You guys finally ready to get fedgov out of the marriage sanctioning and subsidizing business yet? Or are you hoping a few more elections and you’ll be able to get big government to get rid of the strings attached to all those favors you let it do for you?
What’s your brilliant plan with spousal visas? I want to hear it.
I don't think you quite understand what just happened.
The role of government is to "secure the blessings of liberty". . .in this regard the government interest in marriage is proper when focused on protecting the rights of children, who are not yet able to protect their own rights.
Our inalienable rights are endowed to us at conception/birth, which means the first right endowed, in application, is the right for a child to be raised and cared for by the biological father and mother who conceived that child. Other than that, government is not needed because no one has a right to be married. . .gay or otherwise. . .we have a right to an attorney. . but not to a spouse. The true victims of today's ruling are children.
Only if two Constitutional Amendments are passed;
1) Eradication of the 16th Amendment.
2) Any type of chronic Entitlement programs, including Social Security are to be ended with some being "grandfathered" in. Amendment should conclude that the individual States are the only entity that has the power to enact Entitlement programs, not the Federal government. Also States are required to pay for any Entitlement programs internally. Also the Federal Government is not a source of budget overlays in cases where States are deep in debt. Only subsidies in case of natural dissaters or invasion will be allowed.
Also, ditto about spousal visas. What would be your plan?
If not, I don't mind Federal firewalls protecting natural matrimony, because the Federal government has been in the marriage business DECADES before the United States sexual revolution occurred in the 1960s.
Today's ruling just reaffirms the hypocrisy of our legal system.
For most of Western history, marriage was a private contract between two families. Until the 16th-century, Christian churches accepted the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s declarations. If two people claimed that they had exchanged marital vows—even without witnesses—the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.
Marriage licenses were introduced in the 14th century, to allow the usual notice period under banns to be waived, on payment of a fee and accompanied by a sworn declaration, that there was no canonical impediment to the marriage. Licenses were usually granted by an archbishop, bishop or archdeacon.
In the United States, until the mid-19th century, common-law marriages were recognized as valid, but thereafter some states began to invalidate common-law marriages. Common-law marriages, if recognized, are valid, notwithstanding the absence of a marriage license. The requirement for a marriage license was used as a mechanism to prohibit whites from marrying blacks, mulattos, Japanese, Chinese, Native Americans, Mongolians, Malays or Filipinos. By the 1920s, 38 states used the mechanism.
Some groups believe that the requirement to obtain a marriage license is unnecessary and/or immoral. The Libertarian Party, for instance, believes that all marriages should be civil, not requiring sanction from the state.[8][9] Libertarians argue that marriage is a right, and that by allowing the state to exercise control over marriage, it is implied that we merely have privilege, not the right, to marry. As an example, those born in the US receive a birth certificate, not a birth license.[10] Some Christian groups also argue that a marriage is a contract between a man and a woman presided over by the Christian God, so no authorization from the state is required. In some US states, the state is cited as a party in the marriage contract[11] which is seen by some as an infringement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_licence
I could agree with you except for the fact that the homosexual activists are the ones pushing this. The homosexual activists are the ones trying to force the government to define marriage in a certain way.
So, if we say government should get out of the business of marriage, do you really think the homosexual activists would allow that? They would still be in court on this issue if we tried to delete any laws on marriage.