Posted on 06/27/2015 12:09:54 PM PDT by EveningStar
Mississippi is considering pulling the plug on issuing marriage licenses altogether after the Supreme Court struck down bans on gay marriage Friday morning.
As the state's governor and lieutenant governor condemned the court's decision, state House Judiciary Chairman Andy Gipson began studying ways to prevent gay marriage in Mississippi. Governor Phil Bryant said he would do all he can "to protect and defend the religious freedoms of Mississippi." To Bryant's point of doing "all" the state could do, Gipson, who is a Baptist minister, suggested removing marriage licenses entirely.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
Yep, time for government to get out of the marriage business.
Let the gays marry. Their relationships are highly unstable. The young ones will soon be suing the old ones into ruin.
Not exactly. Marriage should be honored by the state because it is in the best interest of the state. Once marriage means everything it then means nothing. This is a good idea but it is not ideal. It is just all we have left.
Oh sorry sorry country that we have become. It is just embarrassing.
We need a new country. The Pledge of Allegiance says that if the government becomes oppressive it is the duty of the people to cast them off.
Nevertheless, strictly speaking, the Court seems to have tossed out the 9th and 10th Amendments and taken upon itself the "compelling state interest" in marriage law and health insurance.
Using the post Civil War amendments, the Court has gradually eroded the concept of statehood to the point that one citizen, appointed for life, can now decide, for any reason or no reason, what rights devolve to "the states or the People, respectively," with no need to even acknowledge any "clear and present danger" nor a "compelling state interest."
The Constitutional Convention delegates in Philadelphia would have called that what it is: Tyranny. Rule without God's sanction.
Under this new regime, then, Mississippi is perfectly sane to toss out marriage laws, all of them. Chances are that state's Constitution doesn't mention "marriage" at all, so where is the compelling state interest in Jackson to pass laws, any laws, making it a third party to marriages?
If my daughter or son were married in our church, without a marriage license, I would acknowledge their union, as a marriage.
What are the reasons states regulate marriage? I can tell you it is not to take on the role of an extended family or tribe, but to protect children. That is in the state's interest. But that isn't, as far as I've learned, even touched on in any of these new opinions. I think Mississippi is on to something, particularly since divesting itself, deregulating marriage, would not prevent the state from protecting children from pedophiles, for example. Deregulation of marriage by the states would not end marriage, or contracts freely entered into without duress. It would free Mississippi from sanctioning the wholly imaginary invention that the Supreme Court calls "same sex marriage."
Yeah, that’s exactly the problem. The traditional understanding of marriage was just redefined by the federal government. And it will probably get worse since the doors have now been thrown open to polygamy and worse.
I’d love to fight this, but what is the path? An Article V amendment to the Constitution? Then let’s do it. You have some other idea? Then let’s do it. Otherwise, let’s find workarounds at the state level.
I mean, I haven’t thought through all the ins and outs of this, but what Mississippi is doing seems interesting.
Not really a good solution, but might be the kind of immediate stop-gap measure needed to prevent this evil from taking places within ones state border.
“Civil Marriage between a man and woman has been the bedrock of civilisation for thousands of years.”
Not true... Even into the twentieth century marriage licenses were not required in most states.
Tax breaks and other government funding is all they have been after in the first place. Even they don’t call it marriage, using some other PC term.
Yep, this is a war that has to be fought in the open, and through the system, because it is the system, the culture that we care about.
We can always have our own private Christian definition of our own personal marriage, but that is the libertarian argument, that we can allow America to become Sodom and Gomorrah, and just go straight home from work, and lock the doors, and live our own way, while losing the nation and it’s culture, and society.
Either we win this political battle, or we lose it.
do we really need the government in the marriage business? This marriage license thing should have probably never been enacted.
marriage was not always a function of the state
marriage can be viewed as...
1. a matter of private agreement or contract
2. a matter for the local community (not necessarily as a political entity)
3. a matter between humans and God, and/or the Church or a church sacrament
4. a matter for the state (or local political entity)
(and insofar as our tradition goes, the large state involvement in marriage largely reflected Martin Luther’s idea that marriage was a ‘worldly’ thing.... but it remained mostly a matter of private agreement (with, for Roman Catholics, their priest’s blessing) outside those places Luther’s thinking heavily influenced.
why the State should have any say in who wants to marry whom, is, I think, a very timely question for us now
The government doesn’t deserve revenue from marriage in the first place.
How was marriage handled when the constitution was first ratified?
Me thinks the state or states were not involved in it....
Actually that would be the Declaration of Independence.
civil marriage has been the bedrock of civilisation for thousands of years, so obviously its got to go.. lol
Don't look at this in terms of "divesting the States of marriage law" - look at it in terms of a state saying it will not allow the Supreme Court to infringe on states rights.
In the 1850's you didn't have income tax, HIPPA, Social Security, and the myriad of other agencies and organizations that need proof you're married.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.