Oh, I did not derive racisim out of anything you wrote. I am merely pointing out that civil marriage and gun control resulted from the attempts by individual states to prevent certain outcomes - marriage between whites and other races, and people other than whites possessing guns.
Marriage is never mentioned in the U.S.Constitution. It is, I believe, not a civil matter but a religous one, covered by the First Amendment to the U.S.Constitution. Eliminate civil marriage, and return marriage to its rightful and holy place in one’s religion. That would make liberal heads explode and judicial activists weep. Trying to attack the First Amendment is dicey for liberals.
Gun control shouldn’t even exist, and neither should the BATFE. If our society is concerned about the dissemination of explosives then the responsibility to deal with that lies with the FBI. Alcolhol, tobacco, and firearms are all legal, last I looked. The only reason gun control popped up was to keep “those people” from having guns.
So, yes, racism was at the core of these civil laws quite some time ago but they should be off the books now. There no longer exists reasons for those laws to exist.
So I am advocating the First and Second Amendments as they ought to be practised in the U.S.A. No civil marriage and guns for everyone!
What do you think?
>> “ I am merely pointing out that civil marriage and gun control resulted from the attempts by individual states to prevent certain outcomes - marriage between whites and other races, and people other than whites possessing guns.” <<
.
Correct!
We call them “Jim Crow” laws.
Our Founders considered marriage one of the prime supports of society and all laws were defined in order to protect all of the important supports - marriage, family, and religion.
In other words, the first amendment protects our fundamental rights relating to Life, Liberty, and our Pursuit of Virtue leading to happiness with God. The second amendment was designed to protect the first.
“I am merely pointing out that civil marriage...resulted from the attempts by individual states to prevent certain outcomes - marriage between whites and other races”
See, here’s the reasoning I was originally responding to. How can you possibly believe that? Even if it were originally racist legal marriage is from time out of mind, or time immemorial. There probably weren’t white people back then, though conceivably it could have been founded to keep tribe A from intermarrying with tribe B. More likely, it was simply an extension if the religious institution.
Your wish to segregate marriage as purely religious and protect it from the corruption of civil law is eccentric, to say the least. What about the criminal law, while we’re at it? Murder being wrong was a religious principle before it was a legal one. Ah, but it is the state’s place to prevent violence because governments are constituted amongst men to protect their rights, and blah, blah, blah. Since when isn’t the state interested in marriage? Why did that suddenly become not its business, or not anymore than any other voluntary association?