United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Alabama Senate Votes to End State Marriage Licenses
Source:
FEE
URL Source: http://fee.org/anythingpeaceful/det ... to-end-state-marriage-licenses
Published: Jun 2, 2015
Author: Jeffery Tucker
Post Date: 2015-06-02 12:08:07 by cranko
Keywords: None
Views: 10812
Comments: 69
Why are there marriage “licenses” – a permission slip granted or denied by the state – rather than just contracts like any other? Why does government stand in the position to veto the choices of two people who want to commit to each other? These are questions that the Alabama Senate considered in May this year. The result was the passage of Senate Bill 377, supported by 22 senators and opposed by only 3. Under this legislation, licenses would no longer exist for marriage. Marriage would become a plain contract filed with the Probate offices. In effect, this would restore the traditional role of law in marriage as it has existed in most times and places, before the racially motivated and eugenically inspired idea of “marriage licenses” came along in the early part of the 20th century. Governments embraced them as part of a larger effort to stop race mixing and to reduce procreation among undesirables. They were later entrenched as a standard of proof for government benefits claimants. The conception of marriage as a legal contract, in contrast, exists as the private decision of the parties involved, along with a legal representative (and/or clergy) and witnesses. Just as anyone can make a contract for goods and services, marriage would become purely a matter of individual choice, not government decree. This step would go a long way toward ending the division and confusion over marriage that has taken over the state, pitting one group against another and leading to a tug-of-war between the federal government and a politically ambitious judge in the state who speaks for religious fundamentalists. It would bring about a nearly complete ceasefire in this front of the trumped-up culture war. Surprisingly, the moved has been welcomed by most, if only as an answer to the legal confusions that have come about from conflicting court orders. In January, a federal court ruled that Alabama must grant licenses to same- sex couples. In response, the fundamentalist state Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore (of the 10 Commandments Monument fame) issued a directive telling probate justices to ignore the rule. In March, the Supreme Court issued an edict stopping judges from issuing any licenses to same-sex couples. Moreover, following the Senate passage of this bill, a US District Court ordered the state to comply with federal mandates. As a result, no one knows for sure what to do, and thousands of same-sex couples, driven out of the state in order to marry, are unclear whether their unions are recognized by the state. How such a dramatic shift would affect the thousands of legal benefits and privileges afforded to those with licenses is unclear. Regardless, it will be worth the test because the current system is outdated, anachronistic, and deeply divisive. As long as government is the decision maker, the voting citizenry imagines itself to have a stake in the shape of decisions that should only involve those party to the exchange. It would also end the dispute over finding a legal definition of marriage that applies to all. Keep in mind that this is not only about same-sex couples. Many religious traditions have strict rules concerning what is and is not a valid marriage. The Catholic Church, for example, will not codify a second marriage if the first one remains not annulled by Church courts. Their conceptions are not the same as the states’. The search for a single definition for everyone, created and enforced by the state, is untenable, and threatens actual damage to the institution and to millions of people who, for whatever private reason, happen to disagree. The move from licenses to contracts would leave the terms and conditions entirely up to the couple. The civic order as such has no role whatsoever in intervening. What is driving this change? Some people speculate that conservative Alabama politicians and judges anticipate being forced by courts to accept same-sex marriage and want nothing to do with it. By getting rid of licenses completely, they remove their own moral (or electoral) culpability for legally approving something they find offensive. Perhaps that's right, but ulterior motives aside, it seems like a step in the right direction. To be sure, this is not a perfect solution. The best answer would leave marriage entirely up to private parties. In my own case, in 2014, I officiated at a wedding in which the couple filed their vows and promises on the Blockchain, a distributed ledger that provides an immutable record. Though it has no legal standing now, the couple was anticipating a time when marriage is completely taken out of the realm of public policy altogether. Nonetheless, the end of the license and its replacement with a plain contract would take us a long way in the direction of the goal: a complete wall of separation between the state and marriage. Otherwise, the culture war will continue without end, and everyone will lose.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-20) not displayed.
.
.
.
#21. To: Pericles, nolu chan, cranko (#20)
Are you also for removing tax benefits for dependent children? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Well yes. They are involved. In some cases rightfully so. How can a Christian stand by and watch our government allow innocent children getting slaughtered in the name of convenience when Christians have a right to vote and freedom of speech? Christians involved in social issues is a reactionary response to wholesale government endorsement of satanic practices and endorsements. The dews of grace fall heavily in the night of sorrow. The stars of promise shine forth gloriously amid the darkness of grief. Continue thy service under all changes. (C.H. Spurgeon)
If "fairness" and "equality" are the criteria, then ALL licensing should be eliminated. My point being, this is NOT about "fairness" and "equality".
I always thought it was to prevent Alabamans (and West Virginians) from marrying their twelve-year-old kissin' cousins... but I guess it shouldn't surprise me that the Tea Party wants to return to the traditional shotgun enforced marriage "contract" Some people march to a different drummer - and some people POLKA.
If you support fags pretending to be married. Then trying to force people to say they are married. People who support that need to have a baseball bat shoved up their ass. Large side.
Are you also for removing tax benefits for dependent children? I am playing at analyst - I don't see anyone removing tax benefits. It is interesting that the legal argument for gay marriage is based on tax benefits and pension/SS benefits/insurance benefits. In other words it is an economics issue. I recall about 8 years ago some conservatives coming out with the idea of social contract or whatever the term was for giving gays marriage in all but the name marriage and conservatives on forums HATED the idea because of ideology rather than smarts so the GOP did not push that - and social contracts would apply to brothers and sisters or freinds, etc who wished to gain benefits (in other words it would not be based on sexual acts but mutual support relationships - getting the gay out of it). But social conservatives are the stupidest of conservatives.
"In other words it is an economics issue." Nope. It's still only a "lifestyle acceptance" issue. Gay "marriage" has been legal over ten years now, and only about 2% of gays choose to get married. Given the weeping and gnashing of teeth by gays for legalization, you'd think that number would be more like 98%. Nope. Gays could give a FF about "marriage". First, limiting a homosexual to one partner is an anathema to the gay lifestyle. Second, it's merely a ploy to acceptance -- like gays in the military or gay Boy Scouts. They only want the right to sign up, not actually sign up.
Then it evolved to help prevent marrying cousins which was still prevalent at the time in the South, a prominent example being Pat Robertson whose parents were first cousins. I know there were a few other famous examples but can't recall them at the moment. Sickle cell anemia was not as well-known at the time nor was testing widely available. The blood testing was also used as cover for testing for venereal diseases and for rH blood factor in offspring. Nearly every state has abolished the blood test requirement. http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/blood_test_requirements/index.shtml Why the "Marriage Blood Test"? Some people believe that the premarital blood test is to check blood types to be sure you and your future spouse are biologically compatible. (So far, there is no test to determine whether you are otherwise compatible!) While checking the blood type may be helpful in the event of pregnancy — and it is routinely checked then in case a transfusion is needed and to check the Rh type — it is not part of the routine premarital blood test. It is perfectly safe and acceptable for a person of one blood type to marry another with the same or a different blood type. Another myth is that the required blood testing is to make sure you and your betrothed are not related. In fact, in most locations, the standard premarital blood tests check for evidence of syphilis (now or in the past) and rubella (German measles). Screening for other diseases in future newlyweds has in some cases included tuberculosis, gonorrhea, and HIV; of these, only HIV can be detected by blood tests. Only two states have passed legislation requiring HIV testing before marriage, but those laws did not last long at least in part because of very low detection rates.
Where the Hell have you been? lol
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
How about playing at answering the question. Are you also for removing tax benefits for dependent children? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Since you see everything as simply a matter of all opinions being equal, then you don't have a problem With marriage between hogs and humans, correct? And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver refined* in a furnace of clay, purified seven times. Psalm 12:6
Some people march to a different drummer - and some people POLKA.
Out of town for 10 days and away from the internet. I recommend it. Try it sometime.
Many of these are illusory or are subsidies for state-desired consumer behavior like buying houses. Yes, they should be abolished. After all, the more we have increased these subsidies to marriage, the more marriage has declined as a social institution so you can hardly argue that the benefits have done anything to stabilize and increase the numbers of married couples. Once you admit that the benefits do not aid in larger numbers of people marrying and avoiding divorce, the benefits are just another Big Gov giveaway for loathsome pols to buy votes with and to get donations from outfits like Home Depot and other lobbyists in the housing sector.
Are you also for removing tax benefits for dependent children?
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Certainly ....in conjunction with a flat tax where all subsidies and benefits are eliminated . I see a lot of merit in getting the State out of the marriage game. Their concern is with the contractual end of it .By licensing "marriage" they ventured into an area they don't belong ... the spiritual. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
No, the legal rulings were based on ss/tax/insuarance equality.
How about you suck a cow's teat?
Yes, they should be abolished. After all, the more we have increased these subsidies to marriage, the more marriage has declined as a social institution so you can hardly argue that the benefits have done anything to stabilize and increase the numbers of married couples. Once you admit that the benefits do not aid in larger numbers of people marrying and avoiding divorce, the benefits are just another Big Gov giveaway for loathsome pols to buy votes with and to get donations from outfits like Home Depot and other lobbyists in the housing sector. That is all true - but I don't see that happening. I would love to move onto a VAT or flat tax system of taxes or even a federal sales tax (it is not as bad as it sounds and would reward thrift) and no deductions allowed - churches and religions would then also be "taxed" that way. But good luck with that also.
Provide a list of these various tax benefits for dependent children and I will tell you which ones I would remove.
Out of town for 10 days and away from the internet. I recommend it. Try it sometime. I was away for over 3 years when Goldi put her foot across my ass. Welcome back. Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
No. You made a blanket statement of philosophy about eliminating tax benefits for marrieds, you should be able to do the same for dependent children. Try to find an adult to help you if you can't do that. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
I am observing that marriage, once a bedrock of America and Europe, is increasingly a failed institution and will become a minority over the next decade with most children born out of wedlock, up to 70%. I am not going to issue a list of state or federal benefits for dependent children. There are too many to count. No doubt, I would eliminate some, leaving it to the states to determine whether they want to foot the bill for a particular tax/benefit. I think the feds have way too much on their plate. They should concentrate on doing the things that only a federal government should do, not divide their attention on so many things that no government can do well. Congress is quite often the main problem when we see major problems with social welfare programs. They are the main obstacle to fixing anything and they are the only ones with the authority to curtail programs or return the programs to the states. Even the mild block granting programs that the last GOP congress instituted are not enough to address the problems created by one-size-fits-none federal programs. Most of these programs should be devolved to the states to continue them under sounder management or to phase them out. The big Department of Agriculture bills with their ridiculously corrupt food stamp and crop insurance elements are a fairly obvious example. Government has largely failed in this country, paralyzed by its sheer size and extremely bad management which apparently can't get fired, no matter how corrupt and ineffective they are.
But if no tax dollars are involved then it would only be an issue with child custodies - and again I must state I don't see anyone removing govt benefits to marriage. Theoretically, I don't see why the government couldn't have a law prohibiting polygamy while ceasing to issue marriage licenses. The state could still recognize marriage contracts. Perhaps those who seek to eliminate state marriage licenses will seek to legislate in some fashion to the effect that two people of the same sex could not create a valid marriage contract recognized by the state. A marriage contract between a brother and sister would not be recognized as valid. They may just shift their attack to contract law. It seems they likely have something in mind to make lawful same-sex marriage unattainable within the state. Common law marriage is recognized in 9 states and D.C. Common law gay marriage is recognized only in Rhode Island and D.C. Statutory recognition of gay marriage by a state does not create common law gay marriage within that state. Common law generally entails a man and a woman who live together for a certain time while publicly holding themselves out to be husband and wife. Rhode Island and D.C. created new law to hold that all gender terms regarding marriage be read as gender neutral or non-specific. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323455104579017193752342208 The full article relates the disputed will of a deceased gay man whose will did not include his partner. His partner seeks to have their long time relationship recognized as a common law marriage, entitling him to a spouse's share of the will, assuming he could establish entitlement to any share. Also here: http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/2013/08/29/homosexual-seeks-inheritance-common-law-marriage/ The government really has more important things to worry about than three people shacking up. If the federal debt keeps doubling every 4 to 6 years, somewhere in the future the dollar will lose so much value that all government benefits will disappear or be essentially worthless. Marriage benefits could be restricted to children born to two persons married to each other, or alternatively, born to two unmarried persons certified to be the biological parents. The current income tax could be replaced by a flat tax, sales tax, or VAT that does not provide for any deductions. No deductions or exemptions may be better than ten thousand pages of them.
If a state recognizes same-sex marriage, what would be the legitimate government interest in prohibiting brother-brother or sister-sister marriage? That should make for some future litigation.
Just as is the case with every developed and third wprld country on the planet. The Great Experiment has ended. It had a decent run that truly set the U.S. apart from any other significant society in recorded hostory but it has morphed into the same old same crap. I now firmly believe that this merely reflections the nature of the human condition where just about every noble intention or vision is defeated by greed, ego, jealousy, rationalized morality, etc. "I am not going to issue a list of state or federal benefits for dependent children. There are too many to count. No doubt, I would eliminate some, leaving it to the states to determine whether they want to foot the bill for a particular tax/benefit." You made the comment that tax benefits for marrieds have not had the intended outcome of promoting marriage in the society. I now make the observation that tax benefits for dependent children have not had the intended consequence of developing healhty, educated, productive, self-sufficient citizens. So if you want to do away with marriage tax benefits how do you justify keeping tax benefits for dependent children? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
I do not see it in the near term, but it is probably inevitable somewhere in the future. The federal government cannot spend more than it takes in eternally. Other nations have seen bail-ins and benefit reductions. Major U.S. cities have faced bankruptcy and the reduction or disappearance of benefits. Since Jimmy Carter left office about 25 years ago, we have increased the debt from less and $1T to over $18T, multiplied by 18 in 25 years. If we repeat that for the next 25 years, we would have $324T debt. Something must change. One likely change will be the value of the dollar. We can pay $324T in debt if the dollar is not worth anything. Any benefit that does not automatically rise with inflation will have little real value. Benefits such as Social Security can be reduced by changing the eligibility requirements. Tax benefits can be reduced by changing the eligibility requirements as well. Any hook that works. It's a victimhood issue. If economics works to establishment victimhood (or discrimination), argue economics. Social contract is applied to the Constitution, as in the people entered into a social contract. I believe the term was civil union or domestic partnership. Hmmm, how about the state having nothing to do with marriage licenses or contracts, but only recognizing common law marriage? The couple enters into a civil union and after they have lived together for a time certain, they can be recognized as married under common law. Rhode Island is the only state that recognizes same-sex marriage under its common law. How would the federal government coerce a state to change its common (non-statute) law? States will likely seek innovative ways to oppose what they find morally repugnant.
Whoa.... This thread is about marriage. You said that "Social Conservatives" want the government to be neutral. So then, how to explain the "Defense of Marriage Act" which puts the FEDERAL government in charge of marriage? The only way to explain it is to admit that you are full of CRAP -- "Social Conservatives" DO want to use big government to force their values on all of us, no different than Progressives. It's all wrong. "Conservatives" should be promoting LESS federal government and more individual liberty.
No one here mentioned "fairness" or "equality". It's something you injected in the conversation for no reason. Three questions: A.) Should a couple require a government license to make a baby? B.) What should happen to an unlicensed couple who make a baby? C.) What should happen to their unlicensed baby???
You are a little off base here. First, America is the only western country that has laws against first cousins marrying. Second, marriage among first cousins is legal in 20+ states including California, New York, Florida, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, etc. It is partially legal in several other states, e.g., first cousin marriage is legal in North Carolina, but double first cousin marriage is not. Yes, about half of the states used marriage licenses to prohibit first cousin marriage, but this came LONG after their used as a tool to prevent interracial marriage.
The reason is that government got their sticky fingers all over marriage. The government ruins everything that it touches. This is something that "social conservatives" just don't seem to comprehend.
By quoting the codified language of DOMA. It defines the meaning of the word marriage within Federal laws, rulings and reglations; and it exempts States from giving effect to certain marriage related acts of other States. How is the Federal government in charge of marriage? If it was, it would seem State laws would be uniform. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/7 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1738C
Oh please. You know damn well that once the federal government gets involved in something, they can use funding as a leverage to force the states to comply with their wishes. This is how Carter was able to force the 55 mph speed limit and the 21 year old drinking age on the states. Both Santorum and Huckleberry would seek to expand DOMA to deny funding in any area they can to prevent states from legalizing gay marriage. DOMA is their foot in the door.
You referred to DOMA as putting the Federal government in charge of marriage. What is the Federal government in charge of?
Let me check my 1950 Miss Manners book: Yes. It's called a Marriage License. "B.) What should happen to an unlicensed couple who make a baby?" Hmmmm. They are ostracized and shamed and barred from receiving any government benefits. "C.) What should happen to their unlicensed baby???" The baby will be a bastard -- like the bastard Jon Snow -- and will not be allowed to inherit their father's lands or titles, and have no claims to the privileges of their father's House.
As I've always said, you "Silent Generation" types are absolutely clueless when it comes to 400 years of whitey in America. Marriage never required a government license until the rotten, big government 20th century that you protect.
I already answered your question. Let me try one more time. The very fact that federal government is involved in the issue puts them in charge, or at least in a position to be in charge if they want to be (which means they are in charge). This whole DOMA discussion got stated when someone said that "social conservatives" want the government to be neutral here. It's just not true. Had Huckleberry won the Presidency in 2008 instead of Obama, the federal government would be doing everything possible to force the states to prohibit marriage licenses to homosexual couples. How do I know this??? HISTORY. Once the federal government get's involved, they are in control. The right answer is to keep the federal government out of these issues altogether. But "social conservatives" have deluded themselves into thinking that they can win at the "Progressives" big government game. They have never been able to do this in the past and they are highly unlikely to be able to do this in the future.
Where did you source this "fact." Marriage license requirements came with the colonists and continued after statehood. http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/06/27/history-marriage-13-surprising-facts/ In the last several hundred years, the state has played a greater role in marriage. For instance, Massachusetts began requiring marriage licenses in 1639, and by the 19th-century marriage licenses were common in the United States. New York Marriage License Applications 1776-1786. http://brooklynancestry.com/new-york-marriage-license-applications-1776-1780/ http://brooklynancestry.com/new-york-marriage-license-applications-1781-1786/
I already answered your question. Let me try one more time. The very fact that federal government is involved in the issue puts them in charge, or at least in a position to be in charge if they want to be (which means they are in charge). Try again. In charge of what? How? There is no Federal license to marry. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/marriage - - - - - How do I know this??? HISTORY. Once the federal government get's involved, they are in control. Let's try a new history lesson. The excursion into the imaginary effect of DOMA began here: The 2015 claim that DOMA puts the Federal government in charge of marriage is killer history. Earlier I quoted from the codified text to show that it never did put the Federal government in charge of marriage. I already answered your question. Let me try one more time. The very fact that federal government is involved in the issue puts them in charge, or at least in a position to be in charge if they want to be (which means they are in charge). Try again. In charge of what? How? There is no Federal license to marry. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/marriage - - - - - How do I know this??? HISTORY. Once the federal government get's involved, they are in control. Let's try a new history lesson. The excursion into the imaginary effect of DOMA began here: The 2015 claim that DOMA puts the Federal government in charge of marriage is killer history. Earlier I quoted from the codified text to show that it never did put the Federal government in charge of marriage. As for 2015, history suggests that the Supreme Court ruled DOMA unconstitutional in 2013. The case is United States v. Windsor, U.S. Sup. Ct. 12-307 (26 Jun 2013).
What part of "reactionary" movements did not get across? What was the purpose of DOMA? The dews of grace fall heavily in the night of sorrow. The stars of promise shine forth gloriously amid the darkness of grief. Continue thy service under all changes. (C.H. Spurgeon)
You confusing people with facts again?
Comments (62 - 69) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest- and again I must state I don't see anyone removing govt benefits to marriage.
#22. To: cranko, GarySpFc (#14)
#23. To: cranko (#16)
"All / NONE -- I guess you are an extremist."
#24. To: cranko (#1)
State governments first started requiring marriage licenses during the Progressive Era to prevent whites from marrying people of other races.
#25. To: Willie Green (#24)
#26. To: SOSO, nolu chan, cranko (#21)
and again I must state I don't see anyone removing govt benefits to marriage.
#27. To: Pericles (#26)
"It is interesting that the legal argument for gay marriage is based on tax benefits and pension/SS benefits/insurance benefits."
#28. To: cranko, Pericles (#1)
State governments first started requiring marriage licenses during the Progressive Era to prevent whites from marrying people of other races.
As if finding the perfect mate and planning the perfect wedding were not hard enough, some people discover only days before their wedding that they must have a blood test before a marriage license will be issued. Then again, a blood test may be unnecessary. It depends where you live, and, in some states, whether you are a man or a woman. The laws vary from state to state, and in recent years more and more states have dropped the requirement altogether. Is this a good idea? Can your marriage be delayed by the results of these tests? What are the tests for, anyway? Read on to learn about the myths and facts behind premarital blood testing.
#29. To: TooConservative (#28)
#30. To: Pericles, nolu chan, cranko (#26)
I am playing at analyst -
#31. To: Willie Green (#24)
Some people march to a different drummer - and some people POLKA.
#32. To: GarySpFC (#31)
Since you see everything as simply a matter of all opinions being equal, then you don't have a problem With marriage between hogs and humans, correct?
#33. To: GrandIsland (#29)
Where the Hell have you been? lol
#34. To: Pericles, SOSO (#18)
Marriage is also tied into a host of tax breaks. Will those be done away with? If no one is getting a marriage benefit then gays can't claim discrimination but who will deny this benefit?
#35. To: TooConservative (#34)
#36. To: SOSO (#35)
Are you also for removing tax benefits for dependent children?
#37. To: misterwhite (#27)
Nope. It's still only a "lifestyle acceptance" issue.
#38. To: SOSO (#30)
I am playing at analyst - How about playing at answering the question.
#39. To: TooConservative (#34)
(Edited)
Many of these are illusory or are subsidies for state-desired consumer behavior like buying houses.
#40. To: SOSO (#35)
Are you also for removing tax benefits for dependent children?
#41. To: TooConservative (#33)
#42. To: TooConservative (#40)
Provide a list of these various tax benefits for dependent children and I will tell you which ones I would remove.
#43. To: SOSO (#42)
No. You made a blanket statement of philosophy about eliminating tax benefits for marrieds, you should be able to do the same for dependent children. Try to find an adult to help you if you can't do that.
#44. To: Pericles, cranko (#20)
If we do go to privatize marriage - then we have to accept polygamous marriage - many wives or even many husbands.
"I am aware of no cases anywhere that have legally recognized common-law same-sex marriage," said the executor's attorney, Kevin Baird of Baird Mandalas Brockstedt LLC in Dover, Del.
#45. To: TooConservative, cranko, Pericles (#28)
Then it evolved to help prevent marrying cousins which was still prevalent at the time in the South, a prominent example being Pat Robertson whose parents were first cousins.
#46. To: TooConservative (#43)
Government has largely failed in this country, paralyzed by its sheer size and extremely bad management which apparently can't get fired, no matter how corrupt and ineffective they are.
#47. To: Pericles, SOSO, cranko (#26)
I am playing at analyst - I don't see anyone removing tax benefits.
It is interesting that the legal argument for gay marriage is based on tax benefits and pension/SS benefits/insurance benefits.
In other words it is an economics issue.
I recall about 8 years ago some conservatives coming out with the idea of social contract or whatever the term was for giving gays marriage in all but the name marriage
#48. To: redleghunter (#22)
How can a Christian stand by and watch our government allow innocent children
#49. To: misterwhite (#23)
If "fairness" and "equality" are the criteria, then ALL licensing should be eliminated.
#50. To: TooConservative (#28)
Then it evolved to help prevent marrying cousins which was still prevalent at the time in the South
#51. To: TooConservative (#43)
I am observing that marriage, once a bedrock of America and Europe, is increasingly a failed institution
#52. To: cranko, redleghunter (#48)
So then, how to explain the "Defense of Marriage Act" which puts the FEDERAL government in charge of marriage?
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
#53. To: nolu chan (#52)
#54. To: cranko (#53)
DOMA is their foot in the door.
#55. To: cranko (#49)
"A.) Should a couple require a government license to make a baby?"
#56. To: misterwhite (#55)
Yes. It's called a Marriage License.
#57. To: nolu chan (#54)
#58. To: cranko, misterwhite (#56)
Marriage never required a government license until the rotten, big government 20th century that you protect.
8. Civil marriage
#59. To: cranko (#57)
What is the Federal government in charge of?
Marriage is chiefly regulated by the states. The Supreme Court has held that states are permitted to reasonably regulate the institution by prescribing who is allowed to marry and how the marriage can be dissolved. Entering into a marriage changes the legal status of both parties and gives both husband and wife new rights and obligations. One power that the states do not have, however, is that of prohibiting marriage in the absence of a valid reason. For example, prohibiting interracial marriage is unconstitutional because it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
This whole DOMA discussion got stated when someone said that "social conservatives" want the government to be neutral here. It's just not true. Had Huckleberry won the Presidency in 2008 instead of Obama, the federal government would be doing everything possible to force the states to prohibit marriage licenses to homosexual couples.
[cranko #48] So then, how to explain the "Defense of Marriage Act" which puts the FEDERAL government in charge of marriage?
What is the Federal government in charge of?
Marriage is chiefly regulated by the states. The Supreme Court has held that states are permitted to reasonably regulate the institution by prescribing who is allowed to marry and how the marriage can be dissolved. Entering into a marriage changes the legal status of both parties and gives both husband and wife new rights and obligations. One power that the states do not have, however, is that of prohibiting marriage in the absence of a valid reason. For example, prohibiting interracial marriage is unconstitutional because it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
This whole DOMA discussion got stated when someone said that "social conservatives" want the government to be neutral here. It's just not true. Had Huckleberry won the Presidency in 2008 instead of Obama, the federal government would be doing everything possible to force the states to prohibit marriage licenses to homosexual couples.
[cranko #48] So then, how to explain the "Defense of Marriage Act" which puts the FEDERAL government in charge of marriage?
#60. To: cranko (#48)
#61. To: nolu chan (#58)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]