Wednesday, January 15, 2014

Homosexual gestapo harasses @TrestinMeacham1 with vile hateful messages

The homosexual gestapo espouses hateful, extremely offensive views and demands tolerance while displaying the worst intolerance toward anyone that holds a different point of view.  The words civil and respect aren't apart of their vocabulary.  The homosexual mafia have harassed Trestin, his family, and friends. Below you will see how horrendously the homosexual gestapo has treated Trestin.











The homosexual gestapo has perverted the meaning of tolerance and bigotry.  It is sad how homosexualists and many others treat evil as good and good as evil. Their morals are a$$ backwards. In all actuality the homosexual gestapo is demanding approval cloaked in what they claim is tolerance. They are demanding approval of their sexual escapades in the bedroom.  So much for their mantra stay out of our bedroom. Thank you Trestin for being principled and standing up for traditional timeless values.

65 comments:

Trestin Meacham said...

Thank you.

Opus #6 said...

T, you are completely correct. I supported Trestin publicly and my timeline was instantly filled with hate.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Gays are not demanding approval for anything. They are demeaning that people who demand the State stay out of regulating religion.....abstain from using religion to demand that the State regulate to privileges and protections afforded to some citizens but not others...based on sexual orientation.

I don't care if Trestin wants to starve himself in order to deny equal protection under the law. That's his business. Nor do I care about offensive remarks directed toward him when those taking offense belong to the crowd that espouse the same hate.

Denying equal protection, for actions and an orientation that does not steal from you, harm you, or restrict your liberties = hate.

Teresa said...

Constitutional Insurgent,

The problem is what you consider to be hate is not hate at all but is the defense of Christianity - traditional Christianity - Judeo Christian values. God's laws do not evolve over time. They are timeless and are applicable today just as much as they were in biblical historical times.

People who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and agree with the definition which has been accepted by society for centuries do not go after employers and force them to violate their beliefs or target those they disagree with so they lose their employment.

Every person is equal under the law. Every person is equal without homosexual marriage. The problem is demanding equality among two different types of couples who clearly are NOT equal.

Here is a post from my other blog which touches on individual equality differentiating between individuals and couples.

http://catholibertarian.com/2013/10/03/bishop-zubik-responds-to-rabbi-friend-on-issue-of-homosexual-marriage/

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Theresa, your opinion of equality is decidedly subjective, and your defense of "God's law's" are only applicable to the faithful.

For the definition of marriage, when argued in court, for reasons of liberty...the State must prove that the prohibition passes the rational basis test. Thus far, it has not. A 'couple' is not an individual...correct. But marriage is a contract.The case at hand is the State regulation of relationships; relationships that are based on consent and lack of harm or theft. Would you not agree that our system of jurisprudence writ large, should rely on the maximum latitude of liberty for the consenting citizen?

We have long held that consenting citizens have a fundamental right to marry, and have a fundamental right to enter into a legal contract [barring harm, theft or fraud]. That marriage is ultimately a legal contract [it does not require sanction of any church or religion], and two citizens of any gender may enter into a legal contract, the negative right of two citizens of the same gender to enter into the legal contract of marriage, is discriminatory based solely on what the contract is named.

In order for this paradigm to pass the rational basis test, under equal protection review, the State must prodcue a legitimate reason for treating groups in an unequal manner. It has fairly consistantly failed to do so. That something has been held as a "traditional definition" does not equate to being Constitutional, nor as having a rational basis.

I'll check out your link when I get a few more free moments.

Matt said...

This is the "tolerance" of the left. Of course, like small fascists, "tolerance" only extends to them. Everyone else has to be silenced. Sadly for them, Trestin will not allow himself to be silenced.

We knew that this would help expose the hate of the left. It has worked exactly as expected.

Trestin Meacham said...

Actually CI they are demanding many things that violate the freedom of others. They are demanding that individuals and organizations surrender their right to religious freedom and freedom of speech. They are demanding to be given government enforced preferential status in several areas of society.

The homosexual movement draws a much closer resemblance to the KKK and Black Panthers than the peaceful civil rights movement.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Trestin - Negative. What are they demanding that violates your freedom? What privileges and protections are they asking for, that you do not currently enjoy? What "preferential treatment" under the Equal Protection Clause are they asking for....that you are not eligible for?

Your analogy to racist groups defies logic, but I await your answers to the questions above.

Trestin Meacham said...

Well AI the Judge added powers to the Federal Government that are not enumerated in the constitution; thus violating the 10th Amendment and the Supremacy Clause.

They are seeking to make criticism of homosexuality a hate crime. They are seeking to have the government interfere in the free practice of religion; whether that be an individual who refuses to provide services to a gay wedding, or a church that teaches homosexuality is a sin

As for your incredibly wide interpretation of equal protection, such an interpretation could be used to justify anything from bestiality to pedophilia.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Trestin....again, no. The State is not interfering in the free practice of religion, for the absurdly simple reason that such practice will be entertained only by those who desire such.

Gays receiving the same legal protections as you or I, in the form of the legal contract called marriage, does not infringe an iota on either our marriage...or our liberties. You on the other hand, appear to be seeking State non-interference of religion when you not desire such....but demanding the State interference in religion when you do. It's difficult to mage the logic, when you play both sides of the coin. THAT is usually regarded as "special treatment".

The legal sanctity of marriage, which again is a contract, is not enumerated in the Constitution....but the Equal Protection Clause is.

Now, as a staunch Libertarian, I would agree that no service provider or church should ever be mandated to provide services to persons they do not wish to. This however, would also extend to persons being allowed to refuse service to the faithful.

Bestiality and pedophilia are red herrings, as we are discussing the rights and privileges under law, of consenting adult humans. For the record, I do not support the notion of "hate crimes". Criminal acts under the law are criminal acts....the motivation is immaterial.

Please don't mistake my rebuttals as vindictive, I truly enjoy the dialogue, especially with someone who has gone great lengths to support their cause. I simply see what you are pursuing as unconstitutional.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

** There's no edit feature, so "mage the logic" should read "manage the logic".

Trestin Meacham said...

You are right CI no where in the enumerated powers is marriage mentioned. And as the 10th Amendment makes clear, everything else is left up to the states. Marriage is an issue for the states to decide. Believe it or not I was actually opposed to the Defense of Marriage Act because, it as well as Judge Shelby's ruling was unconstitutional.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Treston, I appreciate the position of State sovereignty over Federal in all but those powers enumerated. In far too many cases, we as a society, have abrogated many of our liberties and responsibilities to Federal control.

However, in the arena of the States, laws must still comport with the Equal Protection Clause, and when making a case for a law to be valied, the State must still show that the law passes the rational basis test, and does not import undue harm or restriction upon the citizen as a result. In cases after case, the plaintiff/defendant arguing in favor of restricting and regulating marriage....have abjectly failed to make that case.

Trestin Meacham said...

States have always had restrictions on marriage. Why do you think most states require blood tests?

As for the 14th somehow applying to gay marriage, I've read it through and through and am not seeing it. It's just a bunch of progressive living document double speak.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Trestin, States at one time prohibited suffrage and allowed slavery. The defense of 'it's always been that way' falls flat.

You have an interesting critique of the 14th Amendment when Conservatism claims to place an unyielding value on individual liberty. You haven't addressed the issue of the liberty to enter into contracts nor how the State should argue that gay marriage poses a threat to any citizen.....or how it would pass the rational basis test.

It's fine in the arena of personal opinion to 'think' something should be prohibited/banned/censored/criminalized.....but when pursuing the codification in law of said activity, one has to be able to argue the endeavor on those merits.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

To add: obviously you're under no obligation to respond fully to my entreaties, but I am interested in your point of view.

Teresa said...

CI,

"Theresa, your opinion of equality is decidedly subjective, and your defense of "God's law's" are only applicable to the faithful."

If this was true then the Ten Commandments would not have been apart of civil law.

Everyone is called to follow God's laws. Evangelizing is apart of following God. It is up to the individual whether they accept or reject God's laws. Having all of society recognize and approve of same-sex marriage assumes every person in our society approves of this lifestyle. Which means it forces those who hold religious views which say homosexual acts are wrong, thus meaning gay marriage is wrong, to approve the gay lifestyle in our society.

Teresa said...

CI,

You have a broad or expansive interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause. The EPC obviously applies to employment, which is one reason why I disagreed with DOMA. It is also applicable to owning property, starting up a business, having health insurance via the partner, serving in the military and the partner having the right to hospital visits.

Trestin Meacham said...

Actually CI slavery was propped up by the Federal Government when many states wanted it ended. That is why it was an underground railroad. Most abolitionists were heavy into states right. As for the 14th Teresa basically said what I was going to say.

I think you need to read up on the Frankfurt School. This issue becomes much more clear to freedom loving people when they understand the origins and purpose of the homosexual movement.

Trestin Meacham said...

The same goes for much of the segregation in the south.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Theresa, Your opinion is noted, as is one where you may have a narrow view of the same. The Ten Commandments are not part of civil law. Some tenets are included in cases where according to natural law, there is secular value......this is generally TWO of the Commandments. You would have to proffer a thesis explaining how those certain tenets [murder, theft] would not have ever been arrived without the basis of the Commandments, or his they appeared in non-Christian societies.

"Everyone is called to follow God's laws."

I agree that this is part of the Christian dogma, but again it is only applicable to Christians.

"Having all of society recognize and approve of same-sex marriage assumes every person in our society approves of this lifestyle."

This is a contrasting statement from your previous. How could you assert that you believe intrinsically that society writ large MUST make a positive or negative determination on the basis of Christian law, yet use the same tenor of metric for marriage? What definition of 'approve' are you working with? There is no force of law that requires a citizen to 'approve' of anything.

I am not required to approve of leftists, to approve of monumentally ignorant people, or to approve of NASCAR. Yet I cannot and would not seek to curtail the rights, protections and actions of my fellow citizens, based on my personal beliefs and prejudices. Why would you?

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Trestin, I'm well acquainted with the Frankfort School of thought. But you would have to lay out some specific tenets to not only be applicable to your position, but also how it applicable to our legal system. There can certainly be some interesting crossover in the areas of critical theory and rationality, but no more so than the current free market paradigm. Using the umbrella of Marxism to argue for equal protection seems thin, when you haven't bothered to show your position passing the simple rational basis test.

Trestin Meacham said...

You must not be that familiar. Because they were quite clear about establishing a homosexual movement that would subvert American law for the purpose of destroying religion.

I think the real problem is you seem to be a Cultural Marxist who views a religious conviction as a second class conviction; that needs to step to the back of the secular bus and not get uppity about it.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

I'm quite familiar with the discredited theory from Frankfort. I'm not however, familiar with the move to co-opt said theory as a defense mechanism to pursue the position of victimhood.

But I note as you have consistently failed to illustrate how your position might pass the rational basis test, which if Constitutional, it should surely do.......that you resort to pejoratives and projection. It seems that no matter where one travels on the internet, one encounters the same lazy tactics, in, lieu of defending a position on it's merits. It's almost as if your argument follows the shallow, linear path of "we should be allowed to deny the same privileges and protections we currently enjoy, to our fellow citizens because........bible."

I'm no cultural marxist by any stretch, but I likewise do not support a system of jurisprudence based on supremely preferential treatment of a demographic, based on a belief that can be as provably defended as a fairy tale.

Trestin Meacham said...

Oh you are a Cultural Marxist for sure. Your contempt for religion your flat out progressive interpretation of the Constitution. Do us all a favor and stop trying to associate yourself with a document that you clearly wish to do away with. You violate the spirit and intent of the founders with your downright communist arguments.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

So I suppose you're still simply going to run away from the rational basis test, but call me names? I thought you were an adult. Was I wrong?

I do enjoy when people use a single issue and attempt to paint the person as what they project their desires to be. I'd actually pay to hear you elucidate on how I would allegedly like to "do away with the Constitution". Religious freedom is sacrosanct, and should always remain so......but the ability to create tiered classes of citizens based on any religion should rightly be abhorred.

I might suggest a primer on Communism, and how my position on all issues of liberty would comport [or decidedly not] with the ideology. But I am presuming that you don't have the intellectual integrity to illustrate an argument of such, based on your recent responses.

Name calling in lieu of dialogue [erroneous at that], is entirely unflattering toward your cause.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Not to flog the horse further, but as I'm genuinely intrigued by your obfuscation, I'm wondering.....why you would deign to ascribe a membership to me, of an entire socio-economic-cultural system, based on one issue....that you can't even defend on it's merits. Now, you don't know me, but my blog is linked to my name. Even a cursory scan would reveal to any casual reader, that I'm a pretty unapologetic Libertarian...and quite decidedly to the right of our current Administration and their fellow travelers on the left. Given the basis you decided to employ as a response, I would be equally justified in accusing you of desiring a theocratic form of government, where your religion inhabited the upper tier of citizen status. But I'm guessing that wouldn't be accurate, yes?

In addition to that, I'm left wondering why you would have decided to embark on a rather radical course with your 'protest'. If you were simply preaching to the choir as it were, I suppose I understand the outcome [but not the practice]...but if you were attempting to change anybody's mind....would you not need to actually illustrate a cogent argument for such?

Teresa said...

A while ago I had written a pretty lengthy response to you CI but there was an error and it disappeared so I may respond a little bit at a time now.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

No worries, I'll keep checking back every so often. It happens to me so often, that I typically either copy what I post into TextEdit of write it there to begin with. It's frustrating to lose a well crafted post.

Teresa said...

CI,

Going by your words you put liberty on a pedestal. Our Founding Fathers didn't do that. They put liberty and Godly values on equal footing.

'John Adams in a speech to the military in 1798 warned his fellow countrymen stating, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.'

Constitutional Insurgent said...

I absolutely do put liberty on a pedestal. But be careful in proffering quotes from the Founders, they don't all mimic the Adam's quote above.

The simple fact of the matter is this, if the Founder's intended as you assert, then they did a poor job in crafting our decidedly secular founding legal document. That aside, as it is and forever will be arguable.....to favorably determine law that has no corallary secular value, is to bestow a preferential status to those who believe in the Christian faith, and remove the liberties from those who [while not stealing, harming, or restricting your liberties] do not comport with that belief system.

Teresa said...

The laws the founding fathers enacted combined principles of both liberty and God (Judeo-Christian).

Constitutional Insurgent said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Constitutional Insurgent said...

Theres no argument that there is crossover, but surely you realize that two of the ten commandments are enshrined in US law, not merely because they are found on the alleged tablets.....but because every other society and natural law theory have led us to realize that those laws are intrinsically good for all citizens.

For the legal topic at hand, when challenged in court, it is incumbent upon the State [or supporters] to illustrate how permitting same sex marriage poses a fundamental risk to society, or harms -steals from -or restricts the liberties of fellow citizens, in order to continue the allowance of said law.

Teresa said...

The laws the founding fathers enacted which combined liberty and moral principles were applicable in secular aspects in society.

"I absolutely do put liberty on a pedestal."

With regards to gay marriage you are putting liberty on a pedestal and treating those who believe differently less importance, not equal consideration as those who are okay with the homosexual lifestyle.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

"With regards to gay marriage you are putting liberty on a pedestal and treating those who believe differently less importance, not equal consideration as those who are okay with the homosexual lifestyle."

How so? Gay marriage does not infringe upon your rights, your liberties or your property. It is not I who am advocating that the government regulate contract law that others may wish to enter into, based on my religious beliefs. There is not inequity of importance, because you are not a party to the contract in question.

You keep going back to a mythical 'approval', but haven't provided any foundation for such. If you wish to make a case that liberty should be restricted rather than expanded, you must make the requisite case for such, beyond...."I don't lie it".

In the courts, this would be the rational basis test.

Teresa said...

"For the legal topic at hand, when challenged in court, it is incumbent upon the State [or supporters] to illustrate how permitting same sex marriage poses a fundamental risk to society, or harms -steals from -or restricts the liberties of fellow citizens, in order to continue the allowance of said law."

If that is the criteria then why not allow two sisters or two brothers get married. First, the homosexual couple needs to make the case that they are equal to a heterosexual couple. That hasn't been done. Then if the homosexual partners have all of the benefits of any other couple or persons there would need to be a case made for the definition of marriage to be changed, and that not having a marriage certificate would adversely affect homosexuals. Which may be hard since those who are single aren't being denied anything fundamental to the equality of persons.

Constitutional Insurgent said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Constitutional Insurgent said...

* I hate not being able to edit.
"First, the homosexual couple needs to make the case that they are equal to a heterosexual couple. That hasn't been done."

How would a man and a woman be more equal in the eyes of the law? Are they not two citizens, and consenting adults? Marriage does not require procreation, so I'm unclear on your foundation for this.

Marriage is a legal, secular contract. The State is required to show how the current law maintains protection of minority groups from being targeted for the deprivation of an existing right without a legitimate reason. Thus far, the State has been unable to show such.

In layman's terms, tell me how a contract of a certain label is valid under the law, not to all citizens....but only to two citizens of opposing genders.....when the contract is not legally encumbered by religion or procreation?

Woodsterman (Odie) said...

Ah yes ... the tolerant left.

Trestin Meacham said...

CI, I never name called. I identified you as a Cultural Marxist based on your arguments and positions. Many people here are conservative, that's not name calling, that is the way it is.

Your arguments are straight out of the writings of Antonio Gramsci. Certainly someone who claims to be so intellectually superior can see this?

Constitutional Insurgent said...

I certainly view being called something I'm not, as a pejorative......whether you meant it as such or not. Using the "I'm claiming to be intellectually superior" deflection, is a stale tactic of obfuscation. I'm making an argument based on the merits of the issue.....whereas you are resorting to projections instead of countering those merits.

Why will you not address the rational basis of what you desire to see legislated?

Teresa said...

I don't think marriage should be legislated. In a few states judges have ignored the will of the people and legislated against bans on gay "marriage". The homosexual activists is the group that supports legislating in order to push their lifestyle down our throats.

Teresa said...

CI,

"In layman's terms, tell me how a contract of a certain label is valid under the law, not to all citizens....but only to two citizens of opposing genders.....when the contract is not legally encumbered by religion or procreation?"

The law is valid to every person. If a man wants to get married he can choose to marry a woman and vice versa.

Marriage isn't encumbered by religion and procreation. One purpose of marriage is for the partners, the two sexes, to compliment one another. Another purpose is to have a family, procreation. When you take procreation, the willingness and openness to procreate you change part of the purpose of marriage thus changing marriage altogether.

Why not call two homosexuals contract a companionship contract?

Plus benefits should not require sexuality to come into play. Two sisters or two people who live together should be able to share benefits.

Who instituted marriage in what you call secular culture? And when?

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Theresa, I see your comment of "I don't think marriage should be legislated", and I agree, if I'm correct in your meaning. I don't think that the State has a valid authority to regulate marriage. It is already a secular contract, how is the State justified in discriminating by gender in this instance, but not in the cases of gender, employment, suffrage, etc?

However, your following comment confuses me in the following regard. If the State does not regulate [legislate] marriage, then how would allowing the legal contract to be available to all genders be "pushing their lifestyle down your throat"?

Pitting for a moment, the religious versus homosexuals [though many gays believe in God], the religious actually have tax free property and recognized assembly halls, not to mention the myriad of other official corallary apparati.

If their very existence in society is "shoving their lifestyle down your throat", then what is to be made of the lifestyle of the religious?

I understand your position, but it is one of bias, when comparing the two positions under the lens of legality and liberty. How is your advocacy of the denial of liberty......better than the position of expanding liberty? For me it still goes back to my principle - how does this contract harm you, steal from you, or restrict your liberty...excluding the above?

I have yet to get an answer.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

"The law is valid to every person."

But in order for it to be so, it must be equally applied to every citizen, yes?

"When you take procreation, the willingness and openness to procreate you change part of the purpose of marriage thus changing marriage altogether."

Now it seems that you're supporting a tiered system of the same contract. Procreation isn't a mandatory or integral part of the contract of marriage.

"Why not call two homosexuals contract a companionship contract?"

I'm not hung up on a label. I'm truly not. But when contract law under the guise of State regulation.....mandates a segregation of protections and privileges.....it is an ethical discrimination that should be corrected, if one is legitimately concerned with the liberty of the citizen. Why then, are the religious hung up on a label? The term 'marriage' has been used for other purposes for at least several hundred years...and nary a peep until the current issue has been raised.

"Who instituted marriage in what you call secular culture? And when?"

Good question. I'm not exactly sure of the date....but whenever the legal contract of two consenting adult citizens became available without the 'blessing' of a clergy...it became secular, contrast law. As it should be. This contract should not be relegated to the faithful...again, if one truly places an importance on the concepts of liberty and freedom.

I do thank you for the response, and hope you continue. I think it's enlightening for all points of view.

Trestin Meacham said...

This is name calling. You are a pompous windbag who would not know the truth if it smacked him in the head.

Rational basis? Up is down and down is up in your Cultural Marxist brain. Homosexuality is evil and destructive influence on society. To use the government to force society to change the universal definition of the family. How out of you mind crazy do you have to be to think that will not have serious consequences? I think even De Leon would think you have a screw loose.

25 years ago, before the Frankfort School had brainwashed large segments of society, people would have been up in arms if they tried something like this. Believe it or not morality really does matter and really does have an impact on a nations health. It is actually more vital to liberty than anything else.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Ah, so sad. When confronted with the request to actually provide foundation for his assertions, Trestin reverts to a trollish and poorly structured rambling diatribe.

Unsurprising....and rather tedious.

Trestin Meacham said...

Poorly structured? Professor, this is not the high school debate team. This is the real world with real people having a real conversation. The kind that happen outside of ivory towers.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Clearly it is not a debate team. You would have displayed a poor showing for your school.

Since you cannot bring yourself to illustrate your position passing the rational basis test of US law, something the simplest of honest debaters would do.....might you at least demonstrate how your morality should be both free of State intrusion and regulation, but the morality of others should warrant said regulation by force of law?

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Or will you instead - again - take a single issue and ascribe a conspiratorial ideology [that encompasses far more than a single issue] it to somebody you do not know enough about in which to make that case? IS that really the best you can do?

In the context of your recent pejorative, I would be well justified in my earlier hypothesis that you desire to bestow a preferential legal status ['special rights'] upon a specific demographic, within our legal system. Decidedly contrary to the principles of liberty.

Trestin Meacham said...

You are the dumbest person on the internet. You use verbiage well, but when one looks past that at the actual argument it is pure stupidity.

A Libertarian championing the cause of the Frankfurt School. The cause of using government as an instrument to attack the first freedom, freedom of religion.

I feel like I'm talking with someone who thinks the sky is red and is upset that I'm not using the proper structure to explain to him it is blue. It's blue! It's blue! look at at it!

Trestin Meacham said...

How can a person be so dead inside as to have no concept of right and wrong, moral and immoral?

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Why would I be upset that you don't form a cogent argument? That's your problem, not mine. You simply failed to provide a legal foundation for your cause. So be it.

Since you lack the intellectual integrity I look for in dialogue, I'll leave you to your causes of religious preferentialism. Dishonesty and emotional immaturity can be found anywhere...I don't need to seek it out.

Good luck with your next publicity stunt. I expect you should be embarking on it soon.

Trestin Meacham said...

Goodbye professor, have fun in your ivory tower.

Teresa said...

CI,

"The term 'marriage' has been used for other purposes for at least several hundred years..."

Could you give an example?

It looks like the terms "secular" and "religious" didn't come into existence til the Reformation. Apparently sometime after the mid-19th century the term secular's meaning changed to denote free from religion.

Marriage took place before the term secular came into existence. God made everything and belief in God existed throughout life, in all areas of life and society. God instituted the first marriage - Adam and Eve. At least through the Reformation marriage existed and was accepted as between a man and a woman.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Theresa, the term 'marriage' has been co-opted in the common vernacular for many years now, to mean the joint of any objects or people together.

The problem with attempting to patent the term to be defined strictly in accordance with what your biblical views are.....is that a term can mean whatever a person wishes it to, outside of a legal definition. You would like your belief system to be enforced upon all citizens, yet throughout human history, marriage has been many things other than your ideal. Marriage has been used to cement political arraignments, as payment and as expedients. Decidedly non-traditional marriage is rife in the bible, quite a bit after the alleged 'first marriage'.

If you were concerned about influences that harm "traditional marriage" on the institutional scale, where is your outrage at cohabitation, divorce, adultery and common-law marriage? Why the overwhelming effort to deny your fellow citizen the privileges and protections of a committed, stable relationship?

Once again, your position is one where liberty is denied to your fellow citizen.....but having that liberty available, does not infringe upon your rights at all. In every court challenge, proponents of "traditional marriage" have been unable to illustrate how denying liberty passes the most basic level of Constitutional and judicial review, the rational basis test.

I'm not really sure of the import in the etymological timeline of 'secular' and 'marriage'. Our system of jurisprudence, since our founding, has been based on Constitutional, not biblical law. Your ability to live in a manner comporting with biblical law [picking and choosing as people do], should be upheld as a protected right...so long as it does not harm, steal or restrict the liberties of another citizen. But charges of 'shoving a lifestyle down someone's throat'....can be charitably construed as at least coming from both sides.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

To further add......the position that you are taking pits the Bible versus the Constitution. Further, Leviticus aside.....St Augustine argued that couples that could not procreate should still be granted the right of marriage, due to it's unitive nature. If many tenets of Levitical law are now considered obsolete or irrelevant...why the import of this tenet? Marriage is a stabilizing factor in a society...to deny this right to a segment of society, is to invite and legitimize a certain measure of instability.

In the Judeo-Christian tradition, marriage had not been religiously institutionalized until the Council of Trent in 1545, when it was decreed by the church that a marriage was not valid unless solemnized by a priest with two witnesses present. Martin Luther argued that "marriage was of the earthly kingdom and subject to the prince, not to the Pope.”

Teresa said...

One of the problems with the state recognizing same-sex marriage is the discrimination being committed against those who don't support same-sex marriage. One example, in Illinois the government has required all adoption agencies, even Catholic Charities, to allow same-sex couples to adopt. It is against the Catholic faith to do that so Catholic Charities in Illinois no longer does adoptions.

I mentioned about the term secular because until around the Reformation because the two- religious and secular- overlapped or meshed together. Plus, it was only 150 years ago that the term secular transitioned to mean antagonistic to God and the religious.

Teresa said...

CI,
"If you were concerned about influences that harm "traditional marriage" on the institutional scale, where is your outrage at cohabitation, divorce, adultery and common-law marriage?"

Many Catholics and others do speak out against these sins. But same-sex marriage is a new,big problem which is happening at present so we tend to focus on the greater threat to faith. Whatever it is at the time.

Now there are quite a few Catholics who are Catholics in name only or who were not properly catechized so they have committed these sins. Plus some are silent on the issues and are lacking in their faithfulness.

Teresa said...

Here is a quote from St. Augustine:

"[T]hose shameful acts against nature, such as were committed in Sodom, ought everywhere and always to be detested and punished. If all nations were to do such things, they would be held guilty of the same crime by the law of God, which has not made men so that they should use one another in this way" (Confessions 3:8:15 [A.D. 400]).

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Some Catholics may speak out on the issues that cause more harm to the institution of marriage, if such can be quantified, but it's not even on the radar in terms of legislation and protest....as is gay marriage.

But the crux of the logic problem is how gay Americans entering into stable and committed relationshsips causes any threat whatsoever. Surely, you do not think that every citizen should have to live in accordance with your religious beleifs, do you?

Teresa said...

"Surely, you do not think that every citizen should have to live in accordance with your religious beleifs, do you?"

No.

It is about opposing moral relativism, liberty run amok, liberty without morality, and opposing the harmful consequences of gay marriage and everything which stems from gay marriage, and the intolerance of the gay activists society and government towards anyone with a different point of view on the gay lifestyle.

Teresa said...

One more thing:

It is also about upholding and advocating for the natural law. Two homosexuals butt f*cking (please excuse the language) one another isn't natural. Plus, partners who are top notch healthy homosexuals cannot have an openness to procreate. St. Augustine was referring to couples, man and woman, who have infertility, other health problems, who have a medical condition which is abnormal and for that reason are unable to conceive. Even with that a heterosexual couple has the openness to procreation.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Theresa, I respect your position, as the parameters in which you desire to live your life, and to guide the lives of your immediate family....but where it concerns other citizens, you are engaging in as much moral relativism as you accuse. I won't delve into intolerance, because the stark realities of using the force of government to compel your moral desires, is evident.

“Natural”. You realize that there is an entire litany of legal actions that can be considered "unnatural", that you are not calling for prohibition of. This illustrates an interesting fixation from those with your moral position. Not all homosexual men engage in anal sex, and judging from various surveys....many heterosexuals have at least experimented with it, if not engage in it with some level of frequency. And nowhere in the usual screeds against gay marriage, do lesbians come into play. I find it interesting.

Ultimately, while your opinion is quite valid for your life, when desiring to use the force of law to mandate your moral desires [but eschewing such State interference in the preferential position of religion in society], what you are left with is an appeal to emotion....not unlike many agenda driven efforts from the left.

There are some incontrovertible truths in this issue, irrespective of subjective morality:

- Marriage is a legal, secular contract between consenting citizens.

- Procreation is not a legal requirement or component of the marriage contract.

- In order to deny the contractual access to marriage by all consenting citizens, the State must show that it has standing to discriminate based upon gender or sexual orientation.

- If gay marriage is somehow a threat to good social order, those desiring the use the force of law to deny this contractual access must show how enabling more stable, committed relationships contribute to this threat [you have alluded to such, but have not brought forth any evidence in support].