a reply to: AnteBellum
I guess I'll make three points
First, the government has no authority to regulate marriage or define it in any way. So I would throw out "legal" definitions if there is a religious
practice that runs counter to the official "legal" definition. To permit the state to define a legal definition is to trump a constitutionally
protected religious practice, in effect it is the regulation of a religious practice.
Second, the Bible does state in many places where a man had two wives, but has never mentioned any place where there was a same sex marriage. Now, if
an individual believes that its ok for a same sex marriage, then I cannot see why another individual having a believe that polygamy or polyandry is
acceptable should be denied. Its really trying to split hairs to draw a difference and it looks like a failing progressive-moral socialist rear guard
action. The constitution should be embraced for the protection of individual liberty and these lines in the sand need to be dispensed with.
Third, the reason why pedophilia can still be criminalized is because at its center of outlawing pedophilia is the idea of protecting individuals who
are immature and incapable of consent. When the exercise of one person's right actual causes harm to the rights of another person, then that person
causing harm no longer has the right to act. Jeff's may be a pedophile, and his religious practice cannot be an excuse for his pedophilia, but other
individuals capable of entering into consensual relationships should not and cannot be barred by the state if they choose to enter into relationships
with multiple people. The state has no legitimate interest in regulating these individuals beyond the illegitimate attempts stop individual activity
to promote a common singular moral ethos.
We are a nation of laws that protect individuality, our laws are not meant to regulate individuals, but instead are meant to free them from
progressive state paternalism. We can see how progressives are destroying the rule of law in their attempts to regulate society as they see fit. They
have been at war with the Constitution for sometime now, and the people are slowing beginning to realize it.
As an aside, marriage and sex were regulated so that heirs to property could be known. but today we have DNA testing and can match child to their
biological parents. We are fully capable of passing laws to determine parentage, visitation and child support without resorting to regulating
marriage. The old reasons why regulation of marriage was necessary no longer exist and therefor, the state has no valid interest in regulating
marriage. What the state is attempting to do is enforce one belief system on all individuals, and that is unconstitutional and beyond the authority of
That being said, Southern Baptists being progressive-moral socialists, are using their positions within the Texas government to wage a religious
edit on 20-4-2014 by dieseldyk because: (no reason given)