Supreme Court to hear Prop 8

Yesterday, President Obama and his administration sent the United States Supreme Court a friend-of-the-court-brief expressing their concern on gay-marriage ban instituted by the passing of Prop 8 in the state of California. The administration wrote:

They establish homes and lives together, support each other financially, share the joys and burdens of raising children, and provide care through illness and comfort at the moment of death.

The administrations hope is that the United States Supreme Court will rule in favor of same-sex marriage and bring equality for all people to have the right to marry. United States Attorney General Eric Holder is on record in hoping the Justices will strike down the law in an effort to "vindicate the defining constitutional ideal of equal treatment under the law"

Trouble is that no where in the United States Constitution does it state that Congress or the Federal Government has the power to define marriage or the ability to enact law in any manner to it. Yet, the United States Supreme Court, the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch of our Federal Government has done that repeatedly in violation of United States Constitution. That being said, the Tenth Amendment clearly states that all other powers are reserved to the States.

To which I'd argue that the United States Supreme Court should not even have taken the case since this issue is not within the powers of the Federal Government to rule or legislate on in the first place. At the end of the day, marriage is a personal choice and ought to remain that. In the rule of law there are means for everyone - straight or gay - to enter into contract with another in a manner that mimics marriage - contract law.

Instead of trying to define marriage why are we not putting our efforts toward removing Government from the equation of marriage and leave it a personal choice and gain back our freedoms?

Remove Government from the Marriage equation

This past week Chief United States Judge Vaughn Walker struck down Prop 8 that Californians passed last year that defined marriage between a man and a woman. The argument is that Prop 8 violated the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender (GBLT) community Civil Rights. Let's be clear here, marriage is not a right. The choice of any two people or several people for that matter, wanting to share their lives together is not a matter that Government needs to be a part of. I understand that the GLBT feels they have the "right" to marriage. I understand the religious proponents of the same-sex marriage are determined to keep marriage between a man and a woman. Why is that we feel this dilemma needs government intervention. Am I alone to see that government created this mess by their co-op of marriage by giving tax breaks, requiring a license and collecting fees?

It is time for both sides to agree to remove government from the process. Remove marriage as an option in the IRS tax code. Remove the license requirement with states. The issue seems so simple solved by removing government from the equation. The barriers that the GLBT are looking to be removed are health care coverage, recognition of property rights that exist between married couples and having the same legal standing that is granted to married couples. Well, a number of companies, i.e. Target, already have recognized the health care situation by allowing coverage for domestic partners. My thought is that every health care plan should be label in this manner as the domestic partner can be anyone. The property of rights and legal standing is already obtainable through power of attorney and other legal writs and this is where all couples should be directed to.

Government has only made a mess of this issue. I know many will argue that the license in important to ensure the legal standing of the married couple – of age, not already married or citizens of the US. Do any of those reasons really matter? I understand that most religions see polygamy as a bad thing but who are we to dictate to another how they are to spend their lives? We speak of religious tolerance, and are backed up by the Constitution, yet we do not recognize the ability for a woman to "marry" several men and women. As I said before, it is time to get government out of the marriage business. By removing them from the equation we create a win/win situation. Marriage is not longer institutionalized and returned to Religious groups and all of us will have to develop legal writs with our partnerships.

Marriage is a Rite not a right

Yesterday the courts, in California, took on the question if Proposition 8 is constitutional. For those who have lived under a rock or do not follow this issue, Prop 8 (as it is commonly called) was passed by 52% of Californians in 2008 to establish a State Constitutional definition that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. Gay right groups feel Prop 8 violates their rights and is unconstitutional. What we have here are two separate arguments being made but will be lumped into one. First point of discussion is if marriage is a right. Secondly, is Prop 8 unconstitutional? To answer the second question we need first define the first question.

Is marriage a right of all Americans? To answer this we must acknowledge the institution of marriage is rooted in religious dogma. To exercise one's religion is a right established and guarantee by the Bill of Rights. Since marriage is religious in nature, does that translate to a right for all Americans? Some religious sanction polygamy yet there are rules established that one cannot take on more than one spouse at a time. Even though the law exists those that practice religions that promote polygamy are still able to even if they are highly scrutinized by child welfare agencies. Now, we have laws against drug use in American yet certain religions are allowed to posses and use drugs as outlined in the rites of their religion.

This brings us back to the right of marriage by all Americans. Marriage is a religious rite that has specific guidelines for the married couple to live by. Being a Gnostic the concept of marriage takes place on a spiritual level rather than on the flesh and blood level. But I digress. Since the definition of marriage depends on one religion, then there should be very little discussion on the topic of marriage being a right. In essence marriage is not a RIGHT rather marriage is a RITE.

Now, if we view marriage as a rite, we can answer the constitutional questions in regards to Prop 8. To resolve this question we need to look at how the question is being phrased. The argument put forth against Prop 8 is the use of the 14^th Amendment. The 14^th Amendment guarantees equal protection and due process. The groups looking to overturn Prop 8 are equating interracial marriage to same-sex marriage. Is the argument one in the same? Is defining marriage between 1 man and 1 woman a violation of equal protection?

Since marriage is a rite then no one's equal protection or due process is being violated. Now, a better argument on the constitutionality of Prop 8 is if it violates the separation of church and state. The entire process and incorporation of marriage in the laws, IRS filings, and other legal writs are all violations of church and state in so far that marriage is a religious rite. That being said, every American should be outraged by Prop 8 as it violates the separation of church and state clause in the Constitution. The term marriage needs to be stripped from various use by the government and returned to religious dogma from which it was born. If we, as a society, require recognition of living with a life partner then let's rely on legal documents, i.e. power of attorney. The Constitution already allows for same-sex and opposite sex marriages in so far as it protects one's right to practice religion and all ceremonies involved.

Why are we all not demanding the removal of the institutional definition of marriage as it violates the separation of church and state clause in the Constitution? Is that not a more intelligent way to go about the issue of marriage? By taking this approach we solidify the sanctity of marriage for all religions while also removing government control over one's choice of a life partner.

A better approach

During the past November election cycle, Californians voted and passed Prop 8 that changed the California Constitution by eliminating the right of same-sex couples to marry and defined marriage as “between a man and a woman”. Currently Minnesota legislators have introduced several bills on the topic of same-sex marriage. Three bills – HF 1824, HF 1870, and HF1871 – have been introduced in the Minnesota Legislature that proposes Minnesota Constitutional amendment of defining a marriage as a union of a man and a woman (http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/issues/gay.asp).

With all the issues facing Americans, why do we spend so much time on the topic of same-sex marriage? Understandably some aspects of our lives, i.e. healthcare, require a “marriage” license in order for ones partner to participate or make decisions on the topic at hand. OutFront Minnesota, and others around the United States, are pushing for a conversation on same-sex marriage with the goal to legalize it as some point in the future.

Why? Why must same-sex be deemed legal? Marriage is not something that Government ought to define, control, enforce, legislate, or license. The sanctity of marriage is established and maintained by ones belief system. Believers that view same-sex marriage as a threat to the nuclear family or against the will of “God” need to be treated the same as those that believe same-sex marriage is completely natural. Holding such a belief does not make one a bigot or homophobic. Rather it is simply their belief system; right or wrong.

It time for Americans to stand up and shorten Governments reach into our lives. Regardless of how one feels on the topic of same-sex marriage, the simple fact is that Government was not formed by the founding fathers to establish the right of marriage. The concept of marriage is rooted in a belief system. Groups like OutFront will further their cause better if they advance the elimination of Government intrusion rather than fighting the moral majority on the issue of same-sex marriage.

Since the word license often translates into right, by changing the jargon from license to certificate we solve one problem facing the concept of marriage. Instead of the state issuing a couple a marriage licenses the state issues certificate that recognizing the union of two people. By recognizing the union the Government is simply stating that.

The new “Civil Union” certificate will afford all Americans the same rights that are held hostage by the marriage license. Going the route of certification and away from licensing, Americans can escape the repeal or proposal of legislation like Prop 8 while shortening the arm of Big Government.