slavery without penalty has been enacted by the state in the 'gay-marraige'.