Why is the state involved in marriage at all?
posted at 10:10 am on August 7, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
Now that a judge has issued an incoherent ruling that the federal government has a 14th Amendment interest in the definition of marriage after more than 140 years of apparent disinterest, it may be time to reconsider government involvement in marriage entirely. Townhall’s David Harsanyi offers the argument that government involvement may do more harm than good to the institution, and results from a historical mistake in the first place. Time to get on with the divorce, Harsanyi insists:
In the 1500s, a pestering theologian instituted something called the Marriage Ordinance in Geneva, which made “state registration and church consecration” a dual requirement of matrimony.
We have yet to get over this mistake. But isn’t it about time we freed marriage from the state?
Imagine if government had no interest in the definition of marriage. Individuals could commit to each other, head to the local priest or rabbi or shaman — or no one at all — and enter into contractual agreements, call their blissful union whatever they felt it should be called and go about the business of their lives.
I certainly don’t believe that gay marriage will trigger societal instability or undermine traditional marriage — we already have that covered — but mostly I believe your private relationships are none of my business. And without any government role in the institution, it wouldn’t be the business of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, either.
Be sure to read it all. I’ve written about this repeatedly over the last several years, and while I don’t think that this is an easy path to adopt, it’s going to be the eventual solution. Not only does it take government out of people’s private lives, it also means an end to a divisive and essentially meaningless debate — and it protects houses of faith and ends a potential government interference in matters of religion.
Let’s first dispense with the idea that the government protects the sanctity of marriage. It doesn’t; if government ever did that, that ended with no-fault divorce. Marriage, as run by the government, is the only contract in this country that can be broken by one party alone with no adverse consequences. (Well, that and professional sports contracts, I guess.) Partnership agreements in the business context would disintegrate without at least the threat of government enforcement of its provisions. Marriage as run by government has been disintegrating for decades, as the divorce rate shows, and that has nothing to do with gay relationships.
We would do much better to require people to create partnership contracts in the civil context than get marriage licenses for issues like property sharing, access to family, and so on. If people want to live together and share their lives to that extent, it’s healthier and much less confusing later to have those issues expressly spelled out in an agreement up front, just like any prenuptial agreement today. If two people don’t want to go that far in formalizing their relationship, then they shouldn’t be considered married anyway — and shouldn’t get access to “palimony” and have debates over oral contracts, and so on. If you don’t get it in writing, it doesn’t exist, in the context of personal partnerships.
Then, if people want to get “married,” they can go to the institutions that actually care about marriage: churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, and so on. Marriage can be a private, faith-based recognition of a sacramental relationship that exists outside of the civil context entirely, and houses of faith can set their own requirements as to what it means and who can participate — just as they do now. Not only does that protect the sanctity of actual marriage much more than a government, but it also means that government has no way to poke the camel’s nose of intervention into the religious tent, as it were, to force houses of faith to conduct marriages that violate their tenets in the name of fairness. Divorcing marriage from the state and dissolving the partnership between government and religion benefits the latter more than the former.
Let government define and enforce contract law, not marriage. If we don’t follow that path, people will shortly become very unhappy about the eventual government definition.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
count me in the gov’t out of marriage club. But that means ZERO special rights or privs.
No citizenship status
No tax breaks
No special insurance benefit
No inheritance benefit
No emergency access
No divorce law (custody is a special case, 3rd person)
No special treatment of any type
None of it. Let’s take it all away. You think that would weaken interest in marriage? No. it would remove from marriage those driven to it by the benefits and those who remained interested would still marry. marriage rates would fall but I contend that divorce rates of those who do marry would nearly disappear, right along with goivernment’s fig leaf of a reason to adjudicate anything regarding marriage.
GregoryNeilSmith on August 7, 2010 at 8:35 PM
Hasn’t Ed posted basically this same thing before…like last year?
This is a cop out that “moderate” conservatives (like Ed and AP and a lot of commenters here) take because it’s easier and hipper than defending traditional marriage:
“Hey, we can’t save traditional marriage and the family and it looks “bigoted” to say we’re against “gay” “marriage” and we offered them civil unions (like idiots), but it turns out gay activists painted a target on Marriage itself, so let’s give up by not having government “involved” in marriage at all! Yeah, that’s the ticket!”
Jenfidel on August 7, 2010 at 8:37 PM
Yes I did mean irelevent, stupid spell checker. :)
And no I wasn’t being sarcastic. Whatever society instituted marriage for there is one thing that is certian. it was instituted as a union of a man and a woman. If you are thwoing that out you don’t really get to keep the rest.
All of the things you mention in your last paragraph Walker determines to be either flat our bigotry or outmoded. If his ruling stands then how does the govrenment use anything you mention as a basis for any sort of civil union contract? They can’t.
The postiton here with civil unions only seems to be that listen we will stop using the word marriage but keep all the rest. Why? Didn’t a judge just deternmine all that didn’t mean a thing if it meant a same sex couple could have the state call their union marriage?
If the tradition of one man and one woman means nothing then why does the tradtion which assumes the male in an opposite sex union must pay support for all children produced during the union mean anything?
If the state decides there is no longer any reason to use the word marriage it’s a little hypocritcal for the state to act like these new civil unions are still marriage. If there is absolutely no justification for using the word marriage for only a man and a woman as Walker suggests then there is aboslutely no justification for the state to insist we still use the rules of marriage as those came from the same place the word did.
Rocks on August 7, 2010 at 8:38 PM
“Libertarians would reduce society to a state of nature better know as anarchy.
The only kind of culture that would willingly abolish societal/state sanctioned marriage is one that is dying. If you want to know why Europe is facing demographic death look at the destruction of marriage brought about the overpowering socialist state.
jerryofva on August 7, 2010 at 2:51 PM”
You’re so far off base it’s laughable. It’s clear that you know absolutely nothing about libertarian philosophy and positions.
Go ahead and keep helping “family law” attorneys continue to line their pockets. They have a vested interest that the status quo continue, and possibly even expand if this ruling stands.
eanax on August 7, 2010 at 8:39 PM
Precisely and no matter where they run the leftists will follow them.
sharrukin on August 7, 2010 at 8:41 PM
actually the bible is an expert on history. I really don’t understand what you are talking about with this whole ‘history of the world’ stuff. the bible was never meant to be the ‘history of the world’.
Historians doubted the existence of the hittites….the bible assured us they existed…and they did exist.
even in the little things the bible has been shown, from a historical viewpoint, and an archeological viewpoint, to be correct…
so when someone tells me that adam and eve are a fairy tale…with NO PROOF of that assertion…then I will challenge them. The Bible has been proven over and over and over to be an accurate witness to history. In order to deny Adam and Eve, and say its a fairy tale, then you should be able to point to another part of the bible that has been disproven. you cannot.
right4life on August 7, 2010 at 8:57 PM
uh who said this? does the bible say this? if not then its meaningless.
as far as those stories existing elsewhere..and predating the bible…moses wrote those down around 1,500 BC. were those stories around before then? probably, because they happened…other cultures may have changed them around…but they are true…things like the flood happened.
right4life on August 7, 2010 at 9:00 PM
simply wow…your dating is BS. where do you get this at? let me guess some liberal wacko professor told you that.
http://www.livescience.com/history/earliest-hebrew-text-100115.html
the more we find out the more it confirms what the bible says…shazam! have no doubt moses himself wrote the first books of the bible..
you’re not very well informed are you now?
right4life on August 7, 2010 at 9:04 PM
I’m a conservative heterosexual, and todate, I have asked how gsys getting married affects me and my marriage. NO ONE todate has been able to satisfactorilly say how it does.
Untill a cogent argument comes my way to change my mind, I don’t CARE who marry’s who or for what reason.
44Magnum on August 7, 2010 at 9:44 PM
I agree: The state has no business meddling in private relationships. Marriage is a religious institution and should remain as such. The state has no business defining marriage one way or the other; God has already done that. People have been getting married for centuries, long before there was state sanctioning of such unions. And IMO, involving the state has only led to a weakening of the institution. If we as conservatives are opposed to using our laws (tax laws in particular) to legislate morality or promote social engineering, then we ought to be opposed to it in every instance. I feel like my own community, my family, and my church are much better at enforcing social norms and mores than the government is anyway.
And I will also add that, instead of doing away with such privileges as the right to pass wealth without penalty that spouses have, we extend this right to any two people who wish to enter a contract together. Regardless of the nature of their relationship. A mother ought to be able to bequeath her property tax-free to her daughter, or a brother to his sister, the same way spouses are. LIMITED government, people. Either you’re for it, or you’re not.
NoLeftTurn on August 7, 2010 at 9:44 PM
Here are my thoughts: I am not so much upset about the gay marriage issue than I am about the judicial activism. I am just as upset about the overturning of the Arizona law. People tend to focus on the executive branch of government over-reaching when the real travesty is the judicial branch over-reaching. The executive branch can be replaced, via voting, every four years. The judges are there for life.
carbon_footprint on August 7, 2010 at 9:51 PM
I might have to question if you’re for it with any more posts like this one!
Limited government doesn’t mean enacting a bunch of new legislation to replace marriage laws and family law, and that’s working with the assumption that it’s perfectly OK for the government to tax property and wealth in the first place (which I don’t think it is!).
“Congress shall make no law…”
This is the perfect state.
We’re guaranteed our right to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Is all this legislation and these judicial fiats really necessary to make that possible?
I think not.
Jenfidel on August 7, 2010 at 10:08 PM
How it affects your marriage isn’t the issue: the validity of a state referendum and legislating by judicial fiat are the issues.
We’re losing the argument by arguing the “rightness” of same sex marriage.
This was Judge Walker’s specious argument: that by throwing out the old definition of marriage and redefining it, that it would no “harm” to society, so why should anyone care?
And critics are right, this will open “marriage” up to pedophiles, polygamists, bestiality folks, and everyone else who “loves” someone or something and wants to “marry” them or it.
Jenfidel on August 7, 2010 at 10:13 PM
any real conservative would know about the threat that gay marriage poses to freedom of speech and religious liberty.
unless those things don’t matter to you, in which case you wouldn’t be conservative.
right4life on August 7, 2010 at 10:18 PM
Who is saying anything about enacting new legislation? If anything, we would be going in the opposite direction if we remove the state from the equation.
NoLeftTurn on August 7, 2010 at 10:23 PM
Child protective service, the IRS, child support, alimony payments, would all have to changed and as this thread proves, no one has any real idea how those would work under such a contract system. Could Sharia law be used as the basis of a contract and what effect would that have on existing legislation?
sharrukin on August 7, 2010 at 10:27 PM
Jenfidel on August 7, 2010 at 10:13 PM
Don’t you like the Constitution?? You can’t legislate unconstitutional laws even if the majority approve of them. The judge who made the ruling is not a liberal activist.
lexhamfox on August 7, 2010 at 10:49 PM
Ed is asking the wrong question. The government — until now, when they’ve decided to try to foist gay marriage on the unenlightened masses — has not been in the marriage business.
Marriage is not and never has been a creation of government
Marriage is not a unit of administration of government
The government has never previously tried to control marriage, whether by enforcing types of marriages or even applying quality control to marriages
Which, given the government’s meddling in every other aspect of our life, is really quite remarkable.
The government’s only real role in marriage, with a couple of obvious exceptions I’ll get to in a moment, has been to recognize a marriage. This recognition is not the same as diplomatic recognition, that would actually involve the maintaining of diplomatic channels. It is just that our laws for numerous and mostly practical reasons recognize that a married couple have a different relationship than most partners.
Government is, however, involved in the divorce business, and the reasons are entirely for legal purposes: to recognize that a marriage relationship has ended, and that arrangements must be made to separate finances and provide for children. In fact, lawyers will typically advise a client who feels a marriage can’t be saved to divorce, simply so the client can no longer be entangled by financial or other obligations on behalf of the former spouse.
Does anyone really believe that the government will be able to just ignore marriage? It affects too much of a person’s life, which affects the laws that apply to them and their entanglement with the other person. Saying that the government should “get out of the marriage business” strikes me as incredibly simplistic.
I think people mistakenly assume that, since a couple gets a marriage license, and since a wedding is often performed by a justice of the peace, that the government is involved in people getting married.
Frankly, the main reason that marriage licenses are issued has little or nothing to do with government supervision of marriage, and almost everything to do with public health and reproduction. This is the central reason why the government requires blood tests: to identify if a child born to a couple might have health problems. (Leave aside the question of whether this is still necessary.)
As for people getting married by a justice of the peace, this is far less government involvement than some assume. The decision to marry is not made by the justice, but by the couple. They really don’t seek approval from the judge, except for the marriage license itself, which is of course a formality.
It’s also a fact that a couple who decides to marry on a ship can have the ceremony performed by the ship’s captain. Do we now assume that ship’s captains are in the marriage business?
We put way too much emphasis on the wedding, which is only the ceremony beginning the marriage, not the marriage itself.
So why do people seek out a justice of the peace, or a minister, or a ship’s captain, when they are ready to get married? Is it not to formalize the relationship by saying vows in the presence of witnesses and of God Himself?
Marriage is not formed by a contract duly signed by the parties. It is formed by making vows of marriage, “till death do us part,” in the presence of God. Seeking out an authority figure to perform the wedding is primarily an attempt to lend appropriate solemnity to the occasion.
The most obvious exception to this is getting married in Las Vegas by an Elvis impersonator, but let’s at least agree these cases are the exception, not the rule.
I also have to object to the idea that marriage is a creation of any church or religion. It’s obvious why people would want a church wedding. If you’re going to make a vow in front of witnesses and God, what better place for the occasion than in a church where people worship God? And yet, marriage was well established before Christianity, and before Judaism. We may hear the rhetoric about “you must be married in the church for it to be a valid marriage,” but that is obviously wrong. Find me any Christian, even the most stringent fundamentalist Christian or zealous Catholic, who would claim that all Hindu children are illegitimate because their parents were not married in a church. I don’t believe it can be done.
Some might object that previous laws against mixed-race marriage show the government’s involvement in marriage. But any honest person should be able to admit those laws were not focused on marriage at all, but on segregation, and on reproduction.
In fact, virtually every example you could bring up to show previous government involvement in marriage was actually aimed at a different object entirely. Most of the time, that object is reproduction. Laws against mixed-race marriages were meant to prevent children of mixed race, laws requiring blood tests before marriage were meant to prevent pregnancy problems where the mother and baby were of different blood types. Laws against incest were meant to protect against the health problems of interbreeding.
And what relevance do any of those laws have with same-sex marriage? Basically none, unless someone has worked out a way for two men to reproduce, or two women.
Once you realize that the real issue is not government control of marriage, but the recognition of marriage, then it becomes obvious that the current push for same-sex marriage is meant to force people to recognize marriages they were previously not forced to recognize.
In short words, the goal is to force everyone to recognize same-sex marriages.
And if this is the goal, then who exactly is it that would not ordinarily recognize such marriages, but now would be forced to do so?
Is the answer not obvious?
Contrary to the oft-repeated assertions of many well-meaning pundits, same-sex marriage is not a neutral issue that affects no one except same-sex couples. By its nature, its goal is to prevent anyone from refusing to accept a same-sex marriage as anything but normal and valid.
didymus on August 7, 2010 at 10:50 PM
Actually neither of my professors (Western Civ and Humanities:World Views) would be considered ‘liberal wackos , far from it in fact and I did look at the link you provided. That would place the Old Testament around 1500 BCE (the originally comment referred to bible which would be both Old and New) and yes there is writings earlier than that. One of which is the Epic of Gilgamesh (between 2750 and 2500 BCE) which also includes a flood story. I am not debating whether the stories happened or not just the intriguing aspects of how they appear in many cultures, even before the writing of the Old Testament.
So if it is not written in the Bible it never happened? Interesting myopic view but we are each entitled to our own view of things. Also when one looks at history they will find indeed that in centuries past the Church did claim the Bible was an accurate representation of the history of the world. And some did try to retcon things to fit if necessary.
I never claimed any story was a fairy tale, now would I. I was simply responding to the claim of the Bible as an expert on the archaeological expert of the world. I never claimed it was invented but I do not believe completely in its historical authority, nor any other religious text.
I do however like to place things in their proper historical context. As far as I am concerned this theological/historical ‘debate’ is over. It is one thing to have a strong belief in something but when it delves into zealotry I will have no part in it. And for any one group, religious/political or any other to declare themselves the sole authorities on something borders on delusional. Interesting thing you learn when you look at over 6000 or so years of history not much changes.
RuffledRaven on August 7, 2010 at 11:01 PM
First, there is absolutely no evidence that polygamy predates monogamy. You see a modern practice that outlaws polygamy, and rather foolishly presume it was the first time to ever occur.
But the bigger problem with your claim is that you mistake the nature of polygamy, and that fact totally destroys your argument.
Polygamy is not the marriage of one man to many women. It is the marriage of one man to one woman, then the same man to another woman, then the same man to another woman, etc. Polygamy is multiple marriages between a man and a woman, not a single marriage to multiple women.
Does it matter? Certainly. Each marriage is still between a man and a woman, just like a monogamous marriage. The only difference is that multiple marriages were allowed.
didymus on August 7, 2010 at 11:09 PM
where do you get this at? I never said anything like that, nor has anyone I ever heard. in other words, you’re either delusional or you’re a liar.
yes thats when Moses wrote his portion of it…although Job may be much older…and I prefer BC thank you.
who cares if there is writing earlier than that? I never said there wasn’t.
really? why don’t you post some proof, I have never heard that….but even if they did, who cares? the bible never makes that claim.
this doesn’t even make sense. are you on drugs?
you cannot refute the archeology and historicity of the bible, it has been shown to be true over and over and over again.
zealotry? the standard talking points of a left-wing wacko…
if you’re not on drugs, you need some serious help.
right4life on August 7, 2010 at 11:11 PM
Actually the Epic of Gilgamesh is much later. It was found in the royal library in Nineveh. The date is about 650 BC.
sharrukin on August 7, 2010 at 11:13 PM
And yet we regularly question the validity of many marriages all the time be they marriages between celebrities or marriages of convenience. Certain churches have long traditions of not recognizing marriages which are recognized by the state because they fail to satisfy thier religious doctrine.
The state can recognize a marriage but it does not mean that society as a whole has to do the same. ‘Normal’ isn’t really a legal term is it and it seems to me that we are really limited to discussing the legality of these same sex unions rather than their normalness or popularity.
lexhamfox on August 7, 2010 at 11:13 PM
so you’re saying that whatever a court says IS constitutional. you realize this makes the constitution mean whatever some judge says it means…in other words, as Jefferson warned about, we have a tyranny of the judiciary.
judicial review is not in the constitution, it is a usurpation of power by the court.
so why bother to have votes and legislatures, when the judges just tell us what our laws are and what they mean?
in other words we live in a judicial tyranny.
right4life on August 7, 2010 at 11:13 PM
Actual news flash: (from 1987): Eve definitely existed. Adam’s existence has not yet been proven by science. But I’d be interested to see any proof that he didn’t exist.
didymus on August 7, 2010 at 11:17 PM
I love the Constitution, but it’s not the proper document to determine what’s “unconstitutional” about the constitution of CA.
BTW, you’re not an American–what country are you posting from again? Oz, wasn’t it?
Jenfidel on August 7, 2010 at 11:21 PM
Judicial review is not tyranny. It is a well established tradition in our Constitutional history. It is a brake on tyranny from the other two branches of power.
lexhamfox on August 7, 2010 at 11:26 PM
First of all, it would probably take a major initiative by the state to remove the state from the equation.
Secondly, you’d have to enact a slew of new laws to replace the ones made irrelevant once marriage as a legal and state matter was removed.
You are talking major statism and headaches galore.
But then, such is the effect and the ramifications of this ruling if it’s allowed to stand, but the Left knows that.
Which is why they did it.
Jenfidel on August 7, 2010 at 11:27 PM
Plainly B.S.
Not like this.
And you’re not an American.
It is nothing but tyranny!
And nothing should trump a valid vote of the people!
Jenfidel on August 7, 2010 at 11:28 PM
Dude, Jenfidel just above your post makes a better case than your pitiful appeal to the nebulous.
So tell me. Just how does “gay marriage” rise to a “threat” to freedom of speech and religious liberty?
I’m more inclined to listen to Jenfidel’s argumen than yours as I agree that judicial acivism is at the core of the decision that idiot made.
But you just toss shidt out there with a lame azzed “All TRUE conservative would know” bullshidt reply.
Do you contract out your thinking on this subject or would you like to give it another go?
44Magnum on August 7, 2010 at 11:29 PM
A fig leaf. A religious school is just as much religious expression as a church. Read the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
There is no requirement that religion be exercised through a church in order to be protected.
didymus on August 7, 2010 at 11:34 PM
dude, you’re either ignorant, or a liberal wacko pretending to be a conservative.
why should I do research for you? you obviously don’t care…and you sure as hell aren’t conservative…
why don’t you ask that doctor in CA who was told by the CA supreme court his free speech and religious liberty rights meant nothing compared to the rights of a lesbian? or the catholic charities in MA who had to go out of business because they wouldn’t give children up to gays for adoption…
so much for their freedom..but people like you aren’t interested in that..oh no its all about the gays to you…
conservative….my ass..
right4life on August 7, 2010 at 11:34 PM
its obvious you’re a typical left-wing wacko who can do nothing more than parrot talking points, you obviously don’t have the intelligence to think for yourself…all you can do is bend over for the gay lobby Dude.
right4life on August 7, 2010 at 11:37 PM
Questioning the seriousness or commitment of some marriages is not at all the same thing as arguing those marriages are not valid.
And normal is not brought into the discussion until the effort is made to force something very abnormal, such as same-sex marriage, to be accepted as marriage.
In fact, to be really precise, the question is not whether same-sex marriage will be accepted as normal, but whether it will be accepted as marriage.
didymus on August 7, 2010 at 11:38 PM
its not in the constitution. its from marbury V. madison. the court USURPED that power.
Jefferson considered the whole concept of judical review tyranny and he was right.
right4life on August 7, 2010 at 11:38 PM
Must go now. Internet access ends in 20 mins. (Don’t ask….)
didymus on August 7, 2010 at 11:40 PM
Jenfidel on August 7, 2010 at 11:21 PM
I am a US citizen. Born in the US. Both my parents are American. I live in the US but work takes me overseas from time to time. I grew up overseas and have lived in a number of places (ie UK, Israel, France, and other places sometimes in service of the US). None of that is germane to the discussion we are having.
Fortunately, you DO NOT decide who is and who is not an American and who can and can’t participate in civil debate on this site. Even foreigners know what role and powers of the Judiciary are in the American system of government.
It is NOT tyranny. We do not have a tyrannic for of government.
lexhamfox on August 7, 2010 at 11:40 PM
Indeed.
Read about it here:
Thomas Jefferson on Politics and Government: Judicial Review
Nothing’s changed since 1804!
Jenfidel on August 7, 2010 at 11:41 PM
didymus on August 7, 2010 at 11:40 PM
Nice post earlier.
lexhamfox on August 7, 2010 at 11:42 PM
Of course they don’t and why should they?
We didn’t use to have a tyrannical form of government until Woodrow Wilson, FDR and the Comintern got busy, busy, busy.
Conservative patriots have a lot of work to do.
Not only do we have to win in NOvember to start rolling Liberalism back, but we have to keep winning elections with genuine conservatives for a long time to come!
Jenfidel on August 7, 2010 at 11:44 PM
when 1 man can throw out the votes of 7 million with the wave of a pen, we live in a tyranny. why bother to have votes and legislatures, when the judges just overrule whatever we do?
even when congress specifically told the court to stay out of the whole gitmo trial process…which the constitution gives them the right to do..the court in boumadeine, said no that power in the constitution doesn’t apply…amazing arrogance.
right4life on August 7, 2010 at 11:44 PM
The question that you and Judge Walker should have posed isn’t about the threat of gay marriage, but how does the Prop 8 referendum affirming traditional marriage threaten homosexual partners’ equal protection and due process in the state of California? (Hint: It doesn’t.)
Jenfidel on August 7, 2010 at 11:48 PM
right4life on August 7, 2010 at 11:44 PM
I’m sure the people of Virginia felt the same way after Loving vs Virginia. I understand that the Loving decision is distinct from the issue we are discussing but there is the concept of the tyranny of the majority.
The Constitution is open to amendment. You are welcome to argue for the dissolution of the Judiciary or to change the Constitution to curb their powers but under the current system they have that power.
lexhamfox on August 7, 2010 at 11:50 PM
oh yes the wonderful wisdom of the courts, what we do without decisions like DRED SCOTT, which affirmed slavery, or plessy V. ferguson, which gave us seperate but equal…and of course roe v wade…so we could kill babies!!
what does it matter if we amend the constitution when the judges tell us what the amendments mean? like KELO??? hmmmm??
oh they have the power…and thats why we live in a judicial tyranny…we don’t have a free country…we are just serfs who are here to provide the salary and perks for the RULING CLASS.
right4life on August 7, 2010 at 11:53 PM
there is also the tyranny of the minority, which you see unfolding before us…and the result will be the loss of freedom of speech and religion for christians…
the gays don’t have the guts to after the muslims.
of course the proponents of gay marriage are never concerned with that…in fact they welcome it…just as they do having it imposed upon via judicial fiat…because gay marriage is at its core a fascist agenda.
right4life on August 7, 2010 at 11:55 PM
the power of judicial review is NOT in the constitution…if you think it is, post it for me.
right4life on August 7, 2010 at 11:56 PM
Given the make-up of SCOTUS now, their recent horrible decisions and the overlordly behavior of these federal judges, we may have to do just that.
America is heading for some sort of show down between the ruling class and the country class, that’s for sure…and soon.
Jenfidel on August 7, 2010 at 11:58 PM
I just brought this up on Facebook yesterday. I think this is a great way to resolve this issue. Marriage should be a private matter and not state sponsored. Some conservatives worry about how gay marriage would impact their religion which I think is valid. Homosexual couples want legal protection for themselves, fine with me. Both groups stay out of each other business.
closetgop on August 7, 2010 at 11:58 PM
Look there are plenty of decisions past and more recent decisions that I too have issues with. I’m sure there are some recent ones that you like as well as dislike. That is the nature of things my friend.
I’m sorry you feel condemned to serfdom. I don’t think it is that bad here. I had my liberty taken away once and the system exonerated me. I can’t get those 9hrs back but the system worked for me.
lexhamfox on August 8, 2010 at 12:00 AM
congress created all of the courts, save the supreme court, and can dissolve any, or all of them, any time it wants to.
the ruling class likes the way the system is, so they can force things upon us they could not get through the legislature…they prefer rule by decree…like presidential executive orders…and judicial rulings.
right4life on August 8, 2010 at 12:00 AM
the country is far less free than when I grew up…and when a country has nominally private businesses controlled by the government, like we do with cars, banks, insurance companies, health care….its called fascism.
right4life on August 8, 2010 at 12:02 AM
Sorry, pal, I’d like my country to be quite a bit better than “I don’t think it is that bad here.”
Remember “in order to form a more perfect union?”
As for the system, you’re mixing apples and oranges: you were talking about Judicial Review and Constitutional law and now you’ve apparently changed the subject to trial-by-jury and criminal law.
Jenfidel on August 8, 2010 at 12:03 AM
You and right4life should get together and either start a political party or start an insurrection. Talk of the ruling class and tyranny… you are sounding pretty radical.
lexhamfox on August 8, 2010 at 12:04 AM
Good post, Ed. I’ve been a little frustrated that many on the right aren’t actually pointing this out. Would be great to see more posts like this (I know you’ve done them in the past).
MeatHeadinCA on August 8, 2010 at 12:05 AM
if you don’t think there is a ruling class in this country, in both parties, then you are really clueless.
and tell me how much of your money has to be taken by the government to call it a tyranny?
how much was the tea tax that our founders were upset about? and how much are we taxed today?
right4life on August 8, 2010 at 12:09 AM
Interesting, every place I have ever seen it referenced, textbooks and otherwise, it places it in that time period. which is why is considered possibly the oldest surviving ‘book’.
RuffledRaven on August 8, 2010 at 12:13 AM
It’s already started–it’s called the Tea Party movement, which is part of a larger group called “we, the people.”
Are we?
Do you think our Founders sounded radical when they faced a ruling class with their tyranny?
Something’s gotta give in this country and it’s not going to be ME.
BTW, this Prop. 8 ruling is only 1 of 4 we’re dealing with right now: there’s CA with the same sex marriage, VA & MO with their referendum and suit against ObamaCare, AZ with their illegal immigration suit and LA with Obama’s drilling moratorium suit…
Oh, and Obama’s EPA is embroiled in a fight with the state of TX, too, over refineries.
Jenfidel on August 8, 2010 at 12:15 AM
Like it or not, our country was founded by a ruling class. Since then, we have expanded suffrage as far as possible. I lament the role that money plays in politics today but there is that 1st Amendment thingy. The system is open to change under certain rules (laws). If you can come up with a better system be my guest.
lexhamfox on August 8, 2010 at 12:15 AM
Nice post..good to see you. :)
Dire Straits on August 8, 2010 at 12:16 AM
No, it wasn’t.
Bull.
Women didn’t get the vote until 1920!
Black (men) got the vote belatedly in 1965, sort of.
What are you babbling about? Are you drinking?
This doesn’t have anything to do with money or the 1st Amendment!
As for a “better system,” let’s go back to the system set up by our Founders in the Constitution, howza ’bout it and away from this Soviet-lite system the Left has soldered onto it?
Jenfidel on August 8, 2010 at 12:21 AM
Great… go for it. But the agenda is vague and wanting service without cost is unrealistic. You mention the original tea party… the taxes levied were to pay for the defense of the tax payers. Who do you think should have paid for the French Indian War?
lexhamfox on August 8, 2010 at 12:22 AM
Where did you ever get a crap idea like this?!?
Are you Obama?
Reverend Wright?
Jenfidel on August 8, 2010 at 12:22 AM
Actual news flash: (from 1987): Eve definitely existed. Adam’s existence has not yet been proven by science. But I’d be interested to see any proof that he didn’t exist.
didymus on August 7, 2010 at 11:17 PM
From your link:
The study’s lead author, Rebecca Cann, called her colleagues’ and her choice to use Eve as the name “a playful misnomer,” and pointed out that the study wasn’t implying that the Mitochondrial Eve wasn’t the first — or only — woman on Earth during the time she lived [source: Cann]. Instead, this woman is simply the most recent person to whom all people can trace their genealogy. In other words, there were many women who came before her and many women who came after, but her life is the point from which all modern branches on humanity’s family tree grew.
Splunge on August 8, 2010 at 12:24 AM
I don’t want any service!
What are you babbling about?!
The taxes were to enrich British lords!
And all we wanted was representation in Parliament if they were going to tax us so we could participate in voting on who should pay for the French and Indian War, etc.
BTW, we fought in that war (which is where George Washington got his training)–why should we pay for it, too?
Jenfidel on August 8, 2010 at 12:24 AM
Jenfidel on August 8, 2010 at 12:21 AM
Our country was founded by wealthy land owners. There was a time when you had to own land to vote in most states.
I did say since then… and mentioned that we have expanded suffrage. I am drinking but think my point is valid and you just confirmed it.
lexhamfox on August 8, 2010 at 12:25 AM
I believe you may be thinking of the Atrahasis Epic parts of which was incorporated into the later Assyrian version of Gilgamesh, and seems to be absent from the Babylonian version. The author of the 650 BC version of Gilgamesh seems to have added the flood narrative from Atrahasis. The earlier Gilgamesh versions don’t have the flood narrative.
sharrukin on August 8, 2010 at 12:26 AM
They weren’t all wealthy and the men who fought in the Continental Army were certainly not wealthy.
Of course, your point wasn’t valid!
You’re drunk and you’re a Brit, hence your screen name.
Jenfidel on August 8, 2010 at 12:30 AM
My name is British???
Who fought the war? The Continental Army? Are you kidding me? Who paid the soldiers? I recall you claimed to read.
Good night. This is way off topic now.
lexhamfox on August 8, 2010 at 12:33 AM
Apparently I construed this as something entirely different than what you meant? Perhaps you can see why I made the inference that I did.
As for the commenting on the archaeological expertise of the Bible perhaps once again I inferred incorrectly.
You are the one who touted the expertise of the Bible, I was simply commenting on that.
However I did enjoy this the best.
I simply had to sit back and laugh greatly. The wonders of the internet and presumptions. Simply because something was stated that you disagree with you immediately jump to conclusions. Of course you are free to believe whatever you wish but anything ‘left wing’ is about as completely wrong of a description you could possibly ascribe to me. I won’t bore you with a litany of reasons why that is so incorrect. Though I do find humorous the reverting to insults. If we disagree, so be it. Insults and disparages are of course unnecessary. I always thought that was the realm of the ‘left-wing whackos’, apparently I was incorrect. Another example of why I have no little respect for extremes of any kind.
You see there are probably a great deal of Principles and issues we agree on, however, you would never know that because of your insistence of launching into personal attacks.
RuffledRaven on August 8, 2010 at 12:34 AM
While you continue to define “extremes” and “zealotry” any way you wish without telling the rest of us how that “Extreme Meter” is gauged.
As you make a personal attack of your own.
Pssst: it doesn’t matter how civil and disguised you think it might be, you still summarily dismissed him on personal grounds without making your own argument.
Jenfidel on August 8, 2010 at 12:39 AM
lexhamfox=British.
Uh-huh.
Am I kidding you?
No.
The Continental Army fought for the colonists/new Americans.
But on your side? That would be the redcoats.
Congress paid the Continental Army.
General Washington agonized over this several times during the War for Independence.
Jenfidel on August 8, 2010 at 12:43 AM
RuffledRaven on August 8, 2010 at 12:34 AM
Indeed. Roll out the undeserved labels… ‘left wing’,'fascist’,'ruling class’..throw in an accusation of intoxication of some sort, then add in made up history. Once heated, add a dose of religious infallibillity and you have a Hot Air debate with right4life and Jenfidel.
lexhamfox on August 8, 2010 at 12:46 AM
Have another martini (while you can before it’s banned by the ObamaCare Health Police) while you live in complacency under your overlords and their tyranny–paid for by me under compulsion!– that you find “not so bad.”
Jenfidel on August 8, 2010 at 12:48 AM
Ed, moderate???
If marriage is something sacred, why need government?
blatantblue on August 8, 2010 at 12:50 AM
Jenfidel on August 8, 2010 at 12:43 AM
The French Indian War or Seven Years War was between Britain and France. Congress did not pay for the war.
lexhamfox on August 8, 2010 at 12:50 AM
I dunno.
Why don’t you ask the homosexual activist lobby that question?
They’re the ones so keen on governmental involvement.
Jenfidel on August 8, 2010 at 12:55 AM
And if “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” is repealed, there will be calls for chaplains to be banned because Christianity discriminates against homosexuality.
JKahn913 on August 8, 2010 at 12:55 AM
Dude, the Boston Tea Party wasn’t a protest over financing the French and Indian War.
Not even close.
It was about overtaxing the colonies for cheap tea without representation in Parliament.
Jenfidel on August 8, 2010 at 12:56 AM
Was not a personal attack on my part, but rather a simple observation. I simply commented on statements made and in response was subjected to personal attack i.e. ‘on drugs’ comment. You may call it ‘summarily dismissed’ I call it ending a conversation that was going nowhere. Actually I stated my ‘argument’ in earlier posts. I simply called into question the declaration made that the Bible was an ‘archaeological expert’. From there it devolved very quickly, however it is fair to say that right4life was not the first person that responded to what I had commented. But my position still stands, I will always call into question when anyone declares any religious document to be the final authority on something like history.
You wish my ‘Extreme Meter’ very well. I find most anytime a single group, political/religious/ or otherwise seemingly claiming to be the ‘be all end all’ to something to be ‘extreme’. In this particular case I found the idea of Religion (regardless which one) being the final authority on this topic to be extreme. If that was not the case being made then I indeed interpreted incorrectly.
Do I believe there is a Religious aspect to this topic? Absolutely. But as in everything else to be placed in its historical context. This is not a purely Religious or Secular topic, hence why it is such a heated topic.
RuffledRaven on August 8, 2010 at 12:59 AM
Great non answer!
blatantblue on August 8, 2010 at 12:59 AM
No actually it is an answer. The gay lobby are utilizing government to force their views on others. How else to fight back if not through the same medium?
sharrukin on August 8, 2010 at 1:02 AM
If marriage is sacred, why should government be involved at all?
blatantblue on August 8, 2010 at 1:03 AM
Learn a little history. The tax on tea was levied directly to pay for the French Indian War. The levies were specific Acts of Parliament to pay for an expensive war. Yes, taxation without representation and all that but the war was in defense of the Colonies.
Have look yourself.
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/teaparty.htm
lexhamfox on August 8, 2010 at 1:04 AM
Because the people are the ones who get mugged when failed marriages creates thugs, and the people have to pay for welfare and other benefits to single mothers. The failure of marriage has a direct impact on everyone. Stability is in the governments interest.
Government is not morally neutral and cannot survive if such a suicidal course is attempted.
sharrukin on August 8, 2010 at 1:06 AM
Sounds reasonable to me.
blatantblue on August 8, 2010 at 1:07 AM
A very good answer actually. When one tries a method (government involvement) then why shouldn’t the other as well? Pretty standard procedure, politics or otherwise.
RuffledRaven on August 8, 2010 at 1:08 AM
Oh Ed, your libertarian leanings are showing.
John the Libertarian on August 8, 2010 at 1:11 AM
Gays didn’t cause those things, nor will the problem worsen if a gays are allowed to marry.
The thugs you are bemoaning come from a victimhood mentality, poor economic status (the result of left wing economic policy), and a multitude of other things unrelated to this issue.
So, essentially what you are saying is, is that marriage in such bad shape, creating these thugs, we need some MORE government involvement in marriage, right?
We need them to be proactive, of course. That way, thugs will go away.
blatantblue on August 8, 2010 at 1:11 AM
Funny, that’s not what Wikipedia cites as a direct cause leading to the :
Boston Tea Party or the way I learned it as a child or relearned it as an adult.
Why should we colonists have to pay for the French and Indian Wars anyway when Britain got (eastern) Canada out of it?
Jenfidel on August 8, 2010 at 1:14 AM
Also, the failure of marriage amongst straights has nothing to do with gays wanting to be recognized in marriages.
The divorce rate can be attributed to a multitude of things, and frankly, I think the establishment of women in the workforce has been a huge impact in the increase of divorces.
In the past, women had no economic options outside of their marriage. They held no schooling or technical skills, and were entirely reliant on their husbands for many things.
Today? Women have the ability to leave a marriage and remain economically viable. That is a huge impact on divorce rates. People haven’t become less happy, they’ve gotten a way out.
blatantblue on August 8, 2010 at 1:15 AM
Religious marriage is sacred.
Secular marriage is not.
America’s a secular country with no state religion, hence the need (supposedly) for the government to get “involved” with the issuance of marriage licenses.
However, one shouldn’t confuse (and you’re not the first) the matter of the state issuing marriage licenses with the CA court’s redefinition of the institution of Marriage itself and the subsequent paradigm shift in will bring about in all areas of public policy.
Jenfidel on August 8, 2010 at 1:18 AM
You asked…
I answered that.
You now claim…
I never said gays caused those things, however gay marriage will open marriage to contempt by many.
Poor economic status is directly related to marital status and every study done has shown that. It is absolutely related.
Child support, child protective services, the IRS, alimony, Sharia Law, polygamy, incest, and other possible contract problems.
No government involvement huh?
How exactly do you propose to get government out of the marriage business?
sharrukin on August 8, 2010 at 1:19 AM
Please spare us!
Neither the Constitution nor the institution of Marriage should be subject to changing social and cultural mores.
That is why they’re foundational.
Jenfidel on August 8, 2010 at 1:20 AM
I see that the fundamentalists of the whackjob far, far Christian right have taken over the thread. Jenfidel and right4life in da house! Fire and brimstone. End times and rapture. Good times.
dakine on August 8, 2010 at 1:41 AM
Leftist trolls like dakine in da house, too, to try and deflate powerful ideas about Liberty, our republic and our Constitution.
Jenfidel on August 8, 2010 at 2:17 AM
Actually, as usual you prove my point. The Townshend Acts Jenfidel… the Tea Act was the only one of those levies imposed on the Colonies. It is referenced in the very Wikipedia link you yourself cite. Follow the citation… as always, it seems someone else needs to spoon feed you the facts.
lexhamfox on August 8, 2010 at 2:49 AM
Here too you make a really silly and circular argument. You want to stick to tradition? Then you are arguing that marriage should be a contract between two men (husband and father of the bride). That is what marriage was for ages even before religion was involved.
The notion of marriage as being between two consenting adults is a relatively recent one and results from the very forces you deride in your own post.
lexhamfox on August 8, 2010 at 2:55 AM
Still drinking?
I’m amazed at your typing ability under the influence.
The institution and “notion” of Marriage I’m referring to is as old as Adam and Eve.
Haven’t you tried to push enough revisionist Leftist “history” for one night?
Jenfidel on August 8, 2010 at 3:08 AM
The Tea Party was a good 10 years after the end of the French and Indian Wars, ergo the taxation that led to paying for those wars was only a distant antecedent cause to the Tea Party and the War for Independence.
Jenfidel on August 8, 2010 at 3:09 AM
Actually I believe you are talking about the role the government assumes in the modern world. They fill the role that private families previously did. The marriage was always between the husband and wife.
sharrukin on August 8, 2010 at 3:15 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »