Gay Marriage, Again

supreme court   The Supreme Court of the United States of America has announced that it will be hearing two and a half hours of oral arguments in April, and will hand down a decision before the current term ends in June of this year, regarding the issue of same-sex marriage.   The justices will consider four cases from Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee in order to come to a decision, that many hope will end our long national debate over what constitutes a marriage.

I feel this case will come down to SCOTUS looking at, and ruling on this case, based on three Constitutional Amendments. Unfortunately for those on the Christian and religious right, it will not, nor should it, have anything to do with a religious definition of marriage.

I still can never understand the religious right’s desire to have their faith validated by government, and in doing so, open the door for government to also condemn their faith.

The three Amendments, in my view that will be relevant to this case are, the 9th, 10th, and 14th.

The argument here is, can individual states ban same-sex marriages, and does a state that bans same-sex marriage have to recognize marriages that were performed in other states, that have no such bans?

First of all let me say, I still do not believe that the government has any business being involved in what amounts to a contract between two people, be they heterosexual, or homosexual,  other than to document said contract. Government should not tell me, who, or if I have to buy health insurance, and neither should government tell me who, and if I can marry.

This is a recently new point of view for me, I was once opposed to same-sex marriage, and used all of the usual arguments. I was opposed because I feel it is an unnatural union, and that it is a sin. It is this last belief that changed my view. If it is a sin as I believe it to be, then it is not my sin. I can do nothing to save another from sinning beyond praying for them, and witnessing my personal coming to Christ.

We as a nation, or a state can absolutely do nothing to stop sin, or save a soul through any legislation, you cannot legislate morality, nor should we try, we’ll leave that to the Taliban. So if we remove the moral argument, what is left? Why should government be wasting time, and effort on an issue that it will never have the power to control?

I may return to the moral issue later, but let me now address the legal side of the issue.

The 9th Amendment to the Constitution says, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

The Framers of the Constitution, at least some, feared that if they simply listed certain rights, that future interpretations would construe this to mean that other rights were not legally protected. The 9th Amendment was put into the Bill of Rights for this specific reason.

Now if we apply this to the issue of same-sex marriage, then we have to ask, does the Constitution speak at all about marriage specifically? No. However it does speak of “Life, Liberty, and Property”.  So we can’t take someone’s life, liberty or property, without due process of the law.
We’ll pass over life for now. Let us talk about Liberty in the context of marriage. Liberty is nothing but choice in its purest form. If you believe in Liberty for all, then you believe that all have the right to make choices. In this case, who to marry. So can a state deny Liberty to a certain segment of our society?

Some believe that individual states have the right to do so based on the 10th Amendment, which says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Now some have said that because the U.S. Constitution does not specifically use the word marriage, nor does it define marriage, that the states are free to do so. I have to come back to the word Liberty. The U.S. Constitution does specifically talk about Liberty, in fact it is in the preamble, “and secure the Blessings of Liberty”.   It is also within the 14th Amendment where it says, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”

So, since the constitution does not speak on marriage, can a state then deny people the Liberty to choose whom they marry? I have to tell you I don’t think they can. The Constitution is clear, no state shall deprive any person of Liberty.  Here is the definition of Liberty,noun (pl) -ties 1. the power of choosing, thinking, and acting for oneself; freedom from control or restriction”.

Now some may say that the “due process of the law” part allows the states to pass such bans on same-sex marriage. Sorry again, but since we are talking about Liberty here, and since Liberty is enumerated in the Constitution in the 14th, and the states are  prohibited from depriving any person Liberty, within the 14th, then states cannot pass laws that ban Liberty, in other words, the right to choose.

I also feel that even if states were allowed to ban same-sex marriage, which I don’t think they will be, then those banning would still have to recognize marriages sanctioned in other states based on the 14th again where it says,  ” No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;”, and since the Supreme Court has already ruled that the Federal Government must recognize same-sex marriage, and has allowed other states to make same-sex marriage legal, I see no way for them to totally reverse those positions.

I know this will not be popular with the religious right who feel that same-sex marriage will be the end of the world, I would point my Christian friends to that last book in the Bible, in case you don’t already know, spoiler alert, it doesn’t end well. So take care of your own souls and sin.

This brings me to another topic on this issue and similar social issues. In my opinion it is the religious right, i.e. the Christian right that has, for sometime now, been causing this nation and the individual states to flounder. We as conservatives have been forcing candidates and elected officials to spend valuable time, effort and tax dollars fighting this and other moral issues. Again in my view, we will never, and nor should we try, to legislate morality.

Right here in Delaware we have seen whole legislative sessions wasted on bathroom bills, and gay marriage, it is rumored that the upcoming session will include assisted suicide. How much time will be spent debating that personal decision?

It is time that true conservatives speak out against that religious right’s attempts to define and control the conservative conversation. All it does is to give the Democrats and the left opportunities to take the conservative eye off the ball. We should be talking about things like jobs, the economy, violence in our cities, roads, bridges, lower taxes, less regulations on new businesses. All of the things that are government’s purview, and responsibility. And leave the individual decisions such as health care and who to marry up to the individual, along with their personal sins.




37 Comments on "Gay Marriage, Again"

  1. The US Supreme Curt already ruled on marriage in 1967, Loving vs Virginia. They defined marriage as a basic civil right that states could deny if and only if the state could give a compelling reason to deny the marriage. The ruling struck down the miscegenation laws in fourteen states that banned marriage between the races. I have yet to hear a compelling reason to deny a same sex couple the right to marry.

  2. delacrat says:

    What does someone else’s partner’s gender matter, if you don’t have a job.

  3. sknott rag says:

    Flipper Frank
    Where do you draw the line now? Three people in a contract marriage? Four? Two men and a dog? Abortion is someone else’s sin so its okay too? The real Frank is coming out of the closet. Word is you won’t be allowed into the next Sussex GOP meeting. Why did you wear your unibomber costume to the last one?

  4. Frank Knotts says:

    You know, really, I am not sure why I should care if three people want to say they are married? How does it impact me?
    As for abortion, in my view that is murder, which is taking of life, I lead you back to the protection of ” Life, Liberty and Property”. So government should protect all life as it is charged to do in the Constitution.
    As for being a “flipper”? Well yes, I have changed my position on some issues, but at least I acknowledge and explain what has led to that change. Many can’t say the same. And truthfully, the light coming on is usually due to the extreme stand of others. So thank you for your help in making me a better person.

  5. Meyer says:

    Well said, Frank. And THANK YOU!

  6. fightingbluehen says:

    Children in a large enough sample of the population to form a viable test group, from this point on, are going to view homosexual marriage as normal accepted practice for the first time in human history.
    The experiment should prove interesting.
    Is a certain percentage of the population born homosexual or can it be an acquired trait? We will find out in the coming years as the sample group comes of age.

  7. Harry Whittington says:

    A “marriage” also includes a signed contract called a “marriage license.” When a “dog” or “flipper” can legally consent to a contractual relationship with a human being we should revisit this issue.

  8. Frank Knotts says:

    FBH, let me piss off a few more on the religious right. I actually believe in creation and evolution. I believe that God created everything and then allowed things to run their course. And this is merely an intellectual ” what if”, homosexuality is natures way of controlling populations naturally?

  9. mouse says:

    Why doesanyone care what gay peopledo.Anyone who is cultured enough to have contact with gays understand they are what they are and deserve the same rights as anyone else. WHat created God? Where does got get his power? Does he egg eggs?

  10. Jackie O. says:

    You say that you are a Christian but you have no conviction to stand for the laws that God commanded is totally contradictory. And to think everything is random and by chance? Have you ever read God’s word? Do you not see that everything has a perfect order and design set in place by The Creator? You reference Revelations but that book speaks of the warnings of end times. Do you think there is no plan and that it will just randomly happen by no great design? Maybe it’s when the so called Christians and conservatives start eating their own and supporting gay marriage!

  11. Frank Knotts says:

    Jackie O, thank you for judging lest ye be judged. I have read the word of God many times. Am I to rely on your imperfect understanding of that word? Or the understanding that God places in my heart? I stated that I feel homosexuality is a sin. But it is not my sin. Do you really believe that man’s law can stop sin? Jesus told us that we can only come to the father through the son. In my view this means that we are only forgiven ours in when we ask for forgiveness. Passing laws to stop sin, while ineffective, also does nothing to gain that person forgiveness.
    Look to the beam in thy own eye, before attempting to remove the mote from thy brother’s eye. Unless you are without sin friend?

  12. mouse says:

    Didn’t the liberal Jesus refute all that controling violence in the old testament? Only self righteous angry conservative old white people get to call themselves Christian, right? I heard Jesus has a special place where he sends people who distort Christianity for their own political advantage.

  13. Homosexuality is not a sin. Wish people would stop spreading that lie.

  14. It should be pointed out that homosexuality is not a sin nor does the Bible make that claim.

  15. Dunleve says:

    Lev. 18:22, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”1
    Lev. 20:13, “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them.”
    1 Cor. 6:9-10, “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”
    Rom. 1:26-28, “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.”

  16. Dunleve says:

    Not looking for the bible argument, just don’t post something that is too easy to prove wrong with Google.

  17. Jackie O. says:

    Why are you so defensive? I am not judging the gays or you. I was simply asking you a few questions about your creation/evolution statement. I did not claim to be without sin and I have not taken a stand in my personal life for or against gay marriage. But I think politicians that choose to represent the conservative people should certainly uphold their stance on gay marriage. I do not think the law can stop sin, but when Christ tells us to be in the world but not of the world, that is one way that others can know we are different. As far as only getting to the Father thru the Son, that is signifying a blood sacrifice, not having to ask for forgiveness.

  18. Googling versus, especially versus from the False Prophet’s Book, is not disproving a thing. If you really knew what those versus mean, you wouldn’t have wasted your time Googling. Since you don’t want a Biblical argument, and neither do I, let this little scenario suffice for now:

    “Am I sinner?”

    “Yup. Welcome to the club. There’s over seven billion sinners and the numbers go up every day.”

    “But I’m gay so I’ll burn in Hell, huh?”

    “No. There is no Hell. If God judges you as unworthy of Heaven, you’ll simply cease to exist. This will be your only life.”

    “But I’m an abomination to God. Leviticus says so.”

    “No. God speaks strongly against various sex acts, both straight and gay. He doesn’t condemn you for the way you were born.”

    “But God says homosexuality is a sin.”

    “Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, not a sex act. The self righteous hypocrites who throw versus at you claiming God condemns homosexuality are lying to you. That’s what false prophets and followers of false prophets do to lead you astray from God.”


    “No buts about it. Two thousand years ago, man knew what sex was very well, but had no understanding of sexual orientation. That’s why there is no equivalent ancient Greek or Ancient Hebrew word for a sexual orientation. Any Bible that uses the modern words, homosexuality or homosexual, has changed God’s word and His meaning and those false prophets will burn in Hell…if there were such a place.”

    “So it’s ok to be gay?”

    “It’s ok to be true to yourself, those around you, and God. God gave us all the greatest gift of all – the need to love and be loved. Don’t let those self righteous, hateful people steal that gift from you. If your heart is true, God will judge you accordingly and, trust me, you’ll fall way short of what God wants just like the other seven billion plus of us. But if you’re true in your heart, accept Jesus as your Savior, and ask forgiveness for falling short of God’s expectations, God is all-forgiving and you have nothing to worry about.”

    See how easy it is to be a good Christians and not a hateful, self-righteous hypocrite?

  19. Harry Whittington says:

    Can someone point out the Constitutional argument that would prohibit gay marriage? You can quote Bible verses all day (some that apply to crab cakes, too), but US law comes from man in the form of the US Constitution. Constitutional argument, anyone?

  20. Frank Knotts says:

    Harry, that was my original point. But the question right now is can states ban. The SCOTUS has already ruled on the federal issue.

  21. Yes, states can ban marriages. That was decided in 1967 in Loving vs Virginia. Unless the court wishes to revisit that decision, this court will need to look at the “compelling reason” for banning same sex marriage. I have yet to come up with one and, judging by the responses here, no one else has come up with one, either.

  22. Dunleve says:

    Five Drunk Rednecks,

    “It should be pointed out that homosexuality is not a sin nor does the Bible make that claim.” = BS

  23. Thus hath spoken Dunleve

  24. Rick says:

    First of all, while the leftist media likes to tell us that so many states have “legalized” gay marriage, the fact is that in the majority of these states, the bans were overturned by the federal judiciary.

    If the Supreme Court rules in favor of gay marriage, deep red states still will have a viable means of circumventing the ruling, using the First Amendment and the left’s own “separation of church and state” vacuity.

    A deep red, conservative state legislature need only eliminate civil marriage from state statutes. Thus, all marriages in the state would have to be performed in churches. It is my belief that the state cannot compel religious institutions to perform ceremonies inconsistant with the teachings of the church. As pointed out in a post above, homosexuality is inconsistent with Christian dogma. Churches who rent space to individuals or groups for marriages would not be protected under this plan. But churches that marry only members of the congregation would be.

    Which is where the issue should rest, anyway. Marriage is a religious institution, and who or who should not be married should be within the purview of the churches, not the state.

  25. Frank Knotts says:

    FDR, I think you meant to say that, “states CAN’T ban marriages” when you quoted Loving v. Virginia. Right?
    See Rick, we can still agree once in a while.
    And back to FDR’s statement about it being a sin, I assume you have heard of Lot and Sodom.
    Genesis 19:5-8,
    ” 5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

    6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,

    7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.

    8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.”

  26. No, I meant states CAN ban marriages if they can show a compelling reason. In Chief Justice Warren’s majority opinion, he defined marriage as a “basic civil right” and so any laws that limit the right should be subjected to the “most rigid scrutiny” because of the 14th Amendment and if such law were to be upheld, it must demonstrate that it is “necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective.” (ref: So yes, if a state can show a compelling reason to deny a basic right (like denying felons to own a gun), then they can ban certain marriages.

    Yes, Sodom and Gomorrah is, at most, in a literal sense, a condemnation of gay gang rape. (A more literal interpretation is a condemnation of bestiality since the “men” were really angels, but the townsfolk most likely didn’t know that.) Of course, that interpretation raises the question of why it’s ok to offer one’s virgin daughter up for a rape, doesn’t it? You only have to look as far as Ezekiel and Matthew for an explanation of why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. Note: homosexuality or, more accurately, same sex acts aren’t even mentioned. Besides, if all the men of Sodom surrounded the house demanding to “know” the strangers, and given that in any population about 3% are gay, what are the odds that all the men of Sodom were gay, especially since women and children lived in the city and the children didn’t come about by immaculate conception?

  27. Rick says:

    You only have to look as far as Ezekiel and Matthew for an explanation of why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. Note: homosexuality or, more accurately, same sex acts aren’t even mentioned.

    But, they are “mentioned, as noted earlier,” in Leviticus, 20:13:

    “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death.”

  28. Sex acts do not equate to sexual orientation. Read all of Leviticus 20. There’s a whole set of “rules” that are abominations and earn one death. Adultery, bestiality, incest, and, as you pointed out, anal sex. (It is important to note that the original translation, according to KJV in 1611, read

    ” If a man also lie with mankind, as he lyeth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

    Surely you can see how the modern change in wording you provided subtly changes what was preached 400 years ago.

    But let’s go with your logic. Since God condemns adultery, incest, premarital sex, sex during the woman’s time of month, and sex other than missionary style for the purpose of creating a baby, surely God is condemning heterosexuality.

  29. Frank Knotts says:

    FDR you do recognize my point was that my belief that it is a sin is just that, my belief. If others sin, there is no effect upon my soul. So you see, there is no need for me to convince you that it is a sin, nor for you to convince me it is not a sin.
    While I may agree with Rick that it is a sin, I do not agree that the government has the power to end sin.

  30. Yes, Frank, I know what you said. But isn’t it a Christians responsibility to counter false teachings? I’m in the process of writing a story of how false teachings affect individuals and hope to finally have it done tonight. (Sorry. It usually takes me weeks to write one article. I can’t whip them out in a few hours like good writers can.)

    There is no way you are going to convince me that a gay man who chose to remain celibate all his life is still a sinner because he is gay. I’m trying to make it very clear that sexual orientation is not a sin – only certain sex acts are. There is a world of difference between calling someone a sinner because of who they are (yes, I believe homosexuality is not chosen) and calling someone a sinner because of what they do. The latter is fine, the former very un-Christian like.

  31. Frank Knotts says:

    FDR you may have broken new ground. We are talking about homosexuality. Without sex I am not sure it meets the definition. If someone has never had homosexual sex, then they are not homosexual. Unless
    You subscribe to the old joke.
    So you are saying that you can be gay without being homosexual?
    How does that work?

  32. Frank Knotts says:

    Sorry, as for false teachings? Well I am not teaching any one anything. I am again giving my beliefs, of which I require no one to follow. God will be my judge.

  33. Frank, the same as when one takes a vow of celibacy (like Catholic priests and some monks) doesn’t mean he/she is no longer heterosexual. Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality are a description of who one is sexually attracted to. Deciding not to act on those feelings doesn’t negate the sexual orientation. I mean, really, before you had your first sexual experience, did that mean you were neither gay nor straight?

    And I hate to tell you this, but, yes, you are teaching people. I assume that’s why you write this blog. That’s why I subscribed to your blog – to learn something I might not know. Learning, and it follows teaching, isn’t about sitting in a classroom reading books, listening to an instructor, and taking a test to measure how well you learned a subject. Everything you write (or say) is helping someone else learn something they may not have known or see something from an angle they may not have considered. But now we’re getting into a whole new debate over the moral and ethical responsibilities of exercising our free speech rights. That debate might be best left for another day.

  34. Frank Knotts says:

    FDR, first if I am teaching anything, I am only teaching about myself. If people read my beliefs and fail to seek other input for themselves then they have failed to do their due diligence which is their share of the learning process.
    And yes, until you have acted on your sexual desires, you are a-sexual.
    If a person has heterosexual intercourse, they are heterosexual, if they then have sex with their same sex they are bi-sexual.
    Are you saying that if a woman even wonders about what it would be like to kiss another woman, then she is homosexual?
    You are correct, that if someone stops having sex, after having established their sexuality, it does not change.

  35. Frank, hardly. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not descriptions of sex acts. They describe a state of mind, how one feels inside. Does a heterosexual woman wondering what it would be like to be with another woman mean she is a lesbian? Of course not. I wonder what it would be like to fly like an eagle, free of the metal or fabric constraints of manmade flying tools. That doesn’t make me a bird. The experts define sexual orientation as a pattern of feelings over a lifetime – not one time thoughts or actions.

    Gays and lesbians have, and still do, marry the opposite sex and raise families. That doesn’t make them heterosexual. It makes them conformists to society’s expectations. No matter what others see on the outside – a happy, heterosexual family – on the inside, the gay spouse is unhappy and left feeling unfulfilled.

    As far as you only teaching about yourself, you are misguided. You may think you are only teaching about yourself, but you are passing off your beliefs and opinions as fact and as perceptions of the way you connect the dots of facts around you. Don’t underestimate the impact your words, both spoken and heard, have on others around you. It’s not necessarily you, by yourself, who has the impact, but it is you along with everyone else, who more or less are saying the same thing, that have the impact. All I’m suggesting is make sure what you are saying is factually accurate. All I’m saying is nowhere in the Bible does God condemn a sexual orientation (both straight or gay), but He does condemn plenty of sex acts (both straight and gay).

  36. mouse says:

    I always thoughts the people of Sodom and Gomorrah got a bad rap. I always heard they would bend over backward for ya LOL

  37. SPR says:

    Princeton professor of jurisprudence Robert George has written, along with two of his former students, a book entitled “What is Marriage?: Man and Woman, a Defense”. It began life as an article in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy ( in which they answer all of your philosophical questions and objections. This paper was pivotal for me in determining my position on the matter, and providing solid philosophical answers to the progressive and libertarian positions on this.

    To “Five Drunk Rednecks” – sexual orientation, as you describe it, is a highly contingent and relatively new concept. Historically (pre-19th century) “homosexual” would have referred to a set of sex acts, and not to some immutable characteristic of human persons. To apply it to a person would have been considered a simple category mistake. That shifting meaning (the one you clearly ascribe to) came about in the late 19th century, and was further advanced by the work of Alfred Kinsey and the like. But as soon as it came about, it was already being critiqued from the left, by the likes of French deconstructionist philosopher (and sexual libertine) Michel Foucault in his “History of Sexuality”. At any rate, the idea that “orientation” is an immutable ontological category is highly suspect, not least because it exists (as you say) at best only as a pattern of subjective feeling. The reason the Bible does not mention “sexual orientation” – as the kind of immutable characteristic that you describe – is the same reason it does not mention computers: because tit wasn’t invented yet. When we accept the categories supplied by our culture, we constrain the way we think. This is a good article on this issue, if you are interested:

    That someone desires something is not, in and of itself, justification for it’s rightness. The same analogy that you use could be applied to a man who desires to sleep with younger women, though he is married. He is “oriented” to those younger women, and he feels “unfulfilled” in his marriage, and yet he is constrained by society’s expectations to only have relations with his wife. Is he unfairly stifled? Or are the societal expectations ensuring that his “natural “inclination – which is a disordered one – be put in check? The same would apply to, say, a teacher who is attracted to his post-pubescent students: it is only a convention of our society that we look down on men being attracted to, say 15-year-olds. In many other places and times, it has been perfectly acceptable. But, again in this case, the societal check constrains the improper behavior, despite the subjective inclination toward it. This is only to say that, again, a desire for something does not prove it’s rightness, and the fact that something is a convention does not prove it’s wrongness.

Got something to say? Go for it!