Gay, Racist, Secregationist Rednecks?

cmr ^ | May 7, 2010 | matthew archbold

[NYer]

Ping!

[GeronL]

lol

[Repeat Offender]

This is why everyone should be treated equally under the law regardless of marital status (taxes, SS etc). And why the state has no business with marriage. Marriage is a religious institution.

[Bernard]

Heterosexual marriage laws exist because in traditional society, there is a compelling national interest in providing protected status to a stay-at-home spouse (June Cleaver) in the event of a tradegy involving the breadwinner. At the same time, there is no compelling national interest in providing the same protection to an unemployed homosexual bus boy whose lover dies of AIDS.

Stereotypes? Sure, but they explain why marriage in the mainstream should be protected, while "marriage" among the fringers is just another form of tax evasion and entitlement.

[Durus]

There is no enumerated constitutional power to regulate marriage. If there were an enumerated power to regulate marriage this current administration is more likely to ban heterosexual marriage then homosexual marriage. Be careful of what powers you want government to have.

[GraceG]

“This is why everyone should be treated equally under the law regardless of marital status (taxes, SS etc). And why the state has no business with marriage. Marriage is a religious institution. “

Amen to that, We shouldn’t promote or demote single/married life by the Government. To do so is (in the words of the ACLU “Forcing someone” to do something).

The ACLU whined about a government program a while back that would pay welfare mothers with multiple kids to get their tubes tied voluntarily. They claimed it was “forcing them” to get sterilized. What about government progranms “forcing” people to get married for tax benefits or to stay single for other benfits? The ACLU is silent on that.

[wagglebee]

Homosexual Agenda Ping

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.

Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.

Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.

[BenKenobi]

Actually, Reynolds says just the opposite. Marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in most civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law. Upon it society may be said to be built, and out of its fruits spring social relations and social obligations and duties, with which government is necessarily required to deal. In fact, according as monogamous or polygamous marriages are allowed, do we find the principles on which the government of the people, to a greater or less extent, rests. An exceptional colony of polygamists under an exceptional leadership may sometimes exist for a time without appearing to disturb the social condition of the people who surround it; but there cannot be a doubt that, unless restricted by some form of constitution, it is within the legitimate scope of the power of every civil government to determine whether polygamy or monogamy shall be the law of social life under its dominion. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/reynoldsvus.html

[ExpatGator]

Zackly!

[Durus]

A decision by the Supreme court does not in any way change the constitution, change the concept of the constitution, nor does it give government any additional enumerated powers. This part of your quote in particular notes this. "but there cannot be a doubt that, unless restricted by some form of constitution,..." Our constitution limits the just power of government to those powers specifically enumerated and regulating marriage is not an enumerated power.

[BenKenobi]

Reynolds argues that the tradition within American and British jurisprudence (ie, the civil law), has always assumed federal regulation of marriage wrt to the question of polygamy. This is why they argue that the second marriage has never been recognised in any American jurisprudence.

If in fact the states can determine what constitutes marriage (as opposed to the paramaters of marriage), ie permitting men and men to marry vs permitting 16 year olds to marry, then there is nothing stopping Utah from permitting polygamy.

Reynolds argues that the state has a legitimate power to regulate the constitution of marriage (ie, one man and one woman). All the precedents bear this out. This has to do with the citizenship rules too. If America has granted citizenship to those who marry American citizens, then this control cannot be given to the states.

[Onelifetogive]

Secregationist

Separating secretaries from everyone else is an abhorrent practice!

[Durus]

I know what Reynolds argues but it flies in the face of the entire concept of a constitutional republic and of a government of enumerated powers. Powers are either enumerated or they don't exist, that is the intentional way our government was created. If you wish government to regulate marriage then a constitutional amendment would be required.

[BenKenobi]

The problem is that it’s always been interpreted as an enumerated power of the federal government to regulate marriage in this fashion.

The question is where. It’s never been interpreted as a state’s right, and Reynolds reaffirms this argument.

I don’t see ‘judicial activism’ as a part of Reynolds, as it seems it was consistantly interpreted and enforced this way by the federal government. Now, the question as to whether it’s an enumerated power or not is a good one. I’d like to ask Justice Thomas more about this question, because I’m not a lawyer.

[little jeremiah]

There is no enumerated constitutional power to regulate sodomy either, but the stupid SCOTUS forced every state to decriminalize with Lawrence vs TX.

The fedgov is so far beyond what it is constitutionally allowed that it needs a redo. Restart, something. It’s already about 90% too much.

[NYer]

Heterosexual marriage laws exist because in traditional society, there is a compelling national interest in providing protected status to a stay-at-home spouse (June Cleaver) in the event of a tradegy involving the breadwinner.

Actually, heterosexual marriage laws exist to ensure population. It still takes a man and a woman to reproduce.

[Durus]

Agreed. They needs to add usurpation of constitutional powers to the definition of treason.

[Durus]

Enumerated means that it’s defined clearly in the constitution. You don’t need to be a lawyer to see if there is or is not an enumerated power.

[BenKenobi]

Is there any precedent for states permitting polygamy?