Monday, November 10, 2014

Marriage Equality or Not?...

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

In the pursuit of presenting opposing views.

The “gay marriage” fairytale hurts children.

Here’s what marriage is. Marriage is the God-ordained, lifelong, covenantal union between man and wife, designed to provide men, women and children optimal stability and overall well-being. Marriage is that biologically, spiritually and morally centered institution calculated to ensure responsible procreation and perpetuate the human race. Marriage, real marriage, represents the fundamental cornerstone of any healthy society (any society that hopes to survive, at least).


On Thursday, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Ohio agreed. It rightly upheld natural marriage laws in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee. This is huge. It has kneecapped the left’s propagandist “gay-marriage-is-inevitable” myth. It’s created a conflict between federal circuits, which means, almost certainly, that the U.S. Supreme Court will, once again, weigh in on extremist efforts to deconstruct marriage, nationwide, via lower court judicial fiat.

In the 6th Circuit’s decision, Judge Jeffrey Sutton wrote, “Of all the ways to resolve this question, one option is not available: a poll of the three judges of this panel, or for that matter all federal judges, about whether gay marriage is a good idea. Our judicial commissions did not come with such a sweeping grant of authority, one that would allow just three of us – just two of us in truth – to make such a vital policy call for the thirty-two million citizens who live within the four states of the 6th Circuit.”

Ah, judicial restraint. How refreshing.


What say you?


  1. Marriage is a legal contract that the state confers on a couple. A couple does NOT have to marry in a place of worship to have their marriage acknowledged by the laws of their state. When a couple does marry in a religious ceremony, the officiant declares "By the powers vested in me by the state of ________, I now pronounce you husband and wife." When the marriage doesn't work out, the couple has to break the contract they made with the state, hire a lawyer, and go to court for the dissolution of that marriage contract. That couple does NOT go to any religious institution for the legal dissolution of the marriage.

    Marriage is not only for procreation, otherwise older people past child-bearing age would not be allowed to wed, nor would people who are sterile, or who choose not to have children. There are no laws against these people to wed.

    Marriage is a contract between two people who promise to love and cherish each other, and the state gives the couples the legal framework to do so, to be able to make legal deductions on their taxes, and to be legitimate as a couple in the eyes of the law.

    Religion has nothing to do with the legal contract to marry. If a couple so chooses, they can receive the blessings of their religion of choice and participate in a religious ceremony. But no religious ceremony is necessary to have a legal marriage.

    This is a question of equality under the law. If two men or two women want to be married, they should have the legal right to do so. If a religious institution prefers not to bless that marriage, it has the right to. But a religious institution has no right to interfere with a legal contract between two consenting adults just because their doctrines don't like it.

    Marriage equality is just about a done deal in this country. I don't see how religious institutions can prevent this. Nor should they. We're a nation of laws, secular laws.

    1. My solution would be simple:

      State calls the union of heterosexual and homosexual couples a civil union contract bound by the laws of the state in which they live and all benefits derived from said union be afforded to participants of said union.

      Those who wish the traditional religious terminology of marriage could do so when they got married by their priest, reverend, or pastor etc.

      It's semantics anyway.

  2. Marriage is a legal contact between two adults.

    1. You got it, Jerry. And can anyone on any side, anywhere, give even ONE reason to restrict it that isn't based in religious doctrine?

  3. The anti-gay-marriage movement is anti-Constitution, for sure.

    I do,though, tend to shy away from the "marriage equality" label. It is about gay marriage. That label is too vague. And about the "question of equality under the law". To me it is a question of legislators (and lower courts) overstepping the Constitutional limits of government to enact oppressive laws that deprive American citizens of the pursuit of happiness.... legislators who act 100% with religion in mind (a violation of the First Amendment) and without any regard to the Constitution or its amendments.

    But if you wish to fight these bad laws with the equality claims, I will support you regardless. That is in response to Shaw.

    In response to "gopusa" saying "Here’s what marriage is. Marriage is the God-ordained, lifelong....[etc]"

    Show me this in the United States Constitution, gopusa. If you can't, and still stick to this view, you have tossed away any claim of credibility of being for Constitutional rights.

    1. I always wondered about the term gay. I mean the 1890's were gay as well.

  4. Off topic, RN

    What do you think of this?

    I'd like your take on it. I am for net neutrality, and thus I think I am with the President. I would favor his efforts, I think, unless they include any such poison pills as controlling political content online.

    Feel free of course to delete this comment if it is off topic and you feel the need to address this issue in a separate blog post.

  5. As I understand net neutrality I support it in principle. Reality is hoever there will be those (like Lisa's Porn site) who will throw common decency respect out the window. . Behavior one should support.

    Guess it's the unavoidable price of liberty or freedom.

    Humans are a peculiar life species.

  6. I found the other point of view here:,2817,2458307,00.asp

    One quotation:

    "Now we want to give the FCC more jurisdiction than it already has. One nipple appears on a Super Bowl halftime show and they go ballistic. You do not want these people anywhere near the Internet."

    Dvorak very experienced and wise tech observer for many years.

  7. Net Neutrality and Same sex unions have no connection.

    My bad.

    Somewhere in the archived material there is a post on Net Neutrality.

  8. I consider myself a strong proponent of marriage equality (though, yes, I also find Les's solution/compromise in comment 2 acceptable as well) but I'm not so quick to dust off the concerns related to children. I grew up in a single parent household and not having a father totally sucks. If I were to advise gay couples who were considering having children, I would tell them to make sure that the kids have significant role models from both genders and not to be so overly dogmatic about altering the rules.

  9. You are correct with regard to strong role models Will. It is important that children have both male and female role models of strong character and integrity. Wise couples of same sex marriages/contracts/civil unions will insure their children do.

    Recognizing, accepting, and supporting same sex unions/contracts/marriages does not change the reality that we are a two gender society and always will be.

    90% or thereabouts of people are
    heterosexual and have conventional unions/contracts/marriages so the existence of same sex unions really is of no consewuence to them personally. It's the hard core religionists that seem to have the biggest problems with equality here.

    Figures eh Will?

  10. The term marriage is codified in law. Let's call a religious marriage a religious union. It is only a marriage if the ability to marriage people has been granted to the performer of the ceremony by the state.

  11. Fine by me.

    Yeah, I know, my son has been granted this authority.

    Yep, damned state must have its cut and
    control. :-)

    1. "damned state must have its cut and
      control. :-)"

      A healthy skepticism toward authority is always refreshing :)


As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 3/4/18 Anonymous commenting has been disabled and this site has reverted to comment moderation. This unfortunate action is necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or irrelevant to the post subject.

While we appreciate and encourage all political viewpoints we feel no obligation to post comments that fail to rise to the standards of decency and decorum we have set for Rational Nation USA.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.