Posted on 10/05/2020 4:59:24 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
If “full faith and credit” applies universally, then a gun permitted in one state should be permitted in every other state.
It looks to me that heterosexual marriage is poised to collapse. The young feel it’s too much of a hassle, can cause poverty iit ends in divorce and really women and men just aren’t what they used to be by design. We’re staring at the end of civilization, imho.
And soon we hope to hear, “And, heeeeere’s Amy!”.
She can help fix a number of bad precedents.
I think all of the Obergefell decision was wrong.
I think the only same-sex “marriage” ruling that could be Constitutional, to my mind, would have been that if a state decides to have a “same-sex” marriage law that would not offend the U.S. Constitution, but nothing in the Constitution demands that all states have such a law. My objection to Obergefell is broader than just matters of religious liberty.
As far as states having a same-sex “marriage law”, I have always thought that in comparison to preexisting states’ Civil Partnership laws (California and New Jersey for example), it was unnecessary to change the definition of marriage just to provide the legal protections for Civil Partners in their shared personal and financial matters.
No. The “marriage” matter was not about such legal matters. It was done to SOCIALLY enforce the acceptance of “same sex marriage” and intrude that social matter into a legal enforcement.
That legal matter is not the only legal matter where the Left has, virtually, forced the term “same” to replace what had previously accepted and acceptable as “equal”. This is social change enforced by government fiat, not by any natural, historical, dynamic process of freely chosen associations of the people. It is part of the Marxist agenda of destroying western culture.
Don’t be so sure. The overarching trajectory is toward oblivion in this modern society. Some day, if not today, the Dems will again win back full power in government. And when they do, they’ll be much worse, even, than that are today. When that happens, they’ll be every more openly hostile toward those who hold Christianity sacred, and they won’t hesitate to use government power to express their acrid contempt.
It will take much more than rescinding Obergefell, which was just the final blow in a long, sustained attack in destroying marriage. Before that, Windsor will need to be dealt with, and then Lawrence which made the modern homo-Nazis march possible. Then before that Romer would need to be reversed, allowing states and cities to prohibit “anti-discrimination laws” against homosexuals and other perverts. Then Griswold would have to be dealt with, the case which effectively severed the link between sex and procreation.
Yes I should have said the only thing that stops it now will be seating Barrett. As soon as the rats get the Senate and POTUS it’s over.
Yours is a faulty argument. The ONLY part the government has in marriage is legally recording them and maintaining these records against contestors to the fact. There are no qualifications for marriage other than those broadly recognized by society (no concurrent marriages, no close relatives, etc.), no “competency tests,” no required way to conduct them, no periodic renewal of the license. The government is not “in the marriage business.” It’s in the recording business. The government RECOGNIZES marriages, as it must. And what it recognizes, it must define.
Contestations to marriages are bound to arise (divorce, inheritance disputes, etc.), and when they do, someone will have to officiate these disputes. That someone is always a COURT, and courts are organs of government. Try ignoring a court order to find out.
And no, marriage is not simply a contract, although it may involve a contract. Contracts only impinge upon the parties which voluntarily consent to enter into them, and no one else. Marriage doesn’t meet this definition. Others outside of the contract must act in certain ways toward them (employers offering insurance, memberships in certain clubs, etc.) That does not describe a contract.
I don’t come to this conclusion on my own, this was the conclusion of Robert Bork in his excellent book Slouching towards Gomorrah.
Exactly.
L
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.