In September, Federal Judge Martin L. C. Feldman upheld the State of Louisiana’s authority to define marriage as between a man and a woman. This ruling came after 78% of voters determined to define marriage to that effect in 2004. But is that enough?
Judge Feldman believes that the people of Louisiana have a basis for defining marriage as the union of a man and woman. He wrote:
Louisiana’s laws and Constitution are directly related to achieving marriage’s historically preeminent purpose of linking children to their biological parents. Louisiana’s regime pays respect to the democratic process; to vigorous debate….The fact that marriage has many differing, even perhaps unproved dimensions, does not render Louisiana’s decision irrational.
He also questioned where redefining marriage would ultimately lead:
Must the states permit or recognize a marriage between an aunt and niece? Aunt and nephew? Brother/brother? Father and child? May minors marry? Must marriage be limited to only two people? What about a transgender spouse? Is such a union same-gender or male-female? All such unions would undeniably be equally committed to love and caring for one another, just like the plaintiffs.
Ryan T. Anderson reported on the ruling:
Feldman noted that Louisiana’s marriage law furthers two important interests: “linking children to an intact family formed by their biological parents, as specifically underscored by Justice Kennedy in Windsor” and “safeguarding that fundamental social change … is better cultivated through democratic consensus.” That is, Feldman noted the two central issues in this debate—the policy question: What is marriage, and the legal question: Who gets to define marriage.
Feldman ruled that, consistent with the U.S. Constitution, citizens and their elected officials should get to define marriage, and they can define it as the union of man and woman if they choose to. In response to those who argue that there is no rational basis for such marriage laws, Feldman writes: “The Court is persuaded that a meaning of what is marriage that has endured in history for thousands of years, and prevails in a majority of states today, is not universally irrational.”
Feldman cites the Supreme Court’s decision in the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) case, U.S. v. Windsor, as support that Louisiana has the right to define marriage for itself. Feldman writes: “Windsor repeatedly and emphatically reaffirmed the longstanding principle that the authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations belongs to the states, subject to indistinct future constitutional guarantees that in Windsor were, by its expressed limits, left open and rather inexact.
But let me ask you, what happens when a majority in a state want to re-define marriage? Should that be allowed? Are the people to determine what is right in their own eyes? Or is there another that defines this issue?
I believe God defines the issue clearly in the Scriptures as being between a man and a woman. From the first pages of Genesis to the reiteration of those words by Jesus Christ, a man and woman leave their parents and are joined together in marriage. The Church carries that message and as such informs the society and civil government as to what the definition given by the Creator is. It’s always been this way throughout all human history.
We have already seen several states determine that they want to re-define marriage to include sodomites, but that doesn’t make what they call marriage, marriage. It is merely a perversion of marriage, something other than marriage. How long until polygamy is accepted? “Marriage” that is incest? “Marrying” an animal? An inanimate object?
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. Romans 1:18-25
Of course, Paul would go on to point out exactly what that looks like in perverted sexual encounters by sodomites and lesbians. Today, sex is being equated with love. Nothing could be further from the truth. To be logical, those advocating such would have to describe rape as love, right? However, they don’t, and rightly so, even though a federal judge has advocated that rape should, in essence, be legal.
Many libertarians wrongly assume that the state plays no part in marriage. Phyllis Schafley rightly points out that they aren’t even following those they claim to follow in this area, but more to the point, they are those who want a contract between parties. Who upholds the legality of said contract? Is it not the state? Yes, it is. So how does the state define marriage? Wouldn’t they be obligated to define marriage in order to determine whether the marriage “contract” had been broken? Yes, indeed. So you can’t get away from the idea that the state must have a working definition of marriage and that would even include laws that some states still have called “alienation of affection laws” that deal with adultery (yes, it really is that, not an affair).
One cannot say they are against homosexual “marriage” and yet are for “marriage equality.” It is asinine to make such a statement. Marriage is one thing and anything else is not marriage.
Until America, her churches and her people get back to the foundation, which is God’s law, not the Constitution, then we will never see sanity come to fruition again in our land. We will continue to devolve into Sodom and Gomorrah rather than a city on a hill. I prefer the latter. What about you?