Liberty Sanders
Master
There's nothing common sense about this. The decision is a train wreck and can't stand.
There's nothing common sense about this. The decision is a train wreck and can't stand.
Corollary: No constitutional right to marriage at all.
Get. Government. Out. Of. Marriage. Period
To do this would mean that every husband and wife would have to get several legal document drawn up by an attorney, at considerable cost, to give the same protection that state recognized marriage already grants. I don't know about you, but I don't want that.
To me we have two separate issues. Church recognized marriage and state recognized marriage.
I understand why some people would object to the former for religious reasons but the latter is just an implied contract between two people that the state recognizes.
To me the better answer is to get religion out of government. I seem to remember something from history class that makes me think the term "separation of church and state" had a significant role in our founding.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
You went to a public school, didn't you?
Here is the first amendment. That oft-mis-interpretation is associated with this amendment. Please tell me how what you wrote is contained in the text of this amendment.
We really should start suing schools for malpractice.
Nope. Government got involved at the behest of the churches hundreds of years ago in Europe. It was a way of the churches consolidating their power over the people and their institutions. Marriage wasn't always a church thing. Quite often it was just two people and their families saying, "Yep, they're married now". The churches wanted in on that action and got the governments to recognise and create a monopoly for them, under their rules. The colonies adopted those self same rules (since the churches were all European). Rules against marrying cousins had nothing to do with it and are actually quite new, as cousins had been marrying very frequently in the near past to keep property within families. Government has been at this for ages and they aren't likely to be going anywhere anytime soon.What ever happened to the church marriage?
Didn't the government just get involved to make sure we weren't humping our cousins by doing some blood work?
Let's face it, it started with a commitment with each other and a contract with God. When did it become such a Government run industry?
Not trying to get into a philosophical war here, just curious on when and why the gov got into it in the first place. Cause I don't know.
(I spelled philosophical correctly)
You want common sense? Mandatory divorce for everyone!!!
I'm sure that there are many other things that the government should be worrying about. Who can and can't marry shouldn't be something that tax dollars are wasted on.
While I think I understand the various arguments calling for "getting the State out of marriage," what are laws but the code of cultural mores? For those wishing to "get religion out of government", what are you going to do about "Thou Shalt Not Steal" or "Thou Shalt Not Murder?" The Ten Commandments embodied in Judeo-Christian society upon which our laws were based was the basis for much of our current body of law. Shall we jettison it because it's "religious" in nature - as if such were inherently wrongful instead of time-tested rules for a society of fallible humans.
Societal mores are currently changing under a barrage of leftist propaganda, but I suspect the pendulum will swing back the other way presently, hopefully before we have a chance to test the morality of polyamory and polyandry, bestiality, and pederasty in our courts, testing the specious "logic" being used to justify overturning thousands of years of marriage being understood to be between men and women, rather than men/men/women/women.
Laws have changed and adapted as human morality has adapted and evolved over the years. And wasnt the bestiality argument raised when interracial marriage was made legal? No one group has ever had a monopoly on morality.
Code of Ur-Nammu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (just as a reference)
Well, not really so. With marriage seems to come special benefits. Social Security, pension benefits and so on. All kinds of things the government has it's finger in.