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."
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.
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
How was marriage handled when the constitution was first ratified?
Me thinks the state or states were not involved in it....
Quite an inspired option IMO.
Get rid of marriage on tax forms, and just make everyone file as an individual.
Also, make everyone get their own health insurance instead of being on their spouse’s policy.
The state and church marriage in Mexico is that way...both are separate.
great this idea has been banging around on FR. me included.
Here’s an idea: Regulate gay marriage like other states regulate the right to keep and bear arms.
Institute:
Waiting periods.
Mandatory training and permitting.
Random inspections by authorities.
Mandatory liability insurance.
Mandatory health screenings and blood testing for diseases (a la Califonia’s ‘product testing’ for firearms).
Onerous security requirements (’safe storage or arsenal requirements’).
Maximum sex quotas - a la magazine capacity limits.
And many many more.
Top it all off with refusal to honor gay marriage licenses from other states unless they honor that state’s CHL like the person was at home. This is long established precedent that states do NOT have to honor other states’ licenses, the one that allows MA and CA to tell tourists to leave their protection at home.
Make it a ‘Full Faith And Credit’ clause issue. This might actually lock up the judicial system with the paradox. Make the Left have to choose between promoting gay rights and suppressing gun rights.
there is alink at that sight to florida doing something similar
http://www.newsweek.com/florida-county-courts-go-rogue-refuse-marry-anyone-avoid-same-sex-weddings-296300
Yes, straight people need to be reminded that mentally ill pervs took their sacred ceremony away from them. It will remind them to be extra sweet to homo fascists from now on.
Marriage is not a religious institution. It is a natural human activity, codified by the state into an implicit contract. The state has delegated authority over the ceremony to religious institutions, but keeps control over the conditions for marriage, its recognition and registration. The state has no escape in this matter.
However, no state or federal government has the right to force a religious institution to perform a ceremony for people who the religious institution doesn’t approve of. You can be sure, however, that they will try.
I wonder if the Mississippi lawmakers have a financial interest in the destination wedding business.
In the beginning, there was no government licensing of marriage.The couple should draw up a contract for the distribution of property, much as you do for a will.
There is no current advantage of filing a joint income tax return if you file the standard form, so there is no advantage in having the government collect a fee for a marriage license. The less interaction you have with government, the better.
Do it. And further declare only those new marriages sanctioned by entities other than Mississippi would be recognized in the future. Then add that entities under consideration for the job included countries that will not allow gay marriages (if those countries would like to have the job), the Vatican, even corporations, etc... Sort of like farming out prison contracts to the private sector.
It is a good idea.
Good! As far as I know history, there weren’t marriage licenses when this country was founded; there weren’t employer mandated spousal benefits; there wasn’t a monetary incentive to get married. That is what drove homosexuals to demand marriage, the monetary and medical benefits to spouses.
This is the way the Catholic Church in the United States will go which was predicted more than a year ago.Jesus is Lord.
No state marriage license. Do the deed, get a paper signed and witnessed and then get it recorded by the state easy peasy.