Judge Upholds State’s Ban on Same-Sex ‘Marriage

KINGSTON, Tenn. – For the first time since the courts began ruling on challenges against state marriage amendments enshrining the institution as being between a man and a woman, a judge in Tennessee has upheld the state’s same-sex “marriage” ban as constitutional.

Roane County Circuit Judge Russell E. Simmons, Jr. ruled on a matter surrounding two homosexual men who sought a divorce after tying the knot four years ago in Iowa. He denied the men the divorce as he declined to recognize their relationship under Tennessee law as a marriage.

“The court finds that Tennessee’s laws concerning same-sex marriage do not violate the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution,” Simmons wrote. “There is nothing irrational about limiting the institution of marriage for the purpose for which it was created, by embracing its traditional definition. To conclude otherwise is to impose one’s own view of what a state ought to do on the subject of same-sex marriage.”

“The laws of Iowa concerning same-sex marriage are so diametrically opposed to Tennessee’s laws, and Tennessee’s own legitimate public policy concerning same-sex marriage, that Tennessee is not required by the U.S. Constitution to give full faith and credit to a valid marriage of a same-sex couple in Iowa,” he continued.

While Simmons cited the U.S. Supreme Court ruling of United States v. Windsor, which struck down a key part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act as being unconstitutional, he said that the ruling only applied to federal matters and did not give an opinion on whether states that outlaw same-sex nuptials must recognize “marriages” allowed in other states.

“The Supreme Court does not go the final step and find that a state the defines marriage as a union of one man and one woman is unconstitutional,” Simmons wrote. “Further, the Supreme Court does not find that one state’s refusal to accept as valid other states’ valid same-sex marriage to be in violation of the U.S. Constitution. … [T]his question was not an issue in the Windsor case.”

http://christiannews.net/2014/08/12/first-judge-upholds-states-ban-on-same-sex-marriage/

 

That is exactly what they are doing. Getting married in a state that recognizes it and going to another state that does not to get divorced in order to set precedent.

The ultimate end is not to get homosexual marriage recognized but to do away with marriage altogether.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmGBtTZUna0