Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Marriage Amendment is more than same-sex discussion

I know it has been awhile since I have posted a topic and adding my thoughts. To that I do apologize to my avid readers. Being a business owner has opened up my world to how incredibly difficult it can be to run a business, a home, and find time for family and friends. Not to mention finding time to do research into the topics of the day. I suppose I could just tune into MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News every night to get the hot topics of the day. To which I'd just get the spin and no substance.

Last night I flipped back and forth between watching the Minnesota Legislature and some of my favorite fictional television. Although the Minnesota Legislature was not able to gain a compromise on the budget - a budget was veto'd by Gov. Dayton - they were able to pass a potentially polarizing Constitutional Amendment - Definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman.

Here is how the Amendment reads: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/showPDF.php

Now I went back to read the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution and no where in there did I see where marriage was a right afforded within. As the November nears I am sure a lot of conversation will take place, my hope is that labels can be avoided. Just because someone disagrees with the notion of same-sex marriage does not translate into them being a bigot. Having this type of amendment on the ballot is precisely how the Founders wanted our country to be - States are the test tubes of democracy while the Federal Government is there to ensure the ability for these types of tests to take place.

Many times I have stated that marriage is not a right; rather it is a rite that should be returned to the Church to decide. It is time for Minnesotans to demand that our State and Federal government remove all the "rights" of marriage from the government realm. Allow people to live their lives free of government intervention. By having any marriage definition or a role in by the government is not allowing people to do so.

31 comments:

  1. Let's be frank, that's not going to happen. So then what? And let's look only at the legal right, and set religion aside. Does the amendment treat two people situated the same differently? What's the non-religous support for the amendment? What's the harm?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ted

    Did you remove your post?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous

    Over 30 states have definitions of marriage on their books and none of them have been ruled against the law. The beauty of our Republic was not meant for the central government to rule on all aspects of our lives; rather it was up to each state to decide. Since marriage is not a right protected, if it is really a right, by the U.S. Constitution, it is left to the States to decide. Thus, if a State wants to define marriage they have the right to do so - Tenth Amendment!

    Now, if a State was to allow same-sex marriage then so be it. If those in that state disagree can do one of two things - vote in new representatives to change the law or leave the state and go to one that they agree with. The goal of each State is not to have all the same laws on the books.

    Someone very intelligent stated that all good government is local.

    ReplyDelete
  4. First, marriage is a right. See Loving v. Virginia. Second, the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on same sex marriage but many experts don't believe they will reverse 40+ years of precedent. Those interested are waiting for the right time and case to appeal a case to the SC. So yes, at this point, it is left to the states but since the 14th Amendment would be involved, that would change.

    I see you didn't bother to answer my questions.

    I don't disagree that it's up to the people, you seem to want to avoid the conversation by declaring marriage shouldn't be allowed for anyone. I don't see that as ever happening so me it's avoiding the discussion.

    Please specify where there is government intervention in people's lives in marriage? Don't individuals willingly enter into that relationship? How is that intervention? Wouldn't less government mean allowing same sex couples to marry as the government is no longer involved in deciding who is worthy?

    If you really want smaller government, shouldn't we get rid of DOMA?

    ReplyDelete
  5. And those states that oppose same sex marriage and have upheld those amendments have usually done so not on a lack of a fundamental right, even at the state level, but off a compelling state interest.

    So what is a compelling state interest here? Anyone, what is a compelling reason to not allow to people in a loving, committed relationship to enter into a legal marriage? They aren't asking for everyone's religion to marry them, only to have the same legal right.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It is not that I avoid your questions. Marriage is not a right. I agree that the central government's role is not to pass legislation like DOMA.

    Less government would remove marriage from all fibers of the realm in regards to government involvement. We all can achieve the same "rights" of marriage through contract law. The trouble is that we have allowed government to define marriage as a right when it is not. We have done this in other areas of our life as well.

    Please point out where in any Constitution that governs us that states that marriage is a right!

    ReplyDelete
  7. I already cited the case where the Supreme Court, the one that decides what's in the Constitution and what it means and stands for, says it's a right. You might not agree with that reading but that doesn't change the fact that marriage is a right.

    And again, removing marriage isn't going to happen so have the discussion within the framework of what could happen. So it is that you avoided the questions. Do you want a conversation or to spout off your position? I'm fine with either, but don't see you want to advance the conversation.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Why cannot marriage be removed?

    ReplyDelete
  9. You honestly think that will happen? You have two sides currently passionately fighting over the right. It is certainly possible but not plausable. Think of the cost, the laws that have to be written, the contracts entered into, and what official will support.

    I'm sorry, it's not a viable option, or at minimum not one currently on the table, and you still will not address the arguments I have made. It's one thing to frame an argument in your favor, it's another to create one that is founded on something that isn't currently an option.

    It's a cop out to say just get rid of marriage for everyone. Do you have any arguments that fit into the current structure?

    ReplyDelete
  10. And where is there government intervention in marriage?

    ReplyDelete
  11. I am looking to create some middle ground here. On one side of the debate we have people that don't want to see the sanctity of marriage changed to include same-sex couples while on the other side we have same-sex couples that want to be legally recognized. What appears to be blocking both sides from achieving their goals is government. So why not take government out the equation?

    I am not looking to eliminate marriage; rather I am simply stating that marriage is a rite so let's leave it there. Why do we need to continue to bang out heads? Why not find a compromise?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Government's intervention in marriage is in our tax code, in transfer of estates, ability to get survival SSN benefits, etc...plus the oversee marriages and issue a license.

    ReplyDelete
  13. A middle ground is recognizing that there is a rite and a right. No one is asking churches to marry people. They are asking to have the same rights that a marriage certificate, issued by the government not a religion, gives others. There are two definitions of marriage here. How does same sex marriage change the sanctity of legal, not religious, marriage?

    Don't I willingly let the government do that when I decide to marry? It's not forced on me? That's not intervening that's defining a right I willingly entered into.

    And if you think those rights can be covered under contract law, who enforces that law? More courts, more government, more statutes passed to define contract law and to create restrictions.

    Check your marriage certificate and those of all your friends and family, everyone is issued by the state. This shouldn't even be about religion since those who don't care about rites can and do get married all the time.

    ReplyDelete
  14. What is the purpose of issuing a marriage license and the role of marriage in society?

    As for the contract - the enforcement would be the contract and if either party broke the agreement then it be taken up in the courts. It is not more government.

    I know that the marriage license is issued by the state and that is my point. It should not be. Although the government got involved because they wanted to ensure stable nuclear families that would produce future societies - and the production of future societies cannot be done in a same-sex marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The government wanted to ensure that the couples had certain rights and protections in their relationship and the license represents that. No where is having a family a requirement. And with the advances of technology same sex couples can have children. Plenty of straight couples don't have children and are still allowed to marry and plenty of kids are born outside of marriage. Producing future society has nothing to do with marriage. Maybe that's what your religion wants to believe but for plenty of people that's not the case.

    How is more court cases not more government? It's more government interpreting and ruling on contracts, saying this clause is ok and even though you thought this meant X, it really means Y.

    And again I voluntarily allow the government to get involved. My choice. I don't like it, don't do it. Are you just trying to protect people from their choices?

    Do you acknowledge that there are two different working definitions of marriage here?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous - you are assuming that because two people enter into a contract that it will result in more court cases? Why is that? One does not need to go court to enter into a contract. Did you go to court to enter into your contract with your cell phone provider?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Chris - no, I didn't delete my post. I thought maybe you had. But it was a bit derailing (not sure if your email alert lets you know that?), as I had questions around the vote, and was more soliciting other's opinions on my not wanting to vote on this issue at all. While I'm happy to state my case with regards to this issue - I think the converstation going on is more relevant and interesting. If I can get a moment, I'll chime in. But no, did not delte my post.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Having this type of amendment on the ballot is precisely how the Founders wanted our country to be...."

    Yes, because tyranny of the majority is how things like slavery, womens rights, civil rights, et al. were able to survive for centuries in this country without being overturned.

    Gotta love it when the majority can force the minority to abide by bad laws for no reason other than they are the minority.

    ReplyDelete
  19. @Anon,
    "How is more court cases not more government?"

    How would taking the government out of the marriage sanctification business create MORE government? The same contract that the state enforces now through it's license with divorce law would instead be applied to the civil contract law that pertains to a marriage if no license exists.

    If anything, it's a net neutral impact to the courts - not an increase. ANd because the contract would have been stipulated to by both parties prior to marriage - it could be dealt with outside of most court proceedings because unless one party is finding the other in default of their contractual obligations - the contract would simply be executed per the terms agreed upon prior.

    Again, no court arbitration, no judge oversight, nada. Simply an execution of a lawfully binding contract signed by both parties.

    Again, if anything this is at worst net neutral but most likely net negative.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Truman

    I don't see it as a "tyranny" of the majority; rather that one of the biggest fears for the vast majority of the Founders was a strong central government.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "I don't see it as a "tyranny" of the majority; rather that one of the biggest fears for the vast majority of the Founders was a strong central government."

    So we're clear, any time where 51% can determine the outcome of something affecting the other 49% is tyranny of the majority.

    That's exactly why the founding fathers didn't make the US a democracy but rather a representative republic - specifically because they didn't want the 51% in favor of something to determine the outcome for the other 49%.

    Allowing voters to determine an outcome is abdication of responsibility on the part of the politicians we elect - and intellectual cowardice IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "Allowing voters to determine an outcome is abdication of responsibility on the part of the politicians we elect - and intellectual cowardice IMO. "

    Wow - Truman, I could not agree more. You took the words right out of my mouth, and made them make complete sense.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I agree that we are a Republic and not a Democracy. Perhaps it is time that we go back to allowing the States determine who the Senators are going to be?

    Are you saying the Amendment process is cowardice?

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Are you saying the Amendment process is cowardice?"

    I'm saying that enshrining discrimination within the constitution when you don't have the political courage to pass a law that can be challenged and overturned in court is intellectual cowardice - yes.

    This is a simple appeal to the majority in the hopes of passing something that's harder to overturn. It appeals to fear and ignorance. And by allowing the voters to determine this issue, the legislation is appealing to the tyranny of the majority and abdicating their responsibility as elected officials.

    ReplyDelete
  25. They have already passed the bill recognizing that marriage is one man and one woman. The goal right now for the Republicans is to get it put into the Constitution to cement the law and help Minnesota keep is 10th Amendment Right.

    ReplyDelete
  26. 10th amendment rights are kept equally as well with a law and if same sex marriage were to fall into the realm of federal control so as a state law would be overruled, the constitutional amendment would be equally subject to being overruled.

    ReplyDelete
  27. @Anon #1.
    The 10th amendment does not overrule the supremacy clause nor the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment clearly states that we all are due equal protections under the law. Based upon this, any codification of discrimination in the US, even those passed by states to deal with issues not officially covered by federal law would be superceded by any federal ruling on this subject.

    Furthermore, no state law nor constitution can codify laws that are in direct conflict with federal laws. Therefore, if the federal government says that DoMA is illegal, then states cannot somehow say that it IS legal. This is precisely why the south could not enshrine racism against blacks when the Supreme court ruled on Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954 which overturned segregation in the south.

    You can cry 10th amendment to your hearts content but that claim is incorrect. Equal protections under the law applies to all - not just whites or hetero's or whatever you please.

    ReplyDelete
  28. What would happen if States decided not to recognize marriage of other states?

    ReplyDelete
  29. The use of the Supremacy Clause is applied incorrectly while both political parties have allowed it to take place to keep the battle going.

    ReplyDelete
  30. @Viper,
    This already exists, several southern states no longer recognize marriages conducted in Hawaii due to the recent laws around gay marriage passed there. It simply means that divorce is MUCH harder as are spousal rights. It doesn't affect anything like Federal taxes or the like.

    @Anon,
    First off, most applications of the supremacy clause are through case law precedent (ie. courts), not legislation - so politicians have little to do with it. But exactly how is the supremacy clause incorrectly applied? It's a very simple clause stating the following:

    "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

    That is a very clear and simple statement that means that federal law supersedes state law, IN ALL CASES except those where the federal law is in breach of the constitution. That last caveat is the only avenue to a state overriding a federal law. But that door isn't very big. A law must first be proven unconstitutional for a state to avoid having it's laws overturned.

    That said, it's quite bold to make such a grievous allegation, alleging abuse of the constitution without so much as an iota of evidence to back up that statement.

    Care to put some meat behind that? Or was it simply a flame-bait statement that had no backing other than your opinion?

    ReplyDelete
  31. To clarify, it appears that only same-sex marriages from Hawaii are not being recognized. So same sex couples don't have this same issue.

    But this isn't that uncommon since the US and many States don't recognize licenses from many countries around the world either. It's not an isolated issue.

    ReplyDelete