Posted on 06/28/2015 10:08:50 PM PDT by z taxman
...The Constitution is silent on the question of marriage because marriage has always been a local issue. Our founding fathers went to the local courthouse to be married, not to Washington, D.C.
I’ve often said I don’t want my guns or my marriage registered in Washington.
Those who disagree with the recent Supreme Court ruling argue that the court should not overturn the will of legislative majorities. Those who favor the Supreme Court ruling argue that the 14th Amendment protects rights from legislative majorities.
Do consenting adults have a right to contract with other consenting adults? Supporters of the Supreme Court’s decision argue yes but they argue no when it comes to economic liberties, like contracts regarding wages.
It seems some rights are more equal than others.
...
I acknowledge the right to contract in all economic and personal spheres, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a danger that a government that involves itself in every nook and cranny of our lives won’t now enforce definitions that conflict with sincerely felt religious convictions of others.
Some have argued that the Supreme Court’s ruling will now involve the police power ofthe state in churches, church schools, church hospitals.
This may well become the nextstep, and I for one will stand ready toresist any intrusion of government into the religious sphere.
Justice Clarence Thomas is correct in his dissent when hesays: “In the American legal tradition, liberty has long been understood as individual freedom from governmental action, not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement.”
The government shouldn't prevent people from making contracts but that does not mean that the government must confer a special imprimatur upon a new definition ofmarriage.
Perhaps the time has come to examine whether or not governmental recognition of marriage is a good idea, for eitherparty.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
Hmm, many opinions but only a few hit the key items.
Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman with the intended purpose of raising a family. That makes it decidedly important to any society that has any interest in its future and it is why every society has laws concerning the marriage contract. The religious side of marriage sanctifies that relationship making God the Lord of the family and seeks God’s blessing to improve its chances for success.
It serves no interest of the state or church to sanction relationships based on perverse sexual relationships that have no purpose but sexual satisfaction. The distinction between love and lust and how it is arranged between consenting adults is no business of the state. It is not worthy of any protection, recognition or reward since it contributes nothing to society.
The key point however is that no one appointed the Supreme Court pope, minister, rabbi or any other form of moral authority. The court has it backwards. They have already done enough damage giving state approval to murder innocent children. Why would anyone be surprised that they would mandate that government recognize a perverse lifestyle. We have been put on notice for many years that the court will interpret our laws consistent with the moral beliefs the court dictates.
We say it is wrong to kill an unborn child and the court says it is not. If anyone thinks the court is not dictating morality, keep that in mind. Marriage should be what we (society) say it is, not five warped minds in black robes.
>> Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman with the intended purpose of raising a family.
That is the former definition of marriage. But recently, the legal definition of marriage has been trivialized to serve the interests of homosexuality and those looking to harm liberty and Christianity.
So many facets of society will now be adversely impacted by the govt effectively sanctioning sodomy. Children will be the Left’s primary target in this regard.
The fact that marriage falls under the purview of government gives authorities like scouts the ability to play social engineers. Marriages ought to be performed by churches and civil unions ought to be the secular, governmental, corresponding feature to it. All ought to be allowed to receive union but not so with religious marriage.
Actually it’s liberty.
I was thinking that perhaps getting the State out of the marriage business was something to look at as well but after reading some of the conversations here on FR I learned that marriage as a legal contract has a long history.
There are legal aspects to marriage that protect children and provide for their support when the marriage falls apart, division of property, inheritance and estates,support of the spouse etc. Christian religions usually assume that the marriage is for life but we all know that not all marriages last. There has to be some protection in place for children that can be legally enforced.
I don’t want to see a “work-around”. I’d like to see a reversal. I have no answers right now. Hopefully someone a lot smarter than me will come up with some good ideas.
I have to disagree with you. Societies chose to protect and promote that which is beneficial to the society and rightfully so. Every law is in some form or another “social engineering” and unavoidable. We try to engineer our society to meet our moral standard of justice, and that includes any consequences of marriage or is dissolution.
As for “civil unions,” these promise no benefit to society and deserve no special consideration. Nothing is stopping anyone from contracting to live with one or more people. It isn’t a marriage and it deserves consideration than a contract to rent an apartment.
The issue however, which we must not lose sight of, is the usurpation of power by the Supreme Court. You have fallen for the distraction, arguing marriage versus contracts which is exactly what the philosopher king criminals want you to do. It spares them from a mob with tar, feathers, rails and ropes.
The governments job is to provide infrastructure and defense and that’s it. It’s societies obligation to shape society. Let’s leave the state out of it.
The Pilgrims onsidered marriage a civil affair to be handled by the State, not a religious sacrament. A contract. I’m not sure when marriage became a “religious institution” in America.
What a mess we’re in.
The governments job is to pass and enforce laws we deem to be just and in our particular case, within the scope of powers we have granted government at various levels. I expect my state and municipality to pass traffic laws but not to build nuclear subs. I expect the fed to stay within its enumerated powers and not redefine marriage because they want to. I expect the state to pass laws concerning marriage, children and divorce and not the fed.
I also expect our laws to discourage bad behavior, encourage good behavior and remain neutral when good and bad are not so clear cut and largely benign. Marriage is not a benign institution and critical to the survival of society - unless you want the state raising children and commanding their production. I know you don’t but the left does, at for those they consider their inferiors.
Marx and Engels applaud.
An important part of their original utopian vision.
Dear lord, the reason why marriage is being redefined in the first place is because government has the secular authority to do so... It needs to be taken away
Having states get out of the “marriage” license business may prove to be the best alternative in the long run. In the short term, though I’m not wild about it. Here’s why: if we’re conservatives, we should be skeptical of government solutions regardless, especially when personally implementable strategies exist.
Let me explain: there is no legal requirement for anyone who doesn’t want a “marriage” license to buy one. There is also no legal requirement for churches to solemnize state “marriage” licenses. There is a ready solution to this problem already at hand if we only decide to pursue it. Just don’t participate in the licensing scheme.
We shouldn’t expect government to come swooping in to correct problems that we ourselves are capable of dealing with. How is that different from what liberals do?
In the long run, I predict that the judicial excesses of the last week are going to come back and bite the left. Hard. I’m content to let them smother on their own petard.
I agree with what you say about not participating in government schemes when you don’t have to but a marriage license, though not required by law is a contract with a great deal of case law behind it. A shack-up marriage is fine if you don’t plan to have children and you have a contract that settles property issues. Of course, it is also unstable since anyone can opt out any time they please.
On the other hand, a marriage contract protects both spouses, children and estates. I am certain people could write their own, but why bother when you already have a well known body of law.
BTW, I am the victim of a no-fault divorce. You have no idea how important that marriage contract is until you marry and divorce a bitch.
For others, they could have a notarized copy of the marriage contract deposited with the appropriate agency, covering whatever issues the two parties wish to cover, attesting to the natural issue of children that might result, and so forth. That would serve as legal proof that a marriage took place. Then of course there are civil unions, which could be modified so as to be recognized without the marriage license, but simply have a record of the marriage noted for legal purposes.
Doing this would remove the impression that the state, by issuing a marriage license, attaches its imprimatur to the pairing. The state still serves a recording and archival role in terms of the legal implications of the union, but its role is confined to that, basically being an observer of record and guardian of documents required for the legal processes involved.
The question of stability of the family unit is a valid one and I am not sure that would be adequately addressed by these suggestions. But it seems that wall has been breached already by this decision, and the flood has been unleashed for any number of future cases covering other (formerly) taboo parings, as other threads have discussed.
Note to rand Paul: Too late for what you want. Government controls EVERYTHING.
Conservativegranny said upthread:
“...There are legal aspects to marriage that protect children and provide for their support when the marriage falls apart,division of property, inheritance and estates,support of the spouse etc. ...”
To preface my point below: I do —NOT— support what the court just did, or gay “marriage”.
I posit that the supreme court didn’t have to hear this case ( and by so doing, and ruling, shred the constitution.)
Prenup contracts, divorce agreements, trusts, POD/TOD/beneficiary designations, medical POA, financial POA, ‘personal’ POA, would cover what conservativegranny mentioned.
Govt’s role - at the county/state level would be to keep records, like conservativegranny mentioned...
I would add that the county clerks office would have information packets about where to go for drawing up legal documents to cover prenups, etc.
Again, the SCOTUS could’ve said “we aren’t hearing this one; its up to the states”.
Adding on to my previous post:
Regarding what the SCOTUS just did..
I don’t want five unelected, appointed-for-life judges (two of which should’ve refused themselves) telling the people what marriage is, when the people in 38 states overwhelmingly voted for traditional definition of marriage.
What the SCOTUS just did amounts to total usurpation and destruction of inalienable God-given rights set forth in the constitution and bill of rights.
We are governed by God, not by five.
That is exactly right! With four solid elitists on the court and two wishy washies the court will stick its nose wherever it can. Until the court is fixed by impeachments and idiot Senators stop rubberstamping elitist nominees, the problem of lawlessness will remain.
Republicans dodging the issue, brewing fake secondary concerns and cowardly workarounds just invite further mischief and become unwitting accomplices in the court's usurpations.
There is no cure for an outlaw court. It must be confronted by any means possible.
I know people will say, well, there are a lot of things that are not mentioned by name or explicitly in the Constitution, but that is why we have representative government to work through those issues. And very often those are state and local agencies, staffed by officials elected or otherwise answerable to the people.
Bull cheese. Surrendering is exactly what the queers want.
Rand Paul. Typical libertarian loser.
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.