Douglass Bartley
Member
- Joined
- May 31, 2007
- Messages
- 722
If I read right, Liberty Eagle is saying that the militant, "gay rights" advocates are seeking to force the universalization of "gay marriage. One way that could happen is through the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article 4: “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”
There is reason to fear that, by the clause, all states will be whipsawed into a recognition of homosexual marriage. The italicized portion, however, allows Congress to determine the effect of "legalized" gay marriage in one state in other states in which the "marriage" is prohibited. Thus congress could, (and I believe has under the Defense of Marriage Act), said that the second state is free to disregard the first. I have read somewhere that Obama is claiming the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.
The Defense of Marriage Act provides:
"Section 2. Powers reserved to the states. No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
Section 3. Definition of marriage. In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."
In any case, homosexual marriage violates natural law, and thus also Divine Law from which natural law proceeds, and which always supersedes mere human law. Therefore to the extent he so argues, Burrows 14 is right on that point.
There is reason to fear that, by the clause, all states will be whipsawed into a recognition of homosexual marriage. The italicized portion, however, allows Congress to determine the effect of "legalized" gay marriage in one state in other states in which the "marriage" is prohibited. Thus congress could, (and I believe has under the Defense of Marriage Act), said that the second state is free to disregard the first. I have read somewhere that Obama is claiming the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.
The Defense of Marriage Act provides:
"Section 2. Powers reserved to the states. No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
Section 3. Definition of marriage. In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."
In any case, homosexual marriage violates natural law, and thus also Divine Law from which natural law proceeds, and which always supersedes mere human law. Therefore to the extent he so argues, Burrows 14 is right on that point.
Last edited:
This place is getting ban crazy.
