Kentucky Clerk Exposes Supreme Contempt for US Constitution

There is no practical reason why two people of different skin colors (and anti-miscegenation laws were crafted wholly to prevent black people from marrying white people) or ethnicities cannot form a marriage. There is nothing in the Bible which prohibits it. There is nothing in Natural Law (the law upon which all law is to be based, as our Declaration of Independence points out) that prohibits two people of different ethnicities from marrying.

As every civilization throughout history has recognized, it takes a man and a woman to form a marriage. To put it bluntly, just as you need a nut and a bolt to join together a machine, you need a penis and a vagina to join two people together in a meaningful relationship that has any purpose which is valuable to the state-and that purpose is the creation of the next generation of society. The man and the woman then bring their unique giftings as male and female together in the home to provide a balanced environment for the development of the child they created, where the child can see modeled how men and women interact in balanced complimentarianism.

It does not take lighter skin, or darker skin, or red skin, or yellow skin, or brown skin, or white skin, or any other type of pigmentation to form a marriage. It does not take lighter skin, or darker skin, or red skin, or yellow skin, or brown skin, or white skin, or any other type of pigmentation to create a child-but it does require a penis and a vagina. It does not take lighter skin, or darker skin, or red skin, or yellow skin, or brown skin, or white skin, or any other type of pigmentation to create a balanced environment to model for a developing child the way men and women (and everyone is either a man or a woman, but not everyone is black, white, red, yellow, or brown) interact in a healthy manner.

In other words, as I have painfully and exhaustively taken to extreme lengths to illustrate a point that almost everyone throughout human history instinctively understands, it takes a man and a woman to bring together the elements necessary to form a marriage…but skin color is utterly irrelevant to the relationship.

Artificially segmenting human beings in marriage by skin color makes as much sense as segmenting them by hair color, height or eye color. Requiring that the participants in a marriage be one male and one female is so fundamental, so foundational to the proposition that it didn’t even need to be articulated until the recent insanity came upon society.

Anti-miscegenation laws were an artificial construct crafted by racists which interfered with the creation of a marriage, unlike the Supreme Court’s unconstitutional edict which attempts to counterfeit a marriage. The former restricts a natural liberty, while the latter attempts to counterfeit and undermine society’s most important institution.

As Loving pointed out, the fact that Virginia’s law only concerned marriages involving white people (and not Asians to Latinos, or blacks to Native Americans) reveals that the anti-miscegenation laws had no basis in morality or practicality, but were rather motivated and justified in nothing but a white supremacy mentality.

The U.S. Constitution has valid application in clearing a path for people to have access to the God-given liberties they rightfully should have under Natural Law. That was being denied to them by racist-motivated anti-miscegenation laws, a construct which interfered with Natural Law. There is no right for two men or two women to counterfeit marriage, because Natural Law recognizes no such thing, general morality recognizes no such thing, and there is no practical or scientific purpose in such a thing. In other words, overturning anti-miscegenation laws restores the Natural Law, while endorsing the counterfeiting of marriage denies Natural Law.

For those who don’t know what Natural Law is (even though it is referenced foundationally in the Declaration of Independence, as the foundation of our nation and government)…

The law of nature is that which God at the time of creation of the nature of man infused into his heart, for his preservation and direction, … the moral law, called also the law of nature. – Sir Edward Coke

man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should, in all points, conform to his Maker’s will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature. This law of nature…dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original. – Sir William Blackstone

Exactly.

While a real marriage between a man and a woman may or may not produce children in this day and age of widespread contraception (and odds are, it still will, since both of my children were conceived on the pill), a counterfeit marriage involving two men or two women CAN NEVER and WILL NEVER produce a single child. BY DESIGN. By the elements present in the arrangement.

(And to be clear, even in this age of widespread access to contraception, the overwhelming majority of long-term heterosexual relationships will result in reproduction…while even a theoretical 1,000-year homosexual union will NEVER produce a single child, even if the couple desperately wanted to produce a child. The cold hard facts of this reality, along with their implications, cannot be overstated, because they are central to the nature and purpose of marrriage.)

A counterfeit marriage also cannot provide the stable, balanced environment for a child to grow up watching men and women working together to achieve a common purpose of paramount importance. In addition to robbing a developing child of the giftings of either a father or a mother, and robbing them of that balanced environment of cooperation being modeled, a home environment that deliberately and by design rejects one or the other sex sends a dangerous, unhealthy and imbalanced message to a developing child: one or the other sex is undesirable or unnecessary, or both.

Ultimately, without the production of children, there is really no state interest whatsoever for the state to be involved in the regulation of or caring whatsoever about marriage. As others have so aptly put it, government has no practical or fundamental interest in maintaining a “friendship registry”, or a “regular sex partner” registry for that matter. What’s the point? From the secularist mindset (which is the point of origin for the insanity of counterfeit marriage), why in the world should government care who’s screwing who? Really, why in the world should government care-much less be involved?

The glaring and crystal clear answer is that it should not. Absent the need for the role of creating the next generation of society and providing a balanced environment for the development of that generation (and if we’re saying that two men or two women who cannot provide this is the same thing as a REAL marriage-and that’s EXACTLY what the counterfeit marriage movement is saying), there is no reason whatsoever for the state to be involved in or even care about who’s screwing who on a regular basis.

This truth yet again exposes the reality that the counterfeit marriage push has nothing whatsoever to do with access to marriage (i.e. what marriage is really about). It is nothing but a vain quest to legitimize something that can never and will never be legitimate. It’s all about the label, and feeling good about yourself (and no person can legitimately feel good about committing an illegitimate and immoral act).

BTW, your driving analogy with respect to marriage is a great one.

“Would you say your marriage has had no beneficial or stabilizing effect for both you and your wife psychologically and financially or that these benefits wouldn’t exist had you not had children?”
Based on what he’s said elsewhere, I’m sure he wouldn’t say that at all. But the key is that many of the most beneficial effects are not just there because of there being two people; they’re there because there’s a man and a woman. As both Bob & I have pointed out, there are some very important effects of the male/female dynamic that two people of the same sex just cannot approximate; indeed, I doubt anyone who hasn’t participated in a successful (real) marriage can even comprehend them.

(Bob) “a home environment that deliberately and by design rejects one or the other sex sends a dangerous, unhealthy and imbalanced message to a developing child: one or the other sex is undesirable or unnecessary, or both.”
I should note that I got that unhealthy message simply from being raised by a divorced mother who wasn’t too impressed with men. The absence of an effective father in my life was devastating; I can only imagine what being raised in even less normal circumstances can do to a child. I’m sure that kids raised by “gay” couples turn out “perfectly OK” — in roughly the same superficial, inadequate way I turned out “perfectly OK.”

According to what I’ve read about Jeffrey Dahmer’s childhood, his father was away from home a lot when he was young. His mother and father had a lot of very nasty arguments. His mother is reported to have had a drug addiction and attempted to commit suicide at one point. When he was 8, he was molested by a boy in his neighborhood.

That’s more than enough to warp a child.

As I mentioned on this or some other thread in the last few days, the incidence of childhood sexual abuse, or problems in how a child’s mother or father related to the opposite sex, are epidemic in the childhood background of most homosexuals. Many will admit it, and many will not. Having a law enforcement background, I know from experience that many children and even adults will tell themselves and others that the abuse and conflict they were subjected to as children was “normal” or “no big deal.” It’s a human way of trying to deal with something you can’t fix.

Children are very impressionable, and their psyche is easily damaged. One or more parents who don’t model proper behavior to their child can cause untold damage to that young person. And putting a child in a home where the not-so-subtle message is being sent to them every single day that one or the other sex is either undesirable or unnecessary-or both-is also extremely harmful to a developing child.

In this fallen world, a child has enough going against them as it is. This modern effort to undermine the sanctity and stability of marriage and family is nothing short of child abuse, and in a sane society would be considered criminal.

No need to get testy. You know I generally am open to contrary opinions and ideas and am not going to resort to personal attacks.

Besides, you shouldn’t let comments on a blog tick you off that much. It’s bad for the blood pressure. You’ll end up with a stroke and have to eat your food with a straw.

Although I suppose I can relate. I called in to a radio show this week because the host (a pastor) just made some really stupid comments. He ended up cutting me off and going to a commercial. My pulse was up for about 2 hours I was so irritated. I looked in the mirror when I got home and my cheeks were flushed. Kind of silly, though, no?

I have great respect and admiration for Bob, Franklin. He has the most patience and wisdom of anyone I know in dealing with reprobate minds like yours. When you first came on here, we lavished you with praise, because we thought you might be receptive to the truth. But, you are not. Not in the least. If I were Bob, I would send you packing, because after all the effort that Bob and others here have expended on your recalcitrant rear-end you still remain wedded to dark, idiot error. We have done our work with you, and the Lord will NOT hold us accountable on that Day if you stand there poised for Hell for your refusal to accept His truth.

Yes, DCM, as I noted above when speaking of us having heaped praise on him back at the start of his coming here, he has been more “reasonable” than most, but after so long and his unwavering passive-aggressive persistence in wrong-headedness, I would leave him alone, because he will not open his eyes to truth. But, that’s just me.

No, Franklin, you’re not a “demon from Hell” You’re a human being. But Hell is where you’ll end up if you don’t give your life to Christ and let Him save you before you die.