Marriage is always and unquestionably linked to government. There is no “taking the government out of marriage” because of all the of legal factors associated with marriage. High-blown language about separating church and state doesn’t change that.

Is polygamous marriage constitutionally protected, Pete? If not, then where does it violate the constitution? What about bestiality? What about incest?

I haven’t seen a court yet overturn restrictions on polygamy (or bigamy); why is that?

Government is filled with morality. It is unavoidable. The big question is what is the best way to handle this morality. In my personal views, it should be communities deciding this, not judges. And yet liberal judges are making it their prerogative to overturn laws established by the people governing marriage. In several states, this has already lead to constitutional amendments as the local populations are reacting to “judicial arrogance.”

I’m not in favour of a constitutional amendment regarding marriage—I don’t think one should be necessary. The frightening thing is that the decisions of judges are making it necessary for US citizens to resort to constitutional amendments to impliment the laws they desire.

I respect you and your views in many ways, Pete, but don’t let me ever hear you suggest again that morality isn’t a significant part of government. We have porn laws, indecency laws, marriage laws, gambling laws, drug laws, fraud laws, etc., many of which boil down to, ultimately, “morality”.

Even the separation of church and state is very much a moral issue.

I realize that no one is trying to challenge laws meant to protect minors, but if they did try to challenge them on a constitutional basis no judge would consent to it. Why ? Out of moral duty.

Follow this logic.
Having sex with a minor is against the law. It is against the law because, as you say, it “protects individuals who have not reached a point where they are able to fully defend or think for themselves”
Conclusion:
Since they are not able to fully defend or think for themselves it is wrong to have sex with them.
If it is wrong to have sex with them, then that means it is immoral.

I’ve heard it proposed that the state should not recognize any marraige, only civil unions and then let individual religions decide how to define marraige. I don’t think that solves the problem because a civil union has always had the same implications as a marraige, so it’s the same thing you’re just calling it by another name.

We could probably go round and round on this one. We went down this same path on the issue of abortion more than thirty years ago; trying to resolve it through the constitution and here we are, the issue is still unsettled and terribly divisive. The conclusion is that it is a popular sovereignty problem which should be resolved by the people.

And if you want the state to recognize gay marraige or civil unions then you ARE asking me to accept it. I am a citizen of the state. I will tolerate it by allowing them their free will to have their ceremony as they wish, but if the state recognizes their marraige then you are asking me to accept it. But it doesn’t seem that we will agree on that, so I will let it go.

In closing, you really didn’t need to insult me with the implication that I thought I would be rounded up and forced into a homosexual relationship.

Anyway, good luck with your campaign.

Please understand that I am not asking you to accept gay marriage. I am not saying that heterosexuals should be rounded up and forced into homosexual relationships. Nor am I saying that religions who refuse same-sex marriage need to change their doctrine. I do not think the government or the constitution should be used to ban or affirm any form of marriage. Marriage is a religious construct and should remain so. When it comes to benefits, visitation, and inheritance, I think that this is a decision best made by the individual instead of lawmakers in partnership with the insurance companies.

Regarding the protection of minors by the state. There are already laws that do this and nobody is trying to challenge them on a constitutional basis. These laws were not crafted out of moral duty, but for the protection of individuals who have not reached a point where they are able to fully defend or think for themselves.

Ammendment 10 is used to justify this interpretation, but all ammendment 10 says is that “powers not delegated to the US by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states respectively or to the people”
I believe the interpretation which you are referring to says that states are free to protect a right when the constitution does not, which would therefore protect one’s right to same-sex marraige. But the fact that something isn’t in the constitution doesn’t automatically make it a right.
Does the constitution say anything about polygamists marrying 12 year olds?
What if they claimed that right ? Well obviously judges would never allow it because most people would find it immoral. But there is a precedence for it and there could be those that could attempt to justify it. Like the issue of gay marraige, this is a moral question that needs to be decided by popular sovereignty. Proposition 22 in California allowed the people to decide on this issue democratically.
But let’s assume that we do have the right to marry. WHO do we have the right to marry ? Who gets to decide? Why should judges define (or redifine) marraige and not the very people that are being asked to recognize it?

For better or worse the constitution should not be used to resolve this dispute, which is what I meant to suggest in earlier posts, however, I understand what has led the proponents of the ammendment to push for it.
If the constitution is not used to protect this right then no, the unitarians, Jewish sects and so on do not deserve a protection which does not exist. They would have to do as the polygamists do, have their own marraige ceremonies, but not expect recognition by a society which does not accept it. And at least they won’t be thrown in jail for it, like polygamists.

To me this is far more tolerant than expecting the majority to accept something which they don’t.

And finally I agree that freedom in America is defined by the liberty of others who we disagree with. But the liberty of others we disagree with should not be allowed to infringe on my freedom. If the majority of people are forced to accept something which they find immoral, then their freedom is being imposed upon.

My personal belief is that both issues are constitutionally protected. My opponent exclaims that it is rogue judges making these decisions, yet these judges base their decisions on reading the constitution and the law. If you believe these judges are not playing by constitutional rules, please indicate what part of the constitution they are not upholding. If these rights are not constitutionally protected, then there is no need for a constitutional amendment to eliminate them.

Are you ready to amend the constitution to define a religious ceremony? Do the Unitarians, the Metropolitan Christians, and some Jewish sects that sanction gay marriage not deserve equal protection under the constitution? Should our government promote one religious view over all others, and if that view is Christian as many demand, which Christian view should the government promote?

Freedom in America is not defined by our own personal liberty but by the liberty of others who we disagree with.

Pete, if you feel that the ten other things you listed are more important than the question of gay marraige, then that’s fine. I guess that’s your opinion. But I disagree. Even though I voted for John Kerry, knowing that although he wouldn’t say it he probably favored the idea of gay civil unions. That positiion bothered me, but I felt that it could be fought at the state level. On the other hand I couldn’t do anything about an unjust war that we should never have started, except to send a message to the man that started it that it was unacceptable and I wanted him OUT.

It’s true, like your wife says that economic stability is important for the family, but there are plenty of rich families out there that are morally bankrupt and as a resuslt have numerous problems. Without an accompanying morality our economic prosperity will mean nothing because ultimately our society will fail in other ways. We may not see the affect immediately, but the affects of the sexual revolution of the 60′s are clearly visible to those who have eyes to see.
It’s sad if you can’t see the importance of this issue, because I am moving to Utah this summer and I would like to vote for someone other that Orrin Hatch.

So I would like to know, Pete, what is your position on gay marraige ? Or have you taken another NON-position like the one on abortion ?

One thing I am seriously getting really sick and tired of hearing is how gay marriage will destroy the institution of marriage and the family. Please allow me a few minutes to set some of the record “straight,” so to…

I applaud your stance in favor of liberty and the right to choose, and keeping people free from subjugation to the religious beliefs of others.

Regards,

–rick