State of Minnesota tries to dismiss gay marriage lawsuit

Using that argument any couple deciding to or unable to have children should not be allowed to be married.

“The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.”

Riding horses and donkeys is also that old, but this doesn’t form a superior argument against using a bus or bicycle. Traditional custom is no rational argument on its own for any claim to present legitimacy. If it were, then we should hold suspect the end of slavery, for instance, or equality under the law for women.

Baker v. Nelson also, pathetically, doesn’t offer any rational rebuttal to the alleged criterion of marriage-ability: procreation and childrearing. It only waves a jurist’s magician’s cloak over the argument with “theoretically imperfect” and “abstract symmetry”, and arrives back where it started with its prejudicially predetermined conclusion that marriage is between one man and one woman.

It cites language from another decision: “Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.” But this is meaningful if and only if all empirical data are ignored. Since gays and lesbians are under 10 percent of the population, have always been with us, and our population continues to grow, it follows that there’s no reason to think that gay marriage will endanger the very survival of the species. That such a quotation would even be in this decision is reflective of the workings of a commonplace mind–Justice Peterson’s–in total thrall to popular slogans and prejudices, and seemingly incapable of addressing on positive rational grounds the case for or against gay marriage.

In the end, Baker v. Nelson appears on its face “…irrational and invidiously discriminatory.”

And these are their best arguments. Of course, then that means married heterosexual couples who don’t have children also don’t have legitimate marriages, and that adopted children don’t count.

A ruling of secular law based on theocracy and fallacy is not a ruling that can or should stand the test of time.

As a society, we slowly outgrow our prejudices. Conservatives, by definition, resist change and the growth that comes with it.

“The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court’s considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of “judicial review” has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a “living Constitution” whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.”
http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx

Should we also vote on whether Catholics, and Baptists, Mormons and other cults can practice their religion? On whether cult leaders such as priests, archbishops, elders and pastors have freedom of speech? On whether they can participate in politics? Should Catholic priests be allowed to remain unmarried? Should Catholic priests be allowed to practice with out a government-issued license?

Take a gander. Who exactly redefined what?
http://www.christianity-revealed.com/cr/files/whensamesexmarriagewasachristianrite.html

Xacal makes an excellent point.

“The toleration of those that differ from others in matters of religion is so agreeable to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to the genuine reason of mankind, that it seems monstrous for men to be so blind as not to perceive the necessity and advantage of it in so clear a light. I will not here tax the pride and ambition of some, the passion and uncharitable zeal of others. These are faults from which human affairs can perhaps scarce ever be perfectly freed; but yet such as nobody will bear the plain imputation of, without covering them with some specious colour; and so pretend to commendation, whilst they are carried away by their own irregular passions. But, however, that some may not colour their spirit of persecution and unchristian cruelty with a pretence of care of the public weal and observation of the laws; and that others, under pretence of religion, may not seek impunity for their libertinism and licentiousness; in a word, that none may impose either upon himself or others, by the pretences of loyalty and obedience to the prince, or of tenderness and sincerity in the worship of God; I esteem it above all things necessary to distinguish exactly the business of civil government from that of religion and to settle the just bounds that lie between the one and the other. If this be not done, there can be no end put to the controversies that will be always arising between those that have, or at least pretend to have, on the one side, a concernment for the interest of men’s souls, and, on the other side, a care of the commonwealth.”
http://www.constitution.org/jl/tolerati.htm

The church derives it’s just authority over it’s willing members from Scripture, which is predominantly immutable and accepted as a matter of faith, irrespective of proofs or reason. By consent of the faithful, church doctrine also holds authority over the congregation. Such authority does not extend beyond the congregation of the church, for who would say that religious freedom exists where one house of worship has the ability to impose their doctrine on the congregation of a differing house of worship? Who would have the authority to say which church should dominate the other?

When a doctrine is taken as an article of faith, it is not subject to debate or negotiation or compromise. But in a diverse society of independent minds and multiple faiths, universal agreement is too rare to meet the needs of the people. Negotiation and compromise are necessary to a functioning democracy. It takes little reflection to realize that the functioning of religion and the functioning of democracy are incompatible.

This is why the Wall of Separation between Church and State is necessary if we are to sustain a functional and healthy democracy. This is why the first restriction in the first amendment to the Constitution prohibits official State recognition of religion. The authority of the State does not extend into matters of faith, and the authority of Church does not extend beyond the boundaries of it’s own congregations.

[...] via State of Minnesota tries to dismiss gay marriage lawsuit | Minnesota Independent: News. Politics. Me…. [...]