I took some heat on this post...

I said: I want to comment on Jeff’s post. (To a link http://www.gazette.com/opinion/marriage-102730-oct-define.html
he posted to a Denver Post article defending the judge's overturning the will of Californians who passed Prop 8 twice he said: "This is one of the issues where the supposed constitutionalists break with the actual Constitutionalists."

I continued...I am not sure Jeff knows the framers like he thinks he does.

Not a one of them would have tolerated a man marrying another man or a woman marrying a child or a child marrying an animal. Marriage is granted/recognized by a municipality or a religious organization, sometimes with a fee and conditions attached. Nowhere does the Constitution imply a free-for-all and a free-for all was never entertained by the framers. Quite the opposite was the case in fact. The Constitution was understood to be wholly inadequate for a morally bankrupt people. The framers understood that natural rights come from God and the very God they knew and referred to strictly forbade the “marriage” of men to men, women to women, animals to children, groups of men to groups of women. People are free to live together all they want but to require that the Municipality and the citizens “recognize” their arrangement as being a new “normal” in defiance of 6000 years of history is preposterous! The Citizens have the right to NOT play along.

Jeff’s take fits nicely with a free-for-all mentality where there is an unbridled license with no moral or social responsibility. This works in exactly one case; when a person is completely by himself, but not in a functional, Constitutional Republic.

I would take issue with Jeff’s assertion that a people who are holding their ground morally only think that they honor the Constitution but don’t really.

It sounds very superior and erudite but unfortunately only comports with a rebellious spirit, not some abandonment of the Constitution of the United States.

Peter