What does the Fourteenth Amendment have to say about marriage? (post 2)

Comments (7)
  1. gwen kahre says:

    In my very limited understanding I fear that according to the Laws it same sexton marriage is allowable under the law. But Woe be unto this world that it is accepted, we have gone so far from or Christian faith and understanding that we are, words fail me. The law may say Yes but I guess that why we Christ an don’t mix church and state. sad and scary time to live.

  2. jeff w says:

    By holding to the original, one and only definition of marriage, “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” no one is being denied their basic human rights, nor are they being denied equal protection under the law. To allow for a redefinition of marriage is to allow for an illegitimate, self-centered redefinition of family – the fabric and foundation of society since the beginning of time. The consequences of such action will lead to greater and greater instability and civil disobedience and chaos.

  3. Mark M says:

    I wish this article were longer. It does not even begin to get into the distinctions between rational basis, strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, suspect classes and all the rest that will come into play in the Court’s decision. The first post was a good introduction, but this barely scratches the surface of its stated subject.

  4. Patricia B says:

    Thank you Mr. Silletto for your helpful article. Sadly, my time as an ELCA Lutheran is drawing to a close over this very issue. While I dearly love the people with whom I worship every week, I simply can’t support disregarding Scripture or reinterpreting it to change what it says.

  5. jennie says:

    I don’t understand why same sex has to be married. Why couldn’t the courts determine a contractual agreement that would permit the couple to get insurance and be recognized legally. While leaving marriage the way God determined.

  6. Jean Chamberlain says:

    It would seem to me that redefining marriage would not have been in the minds of those writing the constitution, so it would not have been addressed. They were going by Biblical Christian principals, or at least Godly principals, at that time. The intent of marriage has long been between a man and a woman, even by atheists! Most sensible people will agree that a child needs a father and a mother in order to grow up a well balanced person. In those cases where one parent is left to raise the child alone, it is difficult for that parent, but being the resilient people we are, we do our best for our children.

  7. James Young says:

    The arguments of advocates for same-sex “marriage” are simply silly, and should have been laughed out of court at the outset. Of course homosexuals have “equal protection of the laws”: they have the same right to marry any member of the opposite sex who will have them.

    It’s a symptom of how far down the road of nihilism that the far Left has traveled that they don’t understand this simple principle.