Is Marriage the Government's Business?

Rule # 1 of Tort litigation....ALWAYS sue the "deep pocket"!!!



I'm sorry but to argue that the FEDERAL constitution requires a question of individual (or couples) liberties to be left up to the states is fallacious at best...ludicrous at worst.

The "full faith & credit clause" (Article 4, Section 1) of the FEDERAL constitution addresses the duties that states within the United States have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings" of other states. It has already been found to preclude individual states from passing laws against interracial marriage or refusing to acknowledge interracial marriages recognized in other states. To date, there has been no SC case to test whether it applies to gay marriages. In 2007, a federal appeals court did rule that FF&C required OK to recognize same-sex adoptions finalized in other states.

Individual rights are afforded American citizens by the FEDERAL constitution & the original amendments thereto. Additional amendments to the FEDERAL Constitution after the Civil War have precluded individual states from attempting to circumvent those protections.

Believe whatever you wish but so long as marriage affords rights, benefits & protections to some American couples that other American couples can't partake of then the FF&C clause - along with the due process amendments - SHOULD trump the tenth amendment. Clearly, not the case in the RW. But, if we're speaking hypothetically then why not speak correctly???

What kind of fucked up country insists that folks surrender liberties if they wish to move from one part of the country to another?

Oh yeah...that's right...this one!! Originally Posted by Sisyphus

Reading Comprehension 102. You missed the point of my response and the topic of the thread. First, it's not the federal govts business. Since you brought the US Constitution I'll spare you the reprint of the 17 enumerated powers given to the Congress. Which makes it a states rights issue. Number 2 "Who the hell is a single judge to overturn the will of the people?" Maybe you should reread the 9th and 10th ammendments. You can't have it both ways, either you agree with the rule of law and the US Constitution or you don't.

I've bolded my paraphrased comment just in case you miss it again. I personally could care less what g&l people do, it doesn't affect me iota. Marriage to me is a word and civil union is semantics, imho.

Since you brought the US Constitution I'll spare you the reprint of the 17 enumerated powers given to the Congress . . . Number 2 "Who the hell is a single judge to overturn the will of the people?" Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

Yeah dude!

Didn't you know that you're supposed to stop reading the Constitution at the end of Article 1 and completely ignore the powers given the judiciary in Article 3?

Come on Sysyphus. Get with the program. Actually reading the entire Constitution instead of just the parts you like is gonna ruin the whole country!!!!

Cheers,
Mazo.

Reading Comprehension 102. You missed the point of my response and the topic of the thread. First, it's not the federal govts business. Since you brought the US Constitution I'll spare you the reprint of the 17 enumerated powers given to the Congress. Which makes it a states rights issue. Number 2 "Who the hell is a single judge to overturn the will of the people?" Maybe you should reread the 9th and 10th ammendments. You can't have it both ways, either you agree with the rule of law and the US Constitution or you don't.

I've bolded my paraphrased comment just in case you miss it again. I personally could care less what g&l people do, it doesn't affect me iota. Marriage to me is a word and civil union is semantics, imho. Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

I understand the topic of the thread just fine, thank you. You have no point...at least not one that makes the slightest bit of sense.

Mezo does a decent job of addressing the role of the judiciary so let's press on....

It it ABSOLUTELY the business of the federal government to ensure that individual liberties (that includes the rights of married couples - be they hetero or homo) of American citizens are uniformly understood & protected throughout the country. It's NOT...repeat NOT....a 9th or 10th amendment issue. It's an equal protection of the laws issue.

(Grammer 102) I could NOT care any less that I already do about what g&l people do. I care deeply that they have the right to be as miserable in their committed relationships as everybody else. If they're any less free than I am based only upon the state in which they happen to reside, then I'm not really free & neither are you. Whether you realize that or not.

Yeah dude!

Didn't you know that you're supposed to stop reading the Constitution at the end of Article 1 and completely ignore the powers given the judiciary in Article 3?

Come on Sysyphus. Get with the program. Actually reading the entire Constitution instead of just the parts you like is gonna ruin the whole country!!!!

Cheers,
Mazo. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

Whadda ya gonna do, Mazo?? If all you have is a hammer, then all the world is a nail....

Reading Comprehension 102. You missed the point of my response and the topic of the thread. First, it's not the federal govts business. Since you brought the US Constitution I'll spare you the reprint of the 17 enumerated powers given to the Congress. Which makes it a states rights issue. Number 2 "Who the hell is a single judge to overturn the will of the people?" Maybe you should reread the 9th and 10th ammendments. You can't have it both ways, either you agree with the rule of law and the US Constitution or you don't.

I've bolded my paraphrased comment just in case you miss it again. I personally could care less what g&l people do, it doesn't affect me iota. Marriage to me is a word and civil union is semantics, imho. Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

Did they take the Equal Protection Clause out of your copy of the Constitution?

And if the people vote to outlaw the free exercise of religion, or freedom of speech, it is the duty of not only a single judge, but every single judge to overturn that will.

Rights need no protections against the will of minorities, only from the will of majorities. That the entire fucking point.

Rights need no protections against the will of minorities, only from the will of majorities. That the entire fucking point. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Tell that to the majority that just got Obamacare forced down their throat.

A tricky question. As a lot of the other posters have talked about, the State (or Society if you will), does have a vested interest in the character of marriage. This is because, in large part, some form of marriage is an fundamental part of almost all societies. Even in Classical Greece, where homosexuality was not only tolerated but even encouraged (e.g, the Theban Sacred Band of warriors), marriage between a man and a woman was still a major facet of society. Even today, the concept of marriage is still tightly woven into much of our society, legally and morally. For example, in regard to the partner, a spouse has many rights that a 'significant other' does not, and the legal and financial systems are frequently biased that way. Since many people, both heterosexual and gay, embrace the 'marriage' concept, there's no real need to completely rip out the current system.

However, what we need to do is separate the legal aspects of 'marriage' from the moral or religious aspects. As it is structured right now, with the on-going debate about 'legal' gay marriage, the State is enforcing the moral and religious codes and mores of a limited number of people, with in some cases ordained clergymen acting as agents of the government. In essence, the State is forcing people to conform to someone else's concept of what is 'moral' and what 'marriage' is. (And, if some people get their way, a lot of other things, too, but we won't go there right now.)

One solution to get the State out of the morality business, while keeping in mind that marriage is an integral part of society, would be to adopt a modification of the system of civil and religious marriage used in Europe. In this system, if two people want to get married, as long as they meet basic requirements (i.e., age, competence), the government marries them in a civil ceremony performed by a public official. Doesn't matter if they're gay, heterosexual, whatever. They then have the same rights as all other married couples. No exceptions. Then, if they feel the need to have a religious ceremony or blessing -- that's between them and whatever religion is involved.

This way there's not the turmoil about 'civil unions' vs. 'marriage', and rights, etc. Everyone, as far as the state is concerned, is legally married, with the same status. The various religions can then sort it out as they please, either condemning the transgressors to hell fire or blessing the union.

DaveC

'Heaven runs on morality. The world runs on oil.' -- Winston Churchill

Tell that to the majority that just got Obamacare forced down their throat. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Last time I checked the 219 House members who voted for the bill were elected by a majority of American voters.

The 60 Senators who voted for the bill were elected by a majority of American voters.

The President who signed the bill into law was elected by a majority of American voters.

I'm struggling here to see how your concept of democratic government doesn't include having the majority decide what laws to enact - unless, of course, YOU happen to be in that majority.

Cheers,
Mazo.

Something I forgot to mention in my previous post (sorry, I got distracted in the middle of writing), is that there also should be a form of 'civil union' for people who don't want to be 'married', but want some type of legal relationship. This union would be a form of contract to establish a legal bond between the pair, provide legal rights (e.g., insurance coverage, rights to have a say in medical treatment of the partner, etc.), and provisions for children. A framework so people could live together without major hassles. It would also be much easier to dissolve than a marriage (civil or religious).

They're trying this in Sweden, and by accounts it's working pretty well.

Curiously enough, in Shiite areas, particularly Iran, there is a form of trial or temporary marriage that only lasts for a specified time (usually a year).

DaveC

Last time I checked the 219 House members who voted for the bill were elected by a majority of American voters.

The 60 Senators who voted for the bill were elected by a majority of American voters.

The President who signed the bill into law was elected by a majority of American voters.

I'm struggling here to see how your concept of democratic government doesn't include having the majority decide what laws to enact - unless, of course, YOU happen to be in that majority.

Cheers,
Mazo. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

I realize you're trying to be nimble here...and you're fairly adept. But his comment that I quoted said nothing about democratic government concepts. It talked about the majority not needing protection from the minority.

C'mon...it's a Saturday. You can be more clever than that.

C'mon...it's a Saturday. You can be more clever than that. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Yeah, but how clever I am on Saturday depends a lot on what I was doin' Friday night.

In the present case . . . well . . . let's just say that what happens in Bloomington, Illinois stays in Bloomington, Illinois.

I'll try to rest up and be more creative tomorrow.

Cheers,
Mazo.

Something I forgot to mention in my previous post (sorry, I got distracted in the middle of writing), is that there also should be a form of 'civil union' for people who don't want to be 'married', but want some type of legal relationship. This union would be a form of contract to establish a legal bond between the pair, provide legal rights (e.g., insurance coverage, rights to have a say in medical treatment of the partner, etc.), and provisions for children. A framework so people could live together without major hassles. It would also be much easier to dissolve than a marriage (civil or religious). Originally Posted by davec.0121

Simple fix. Congress passes the following law (assuming for the sake of argument they have the constitutional authority).

1) All current references in federal, state or municipal law to marriage or the state of being married shall be replaced by the appropriate derivative of the words "civil union"

2) Any lawful marriage that has been performed prior to this date shall be deemed a lawful civil union.

3) Henceforth, governmental bodies shall only be responsible for regulating civil unions. Marriages shall be recognized as a religious service subject to the rules and customs of the various religions.

Gay men/men or women/women are allowed civil unions just like men/women. No further problems. The baptists can keep the "sanctity of marriage".

Yeah, but how clever I am on Saturday depends a lot on what I was doin' Friday night.

In the present case . . . well . . . let's just say that what happens in Bloomington, Illinois stays in Bloomington, Illinois.

I'll try to rest up and be more creative tomorrow.

Cheers,
Mazo. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

Well, then here is to hoping your Sunday leaves you befuddled from a smok'n Saturday night.

Did they take the Equal Protection Clause out of your copy of the Constitution?

And if the people vote to outlaw the free exercise of religion, or freedom of speech, it is the duty of not only a single judge, but every single judge to overturn that will.

Rights need no protections against the will of minorities, only from the will of majorities. That the entire fucking point. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Come on councelor, you are still ignoring the 17 enumerated powers and the 9th and 10th amendments. At what point does the minorities trampling of the majorities rights take precedence over individual liberty. You forgot a major portion of the first amendment also, "Congress shall make no law..." Rights are NOT granted through govt. They are granted by our creator and congress shall make no law abridging those unalienable rights, which is something they have been doing for a while to include pieces-of-shyte legislation like the patriot act.

IMO equal protection means that IF CA allowed g&l marriage/civil unions that the couple couldn't be discriminated against for insurance, or other rights afforded to a traditional couple. IF insurance was portable this wouldn't be an issue in other states if the couple moved out of the state they were "joined."

If you liberal/democrats were so big on individual liberties, why hasn't the woman's freedom of choice to become a p4p sex worker been a top issue? Your argument for individual liberty doesn't hold water, when you attack the rights of an individual in the majority.

Simple fix. Congress passes the following law (assuming for the sake of argument they have the constitutional authority).

1) All current references in federal, state or municipal law to marriage or the state of being married shall be replaced by the appropriate derivative of the words "civil union"

2) Any lawful marriage that has been performed prior to this date shall be deemed a lawful civil union.

3) Henceforth, governmental bodies shall only be responsible for regulating civil unions. Marriages shall be recognized as a religious service subject to the rules and customs of the various religions.

Gay men/men or women/women are allowed civil unions just like men/women. No further problems. The baptists can keep the "sanctity of marriage". Originally Posted by pjorourke

Works for me! Unfortunately...you haven't been paying attention, PJ.

That not being one of the enumerated powers...it's a violation of the ninth & tenth amendment. AND...you can't challenge it in the courts as such because who is some judge to overturn the will of the people!!!!

Tell that to the majority that just got Obamacare forced down their throat. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

A plurality supported it and a majority supported it or something stronger. See the most recent Robert Wood Johnson/Stanford University poll. It showed that 40% of Americans wanted health care reform to go further. Only 20% want government out of health care.

So all the fuck ups and hot heads showing up at the Tea Nut rallies get all the attention while those of us what wanted at least an employer mandate, or better yet single payer, are ignored by the right wing corporate media (who of course don't want an employer mandate).