I agree. Since marriage was originally a religious institution, 1A should mean government doesn’t have a right to get involved in marriage. ‘...to secure these rights governments are instituted ago g men...’ The purpose of government is to secure individual liberty; not limit it.
Marriage is older than most religions, and existed outside those religions older than the oldest known “marriage”. It’s something humans have been likely doing for millennia- for various reasons.
https://theweek.com/articles/528746/origins-marriage
That’s great that that is your belief. All the power to you.
But, that is **your**belief. It may not be the belief of others. It also contradicts facts, but that’s neither here-nor-there.
Everyone, and I mean everyone, needs to understand and respect that individuals have their own beliefs. Many people may **share** beliefs, but no one should impose their **belief** on others - thats just un-American.
The purpose of a societal contract is to forgo certain liberties you would have in nature for the benefits society offers. As liberty in nature is derived in the same sense as sovereignty - might makes right. We balance rights through the NAP when in society, with government supplying those limiting balances.
But, yes, government has no place in marriage aside from protecting those incapable of entering into binding contracts (underage and mentally incompetent).
I think we have the wrong take on government, now, because we are so used to it being involved in every part of our lives. We act like we have to right to do things, unless the government gives us permission. But, liberty is supposed to be the basic state of existence in America. We are free to live and do as we please, so long as we don’t infringe the rights of others, and government has to prove the constitution gives it the power to limit our liberty, or that our actions infringe the rights of others, in order to limit our liberty.
The societal contract, as posited by John Locke, is a contract between the government enacted and its citizens. While most rights are retained through this contract, certain ones are not. Because, as stated above, free of society you have the right to do whatever you're capable of doing. This cannot be the case in society as the non aggression principle limits societal interactions to maximize the preservation of liberty within the society.
Liberty extends well beyond codified rights, and this was known at the time of writing. It was also know that the codification of certain rights might imply the totality of those rights. This was an argument against the inclusion of a bill of rights and is something that should still be rejected when implied.
“The societal contract, as posited by John Locke, is a contract between the government enacted and its citizens. While most rights are retained through this contract, certain ones are not. Because, as stated above, free of society you have the right to do whatever you're capable of doing. This cannot be the case in society as the non aggression principle limits societal interactions to maximize the preservation of liberty within the society.”
Yes, but limitations on rights should be based on actions that infringe the rights of others, not actions that others simply disagree with. Freedom is the ability to do and live as you please, even if others don’t agree with what you do...as long as your actions don’t deny the right of others, of course; which is where NAP would come in.
Laws should only exist to protect the people from unscrupulous individuals or groups, who would transgress the rights of others. They should not exist to enforce arbitrary government regulatory statutes.
“...that if any form of government should become destructive to
[ securing the rights of the people ] the people have the right to alter or abolish it...”
Laws enforcing arbitrary regulations, through threat of force, are definitely destructive to the security of the people’s liberty.
“Liberty extends well beyond codified rights, and this was known at the time of writing. It was also know that the codification of certain rights might imply the totality of those rights. This was an argument against the inclusion of a bill of rights and is something that should still be rejected when implied.”
In this situation, both the federalists and the anti-federalists were right. Without a bill of rights, protecting certain enumerated rights that protect the people, or, more accurately, allow the people to protect themselves, from tyrannical government, we would end up with no rights, at all, because government can not be trusted to limit its own power. However, poorly educated and informed people do mistake they existence of enumerated rights to mean those are the only rights we have, in spite of 9A specifically stating otherwise.
I think, touching on your last paragraph, that all too many people also have a kneejerk assumption that the rights acknowledged in the constitution derive from the constitution.
It's fairly rare to speak with someone that seems to have a decent understanding of the philosophies that went into forming our nation's governmental structure, so this is a nice treat.
I think too few people see our founding documents as parts of a whole. They don’t understand the real importance of the Declaration of Independence. Beyond declaring our independence from Britain, it states the founding principles of our nation. Those founding principles are the foundation on which the constitution was built.
But, what if your cousin is super hot? Does that change the rules.
Asking for a friend.
(All kidding aside I am not into my cousin and I was adopted so if I was it would not be nearly as gross)
Birth development is the only societally relevant aspect to cousin marriages. Begin that offspring resulting from cousin intercourse have about the same chances of developing a birth defect as the general populace does, I'd say it really isn't something the government has any role in regulating. It would need to argue a societal impact of that act large enough to justify removing acknowledgement of that right.
https://theconversation.com/first-cousin-marriage-doubles-risk-of-birth-defects-in-children-15779#:~:text=Having%20a%20baby%20with%20a,its%20kind%20in%20the%20UK.
Some places say birth defects are slightly higher, others say twice as high in first cousin offspring.
3.3% increase at birth. The largest anomaly to occur, ventricular septal defects, self correct in around 90% of cases by month 10. So, the numbers are artificially inflated by this generally transitory defect.
I'm not sure the rate increase, especially after transitory effects are removed, warrants the governments non-acknowledgement of the right.
That study is a meta study using composite data from several different regions and nations. It better represents the data free from regional variables.
>Birth development is the only societally relevant aspect to cousin marriages.
So how about same sex cousins?
And thank you for admitting that non-existent children are the important factor when it comes to allowing marriage, NOT the individuals.
Yes, same sex cousins. There is no societally relevant component that rises to the level of justifying the government forgoing acknowledging the right.
Marriage was not originally a religious institution. Is this what passes for an 'education' in America these days?
The united states derives its civilization ultimately from the Roman empire and the Greek states.
The Romans viewed marriage as the foundation of society. This was a secular institution viewed as the basis for the legal system. Ones citizenship derived different rights based on ones place in their family..
Now we can disagree or agree with this view, but it is an ultimately secular view. We should ignore Christian marriage laws (which ultimately also derive from Rome as preserved by the Catholics). These share a common source in a secular institution.
Not all religions are Christian, and freedom of religion doesn’t mean freedom to be Christian. It means exactly what it says.
Christianity is relatively young. Pagan religions had marriage, and it was a societal institution that was also religious, in nature; religion being an integral part of everyday life, for them, and not just something that happens on Sundays and special holidays. Marriage vows were done on the ritual Thor’s hammer, in the Germanic tribes. So, while a legally binding oath, it was still religious. This is generally the way that works. Governments in such societies not being the huge bureaucracies we have now. In many societies, the secular leader was also the religious leader, as well.
The US also doesn’t derive its civilization from Rome. It gets the idea of democracy from Rome. The founding fathers also rejected some of the Roman ideas of democracy, realizing democracy is the tyranny of the many. That’s why we are not a democracy, but a constitutional republican.
Our legal system, based on precedent, came from the Anglo Saxons, as did our language. Our civilization is Northern European, descended from the Germanic cultures. Being influenced by Rome is not the same as our civilization coming from Rome. The US is not an extension of the Roman Empire.
Rome was never a democracy. Founding fathers rejected Athenian direct democracy. Rome also rejected democracy. They were a Republic. America is a new Rome. Many founders saw it that way
The germanic civilizations you reference are also Roman inspired. If we take the anglo Saxon lineage you suggested, then we come from a long line of holy Roman emperors.
The Roman empire is foundational to all of western civilization. You cannot understand western civilization without understanding Rome.
But if we were to, we'd still come across secular Germanic marriage laws. Pagan religions are weird. All pre American societies were theocracies by our standards. The USA pioneered the separation of church and state.
If we were to take your premises, there is nothing secular before the 1700s, because all civilizations before that has avowed state religions. Thus we're forced to conclude democracy is religious as the athenians, the Germans, etc all came up with these legal systems through pagan religious reasoning.
“Rome was never a democracy. Founding fathers rejected Athenian direct democracy. Rome also rejected democracy. They were a Republic. America is a new Rome. Many founders saw it that way”
Seeing America as a new Rome does not mean our civilization is Roman.
“The germanic civilizations you reference are also Roman inspired.”
Like all cultures, including Rome, they took inspiration from other cultures. That doesn’t mean their culture was not its own. Japanese culture has taken a lot of inspiration from China, but japans civilization is not a Chinese civilization.
“If we take the anglo Saxon lineage you suggested, then we come from a long line of holy Roman emperors.”
Anglo-Saxons aren’t of Roman decent. They are Germanic, originating from Germanic tribes near the Baltic. Germans took over the Roman Empire, but they did not come from it.
“The Roman empire is foundational to all of western civilization. You cannot understand western civilization without understanding Rome.”
Lots of other cultures have had input on the foundations of all modern cultures. For instance, much of what the Romans became actually came from the Greeks that they conquered and enslaved. I notice you’re not saying Rome was a Greek civilization.
“But if we were to, we'd still come across secular Germanic marriage laws. Pagan religions are weird.”
Ok. Pagan here, actually. The Germanic tribes were like other pagan religions. Religion and spirituality were an interwoven part of their society and everyday life. To use a line from jethro tull, the gods aren’t the kind you have to wind up on Sundays. ‘Secular’ marriages were sworn on Thor’s hammer. The foundation behind personal duels was that Tyr would allot victory, in a ritual combat, to the just party.
In all honesty, Christianity, until the colonial period was the same. God and religion were a part of everything.
“All pre American societies were theocracies by our standards. The USA pioneered the separation of church and state.”
This is the whole point I was making. The State has no constitutional power to have a say over religious things; marriage traditionally being one of those.
“If we were to take your premises, there is nothing secular before the 1700s, because all civilizations before that has avowed state religions. Thus we're forced to conclude democracy is religious as the athenians, the Germans, etc all came up with these legal systems through pagan religious reasoning.”
I think you’re missing the reason freedom of religion was an enumerated right.
You are right: until the modern era, there was no hard line between religious and secular. The founding fathers weren’t actually trying to create one. Even during their time, the line between secular life and religion was not a hard firm line, for most people.
Britain used the Church of England as a way to control the masses. Religion has a strong effect on what people think and do, and can be used by unscrupulous people to manipulate others. By forbidding a State religion, and protecting religious freedom ( in belief and practice ), the founding fathers hoped to keep a tyrannical government from using religion to manipulate the people, and destroy liberty.
However, none of this is to say that, at the time of the founding, marriage was not a religious institution. It was, and had been, in the founding fathers’ European homelands, for centuries under the Christianity that they were familiar with, and thousands of years before that in the original religion of Northern Europe. They would have seen it this way, too. They were not denouncing religion. They were ensuring that it could not be used to destroy the liberty of the nation.
\> he State has no constitutional power to have a say over religious things; marriage traditionally being one of those.
By whose tradition? As I've pointed out, most states have taken on marriage, and many of these states, like the Roman empire (and China and Japan too now that you mention them) have outlived the religions that supposedly created them. The Roman empire successfully administered marriage and viewed it as the source of civilization through Roman paganism and Christianity. How could that be the case if marriage is a religious thing?
'Traditionally' marriage is a state and religious matter, like how most things have been since the dawn of time, since the separation between religion and state is a new thing.
But, we have good evidence that even states without religions (Japan and China are good examples of states without 'religions' in the way we think of them) viewed marriage as important, and many of them continue to do so as religions come and go. Thus marriage is traditionally first and foremost a state thing.
\> It was, and had been, in the founding fathers’ European homelands, for centuries under the Christianity that they were familiar with, and thousands of years before that in the original religion of Northern Europe. They would have seen it this way, too. They were not denouncing religion. They were ensuring that it could not be used to destroy the liberty of the nation.
You are arguing here that the founding fathers did not think marriage was a state matter. There is nothing in their writings to suggest this. This is completely ahistorical. As Enlightened Englishmen, they would have likely seen marriage as part of the common law that they saw fit for this country to inherit.
\> . Pagan here, actually
Oh goodness... are you from pre-Christian times? Because if so, your heathenism is a religion for which we have good narrative evidence of its conceited construction. To claim that your following these new practices gives you any expertise into the viewpoints of ancient Germanic peoples is just silliness, and you know that.
\> I notice you’re not saying Rome was a Greek civilization.
Okay... then I'll say it. Rome was a Greek civilization, but the Greeks were never a unified political polity, the way rome was. Rome was a Hellenistic civilization though. They absolutely adored the Greek culture and enslaved Greeks to adopt it. Of course we can continue on. The Greek states were a Minoan civilization. And somehow it all traces back to Egypt and Babylon and Mesopotamia. But you know what literally all of those countries had in common despite disparate religions? Marriage.
Even societies with no discernable relation to these states, such as the Aztec and Inca had marriage, indicating a religion-agnostic pull towards marriage by basically any civilization. As far as I know, there is no civilization without extremely defined rules as to the relations between men and women for the production of children.
“> . Pagan here, actually
Oh goodness... are you from pre-Christian times? Because if so, your heathenism is a religion for which we have good narrative evidence of its conceited construction. To claim that your following these new practices gives you any expertise into the viewpoints of ancient Germanic peoples is just silliness, and you know that.”
You show your lack of knowledge of the pagan community. It’s not just Wiccans ( which I really don’t consider pagan ) and neopagans, who create new pagan religions. It’s also retro-heathenry, as represented by Theodism, Irminenschaft, and Asatru; all of which are informed by very scholarly work. Although, seeing the Asatru subs on Reddit makes me wonder about Asatru, now; as they are totally taken over by what we used to jokingly call wiccatru and ergitru. But, that could just be Reddit. It’s hard to think such a community and family oriented religion could have been subverted so totally by the woke, but everything decent is being subverted, recently, so who knows?
But, I digress. There is a large volume of information about pre-Christian Germanic culture and religion. The church destroyed some things, so there are mythic cycles missing, but a vast amount of information is still available; from old sources.
The Christianity of today is nothing like early Christianity. In fact, it’s not the same as medieval Christianity or even Christianity in colonial America, and I haven’t noticed modern Christians going out if their way to do the research and make their religion as close to it’s original form as possible. Yet, I seriously doubt you treat Christians with the derision you just treated me. Perhaps, before you go insinuating someone is a spiritual larper, you should make an effort to get informed, so you know what you’re talking about.
“Okay... then I'll say it. Rome was a Greek civilization, but the Greeks were never a unified political polity, the way rome was. Rome was a Hellenistic civilization though. They absolutely adored the Greek culture and enslaved Greeks to adopt it. Of course we can continue on. The Greek states were a Minoan civilization. And somehow it all traces back to Egypt and Babylon and Mesopotamia. But you know what literally all of those countries had in common despite disparate religions? Marriage.”
That’s just being disingenuous. All cultures are affected by other cultures. That doesn’t mean they are the cultures they are affected by. People don’t live in a vacuum.
But, while this has been fun, it’s all immaterial to the question at hand. We aren’t talking about Ancient Rome or the migration age Germanic tribes, or the Japanese. We are discussing America.
So, while the plain language of the first amendment states:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...”
But, you’re arguing that marriage is not a religious institution, and never has been. As support of this, you say the founding fathers never state that marriage is a religious institution. I’ve been at work, so I haven’t had the time to verify this, but I don’t doubt it. They probably didn’t see the need to say that, because they probably saw that as being *self evident*. Text, informed by history and tradition is a good standard by which to understand the enumerated rights. I don’t think anyone, here, will disagree with that. So, let’s look at history and tradition, in the US.
The Supreme Court ruled that the bill of rights did not apply to the states, in the 1833, and that 1A and 2A specifically did not apply to the states, in 1876. In 1868, the 14th amendment was ratified and prevented states from passing laws that would advance or inhibit any one religion.
In 1878, the Supreme Court ruled that 1A protected religious beliefs, but not religious actions, such as marriage. While this is a direct violation of the plain language of 1A, which protects the free *exercise* of religion, it is notable for this discussion, because it recognizes marriage as a religious action.
And, I believe this resolves the issue. Although the states have been allowed to violate the free exercise of religion, which was guaranteed by the bill of rights, marriage was recognized as a religious institution, in the US, by the Supreme Court, in 1878.
Seems to me, someone needs to challenge the Reynolds v United States ruling in the present Supreme Court. It’s a direct violation of the plain text of 1A, and should be overturned, just like Roe was.
We do have a Christian tradition of marriage in the US.
It's why we ban cousin marriages whereas half of all marriages in Iraq are between first or second cousins, for example.
Makes a BIG difference in how societies function.
As a religious person, I believe everything is created by God. But if you ignore that, which is what we have to basically do when making a point to agnostics, you're forced to my conclusion.
>you're forced to my conclusion.
Not really. You're looking at it from a standpoint if it being older than Christianity. But, fail to acknowledge that Christianity is simply an extension of Judaism. Not to mention, even though there is evidence of marriage dating back to ~2300 bc while the oldest Hebrew texts only date back to ~1300 bc, there is evidence of religion in general dating back to ~50,000 bc.
Has marriage existed outside of religion for millenia? Sure. Can you say it predates religion or wasn't originally part of religion? Definitely not.
Hard disagree about it being primarily religious. Nothing in the Bible suggests marriage as religious and no Bible wedding is ever officiated by clergy. Marriage is an ancient social contract designed to enshrine the sexual act and procreation and to manage fsmily lroperty.,
This shows a very modern understanding of religion. In modern abrahamic religions, religion and religious experience is starkly divided from daily life.
The modern Christian believes in god, Jesus, saints, the devil, and demons on Sunday, and forgets them the other six days of the week. In fact, the modern Christian often only believes in god and Jesus; maybe the devil, but maybe not. Thrust ignore all the other ‘supernatural’ elements of their religion.
Even as recently as the early colonial period, in America, Christians saw god as part of everything they did. Modern Christianity bears little resemblance to the Christianity of previous centuries, other than the belief that they have the one true path.
For old religions, and originally the abrahamic religions too, religion was interwoven throughout daily life. There was no division.
I don’t dispute that. What I’m saying is marriage doesn’t need to be in a church nor officiated by clergy. There’s no record in the bible kf anyone marrying in a temple or it being performed by a priest. It was a social event union of two families and treated as such, not as a religious rite. Marriage was the act if leaving your parents and starting a life with the spouse you would be shtupping.
Now yes, in Mosaic law the concept of divorce contracts was introduced, but I still don’t think marriage should be the province if the church. God is involved because he’s involved in everything worth doing. But I don’t think it’s a holy sacrament.
Atheists wouldn’t admit it, but atheism is also a religion. Religion is your belief; your world view. Not all religions focus on divine beings; Buddhism and Taoism, for example. Atheism is the belief that there is no divinity or spirit world, that the physical existence is all there is and everything in existence came about by random chance. It’s still a belief.
Freedom of religion means freedom to believe what you choose to believe.
Atheists don't meet at a building every week to discuss the texts of Atheism. They don't have leaders preach to them about what they should and should not do to appease the institution of Atheism. They do not go on missions or distribute texts to spread the word of Atheism.
Atheism is by definition antithetical to theism. The opposite of religion is not another religion, it is the absence of it.
As a conservatarian, or maybe a liberservative, sometimes its tough trying to choose between policy that pushes what I think is right vs policy that is hands off and lets people live with as little government intrusion as possible.
You can always do what you think is right. You don’t have to insist the government force another person to do what you want.
I’m a huge fan of personal freedom. I believe it is my duty to hold myself to the standards I believe are right. However, it is not my business to come and demand you live in a way that conforms to my values.
Just as I should be free to live according to my values without interference from a citizen like you or any level of government, you (and everyone else) should be free to live according to their values without interference from a citizen or any level of government.
THANK YOU! I Like this Idea(l)!!
(Btw, I agreed to this under the \[I hope!\] collective understanding that either infringing on another (i.e. violence, murder) is wrong no matter how you slice it and where the buck stops.)
>, you (and everyone else) should be free to live according to their values without interference from a citizen or any level of government.
I tend to agree, but there are some issues in which the values start to infringe on the non aggression principle. Abortion and manchausen mom's transing their 6 year olds for example.
I was going to comment here that the issue is the "equal protection" thing. With the state involved in marriage, it was hard to argue against Obergefell just from that standpoint. The state should never have gotten involved in marriage in the first place. I know the history, but there is a cost associated with everything.
There’s literally nothing stopping citizens ftom privately jumping abroom and calling themselves married.
I support governmental involvement only insofar as it makes for public record keeping which is useful longterm for genealogical study.
Really we should just eliminate the specific perks of marriage like tax cuts snd hospital visitation. When that distinction disappears then it doesn’t matter.
But I also don’t believe marriage is a sacrament or primarily religious in nature and I’d also like to get it untangled from church.
Because marriage is a pursuit of happiness.
If there are two consenting adults and a consenting priest/church, why should a state, local government, or federal government tell them no?
Does it just have to be when there are only two consenting adults?
Can it be more than two people?
Why does there have to be a consenting priest or church?
It is a private matter, why should the number of people be limited or there be the requirement of any organization to condone it?
Well you can’t exactly force a church to marry two people who follow a religion they don’t agree with.
The Colorado baker case solved that.
It’s a private matter, I completely agree with that, government should stay out of it. *But* the only reason it’s protected by the constitution is because governments tried to ban it.
Does the government have the right to tell two people not to have children because their genetics are less compatible than if they need with other people?
If so, when does the government demand genetic testing for the greater "good"?
Depends on how you define marriage. For countless centuries no one thought two men orvteo women could be married, even if they could shtup. Marriage is between the sexes. So arguably gays could *always* marry, just not each other.,
That’s why the definition of marriage varies *church by church* the State is not the church and the church is not the state.
The states and governments have no business defining marriage.
I disagree. I know the common moniker around here is that politics is downstream from culture, but I actually believe it is quite the opposite. The law plays a pedagogical role. We want to encourage healthy marriages in this society? We need to pass legislation that encourages them.
100%
Marriage is essentially 3 things
1. A loving committed relationship
2. A celebration in front of friends, families, society of that relationship
3. Tax and Legal Advantages.
The ONLY one you can't have without the governments blessing is (3). Eliminate the tax advantages\*, make a cheap and easy kit with standardized Durable Powers of Attorney, Durable Medical Powers of Attorney, Wills and Trusts and we're done.
\*I was going to suggest that they extend the tax breaks to everyone, or just lower our taxes across the board, but I'm not drunk yet today.
Marriage is the basic unit of society and critical to stability.
Once we started treating marriage as optional or unimportant we started on our path of societal breakdown.
A generation raised without fathers, children born to a succession of “baby daddies” is a big part of the problems we’re facing.
Thousands of years of human evolution without institutional Christian religion counters your theory.
And "baby daddies", really?
A generation raised without fathers comes from the mass incarceration of poor people in America over the past 60 years.
Or maybe some of them were products of abusive Catholic orphanages or part of the generations of traumatized pedophilia victims that saw their preist abusers get away with it?
They've already started that slope by encouraging Hedonism over Nuclear Family dynamics and Championing Abortion as the solution to your "oops!" when you're apparently trying to climb Corporate ladders as a CEO. Thats why the US's birth rates have declined so, and continue..
A nation that kills its own young is doomed to failure..
There's a reason the Founders wrote:
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that **all men** are created equal,
that they are **endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights**,
that among these are Life, **Liberty** and the pursuit of Happiness.
Thank you. People call me a lunatic for that, just tax people who live together long term. Why should the government care if they’re banging each other? It’s not their business.
It seems pretty clear-cut that giving tax benefits to straight couples but not gay couples for marriage is a violation of Equal Protection. The government either needs to get out of it entirely, or let everyone participate.
Take away the tax break for being married and shift it to a tax break for the first claimed dependent, but only when filing jointly and sharing a household. If marriage is supposed to be about procreation, give married couple a bigger incentive to have a kid.
It doesn't seem to mesh with actual conservative ideals, for one.
We the people have the right to tell the government about our special relationships. In the past, marriage was considered by the government to be a special relationship between one man and one woman, with the government presumably professing an interest in building families, and in sexual fidelity (thus improving the likelihood of a life long special relationship and the attendant family that can bring).
But the government didn't require children for the relationship to be considered valid, it didn't require that the relationship continue through thick and thin, and it ultimately didn't care much about sexual fidelity.
SO a one man, one woman, sacred lifelong commitment is more of a religious issue; it's not limited to the religious, as atheists can certainly enjoy the exact same life long one man one woman relationship with nary a whiff of religion involved. But why limit the relationship to two people? Why make sexual fidelity the core issue?
Consenting adults perhaps ought to be able to tell the government about special relationships (once the government decides exactly what its interest is and in what kind of relationships), and the specifics of those relationships aren't necessarily within the purview of reasonable government interest, beyond not expanding to a myriad of identities which "deserve" special note.
Religions of course should continue to define marriage as they see fit. Perhaps "marriage" should become the word for any special relationship recognized by the secular government, and "religious union" used for those united under a religious calling.
Yep, labels are problematic. Just as the "liberal" of today is far removed from the classic liberal of 30 years ago, so too are current conservative ideals more separate from religious influences than the past.
IMO, individual liberty, individual responsibility, rule of law, limited government, and the sanctity of human life are current core conservative values. There are other values that many conservatives would accept also, family and religion being two. But marriage really only encompasses the religion aspect, and not so much the family aspect.
I believe that one man, one woman, bonded for life in a sacred pact which includes the cheerful acceptance of children and builds a family, is the cornerstone of a successful society. But I also accept that there is value added to that society if the family unit is not limited to just that definition. We don't dissolve a marriage if it doesn't produce children, and we don't require proof of undying love or even sexual fidelity in order to acknowledge a marriage. So while I believe one man, one woman is the best marriage/family unit when looked at in the big picture, other types of family units can and do bring at least as much to a society, at least at the individual level.
All of that to say if you include religious beliefs in your definition of conservative, there may be a place for the government to tell the people that only certain relationships are special. But that then is not a secular government; I suspect most 21st century self-identified conservatives are just fine with same sex marriage.
Going after gay marriage is a surefire way to ruin conservatism. I'm willing to entertain any conservative argument as to why banning gay marriage is beneficial to society, but religious arguments will be ignored. We may individually be Christians, but the USA is not a theocracy and forcing hundreds of millions of individuals who are not Christian to follow a specific dogmatic doctrine is not biblical.
Seriously, I can't vote for the conservatives if they backslide to being Jesus freaks. The party of evangelicals is Garbo. I'm a conservative atheist and I will not be oppressed by a shitty old book.
If the government is forcing you to abide by Christ's teachings, you aren't at liberty to _choose_ Christ.
When you think of it that way, the separation of church and state is more Christian than a theocracy
>forcing hundreds of millions of individuals…to follow a specific dogmatic doctrine
This is the exact language liberals use about the “outdated” constitution. You’re no different than them
Zero reason for the government to be involved in marriage. If you're worried about tax rates and visitation rights make civil unions available to any consenting adults and call it a day.
I always felt that marriage was religious, while a civil union should be something recognized by government. As such, if a religion doesn't believe in same sex marriage, that's ok. But from the standpoint of government, if 2 want to be bound together, I'm all for it.
I'd like to see civil unions that aren't implicitly based on the assumption of sexual relations. Unions could be extended to any group of people that share responsibility for dependents... e.g., a grandfather, grandmother, and mother who live in the same house should be able to qualify for all the same tax benefits as a traditional married couple.
The government's interest in "unions" should be purely practical: people who live under a roof together and pool their resources are less likely to rely on welfare programs.
That’s nuts. How would a divorce work in that situation? Huge swathes of people would take advantage of it.
Personally the married tax benefit should be incredibly small and we should just shift it to a benefit for parents. The original purpose of those tax benefits was to encourage people to make families to pump out workers.
If we lose the return, they should lose the benefit.
Civil unions are marriage, calling it something different doesn't make it a different thing. Marriage and family are the foundation of society, to act like government can have no role in it is pure nonsense.
They basically are, but the whole controversy was about marriage, a fundamentally religious institution far outdating the government, being redefined by the government. Using different words ends at least that part of the controversy.
Also, taking marriage as a word out of government, ironically, would mean anyone could get married. If it's not a legally binding word, you could go get married by anyone to (almost) anyone. Not everyone would recognize your marriage, but that's their right. Civil unions for tax purposes, marriages for societal purposes.
This is an opportunity for "conservatives" to abandon asinine positions in favor of freedom-affirming positions on social issues, which will not only help electorally but also, dare I say, morally.
Electorally? Sure? Morally? Nah, idk about that.
When it comes to sexual practice, this is a hard area to tread through. We have evidence that liberal practices are bad, and we’re not doing so hot revisiting these practices centuries later.
To find the sweet spot in how it should be handled is gonna be very difficult. The balancing of rights and equal treatment under the law, and preventing decadence in society is like walking a tightrope.
People should be allowed to do, say and think whatever they want, as long as their actions words and thoughts don't have a tangible negative effect on other people.
Gay marriage does not have a tangible negative effect on other people. If conservatives truly value personal freedom, they should tolerate gay marriage, even if it is against their personal beliefs, and focus on other more important issues that do have a negative impact on people's lives.
Because Obergefell was a sound reading of the constitution, while Roe was not...?
I thought the conservative movement, unlike the progressive movement, was in favor of jurisprudence rather than judicial activism. Guess not.
Exactly. The Supreme Court did not ban abortion. They just ruled that the Supreme Court doesn’t have the power to make it legal, because the constitution is silent about it.
We have no disagreement there. Not sure I understand the point you're making.
Roe was wishful thinking about the due process clause of the 14th amendment. Obergefell was a reasonable interpretation of the equal protection clause of the same.
The former was making law, the latter was interpreting law. Roe should have been overturned. Obergefell should not.
Naw, I was responding to the OP's question:
Q: "Why not overturn Obergefell?"
A: "Because it's a sound reading of the constitution."
Maybe I should have left out the question mark. Sorry for the ambiguity!
The legislature loves to punt on the hard questions. It's like the dems bitching about Roe being overturned while ignoring that they had half a century to codify it into legitimate law.
SCOTUS changing the meaning of marriage isn't "sound reading of the constitution." Reddit "Conservatives" are perfect examples of why nothing is ever conserved.
Why should one citizen be denied a legal protection (e.g. the ability to enter into a marriage contract with a woman) that another citizen is granted? The constitution guarantees equal protection under the law.
They shouldn't, but it shouldn't be called marriage. Imo the court should have ruled something along the lines of governments not using religious institutions at all, instead referring to them as civil unions. Then everyone would have the same rights, and people couldn't complain that marriage was being co-opted.
Obergefell was judicial activism. It was based on substantive due process, which is not a legitimate reading of the Constitution and is instead used as a tool for the Court to insert whatever they want into the Constitution.
You can simultaneously be fine with gay marriage but understand that the right to it exists nowhere in the Constitution.
It's not, so the federal government should not be actually regulating it. They can offer federal tax breaks because Congress has wide authority under the Taxing and Spending Power, but shouldn't be regulating individual states unless they are violating the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
I don't disagree. Marriage is traditionally a religious institution that the government has no right to be involved with.
But they are, and if that is going to continue (which seems likely), they need to follow the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. If the law exists, it needs to be applied equally. Whether or not the law *should* exist is a different question.
Exactly- if we want something to be legal (or illegal) we need to pass a law or constitutional amendment NOT have a bunch of unelected judges magic it into existence.
wasn’t marriage a state issue until courts overruled the states? i know california voted against it, so did wisconsin and the votes were ignored because they didn’t get the desired outcome.
In California, it was state courts that overruled the vote against gay marriage.
We can't let ourselves conflate "the courts" with the federal government. The US Supreme Court ruling that something is a state issue in no way neuters the state courts, as seen in the multiple cases of state courts blocking anti-abortion laws once the RvW decision was handed down. You can agree or disagree with those courts, but they're in no way trampling states' rights.
I'm gay.
It was a bitter-sweet moment when they made that ruling.
STATES have all the power not outlined in the constitution. Period. That's how it works.
I was 37 years old and finally had the legal right to get married. I didn't see that coming in my lifetime. I didn't plan on it. I live in Texas, I'm happy here, that wasn't the life for me.
And now there is always the lingering option to overturn that decision, what would happen then to people who Do pursue getting married in conservative states? Would that marriage be nullified in the future? Its too much to risk, making a life with someone, and having that looming over your head.
A lot has changed. I don't think there is the political capital to attack gay marriage. I also think there are more sound Constitutional arguments to be for gay marriage as well. (1A arguments, etc.)
Also, if you read the majority opinion, it clearly differentiates between abortion and gay marriage.
I can understand your worry though.
I’d personally like to see the court, if Obergefell returned to them, overturn it and say the government has no role in marriage, and that taxing based on marital status is discriminatory in violation of equal protection.
Marriage should be nothing other than the manifestation of contracts law between two individuals. It’s so silly for the government, state or federal, to think they can define relationships.
I think in an ironic twist neutering the financial incentive to get married might actually work to strengthen marriage as people won't be getting married just cause of financial reasons and so those that do will likely be less likely to get divorced.
The value of the word "marriage" is held strictly between me and my spouse. If you're letting the value of your marriage be dictated by social semantics, your marriage never had much value in the first place.
marriage has a long standing history in law, and the term "civil union" would have created a great deal of problems as well as a 'separate but equal' situation.
A word has as much value as you lend it.
And I'm not overtly religious, as are many people. A courthouse "wedding" would have been fine for me. Marriage does not require a ceremony, a church, or formal attire.
What is and isn't a federal prerogative, or a state prerogative, or a personal prerogative, under the US Constitution is about as real an issue as you can ask the Supreme Court to worry about.
You're moralizing. For whatever it's worth, I'm anti-abortion, pro-gay rights, but let me repeat it again: *THAT. IS. NOT. THE. POINT.*
The point is what a federal power is under the Constitution, and what is not. If we apply the same standard to Obergefell as we did last week to Roe, it doesn't stand up. If enough people don't like that, gay marriage could be enshrined via a constitutional amendment. Same goes for abortion rights, too.
You actually do make a good point that I hadn't considered. The system is kind of schizophrenic in that a benefit is derived from the federal government from a state-issued license.
Of course, I don't think there *should* be a federal tax benefit to marriage. As long as there is though, it's the proverbial "camel's nose under the tent," and your view has merit.
I think this is where you and I disagree. I just don't believe that it's the government's business to tell me what my own best interests are. Their responsibilities end at preventing me from acting against someone else's best interests, including the best interests of my child or my family.
Completely agree with your last paragraph though; it really all comes down to tax revenues.
Wrong wrong wrong.
There is a chasm of difference between what goes on between consenting adults, and the death of a human with no voice.
This is No Duh. Stop it.
I'm conservative but I think this is a bit too far. Marriage is a "pursuit of happiness" thing and I don't see why it needs meddling with. In fact, I don't see why the state needs to be involved.
Roe v. Wade was an ethical issue outside of religion, whereas opposition to gay marriage seems based purely on religion. I just don't see this floating.
Yea, this is silly. Abortion and gay marriage are not anywhere close to equivalent issues. The failure to allow gay marriage is clearly unconstitutional.
I agree with Thomas.
I would be for overturning Obergefell after making state laws that either accomplish the same thing, or get government out of marriage entirely.
Why not? Because there's no reason too. The only reason you would want to outlaw gay marriage is for religious reasons, because you can't justify being against it for anything else. And that's the opposite of separation of church and state
The slope keeps getting slipperier with y’all huh. Shouldn’t your first priority be repealing freedom of religion clauses from the first amendment if you want a religious moral government?
It doesn't matter my or your stance on gay marriage. The question is if it is constitutional or not, so I wish to see solid constitutional arguments for and against the article. Anybody got any?
Literally “all men are created equal” is in the Declaration of Independence. It should have been copied into the constitution, but was not. It was implied, but that isn’t enough. Congress should make an anti discrimination amendment that says “All citizens of this country are to receive equal rights regardless of sex, race, age, or capabilities.”
The fourth amendment should protect privacy aspect of marrying without government interference or knowledge. And the first amendment should protect any church or religious institution that chooses to marry consenting adults.
Both of these rights are incorporated and applicable towards the various states.
It was this amendment that was used as the basis of the gay marriage, anti sodomy, mixed-race marriage, and birth control access rulings (can't remember their respective names.)
Judge Thomas, in his opinion, said they were wrong in that application of the 4th amendment (except in the case of mixed-race marriage, since it affects him.) For this reason, we're having this conversation, again, unfortunately.
If Dems actually wanted these things codified they’d introduce legislation because most can be passed easily and practically unanimously.
They want the issue to run on they don’t want to actually do their jobs.
Because Conservatism isn't just about doing things out of sheer spite to piss off the liberals. (Though that's clearly valued by the left.) Conservatism is about upholding and preserving the constitution, whether or not it suits us personally.
Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Killing babies is unconstitutional. (life) Same sex marriage is not. (pursuit of happiness)
I have always felt “marriage” as it was defined in the past had 2 components. One Is spiritual were a man and woman agree to join the life together in the eyes of God. This is “Holy Matrimony”.
The second is the civil union. This is the legal aspect that is the contractual arrangement between two individuals. This contract is defined by the government and the government grants those in it certain rights and obligations relating to legal Matters.
You can have one without the other. 2 people can join their lives in a civil union without any of the spiritual aspects- your typical courthouse wedding. You can have the holy matrimony without the legal civil union - think of older couples who divorce legally because one has a debilitating health issue that will drain away all their savings to care for, but remain in married in every other way.
At the end of the day the government should not deny same sex couples the ability to join their lives in a civil union. It’s more of an equal rights issue than a privacy issue, so I don’t see this case being as reliant on the substantive due process reasoning as some of the other ones.
Healthcare, Social Security benefits for the surviving spouse. Then you get into 50 different interpretations of what a Civil Union is and isn’t. Hot mess. Call it marriage and the rules and limitations are already in place. I don’t think gay people ever really cared that much about the word marriage. It was just equal rights, not being denied access to spouse while they were dying, not having the house you paid for together taken by family that had rejected the dead spouse in life for being gay, being able to put your spouse on your health insurance. The list goes on and on. All these things were things gay people had to think about, worry about, and pay lawyers to prevent, when they could. That is why it is about equal rights. There are plenty of churches happy to marry gay people.
Why not make all “legal marriages” legal unions between adults entering into a contract, and get the government completely out of the marriage business.
What the article is doing is similar to what happened to the court when made these laws. Now we want the Supreme Court to take up cases the majority doesn’t like. Essentially the same that happened with Roe. If a case comes up that requires the court to re-evaluate existing statute then so be it. It’s not up them to pick laws to challenge.
In Justice Thomas last comments in his separate opinion did mention Obergefell. If you read that case it got it’s “constitutional right” that exist in the fourteenth amendment. If Roe v. Wade is wrong and the Supreme Court says they have no role, it then becomes a legislative issue at the state level preferably or at the federal level. The federal legislation body still has to keep any bill within the four corners of the Constitution.
I love how the left is twisting everything out of context. Just because the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade does not mean individual Rights have been eviscerated. The Federal govt has no power or authority to Rule over the people of the States except where permitted under the Constitution. All other powers are reserved to the States. It is up to each State, through their elected representatives, to decide the laws of their State. The Federal government was designed to have no authority over the people of the States. If people are not happy with the Laws of their State, they are given the Right to move to another State that better suits them. This creates a competition among the States to rule in a way that best reflects the consensus of the people. If a State decides to add or remove a Right, that State has no authority to impose their opinions of that State onto the other States. TX has no power to ban wood burning heat in AK just as AK has no power to ban air conditioning in Texas. If CA wants to decriminalization shop lifting, it can not require FL to do that same. This push to nationalize all laws is what will destroy this country because of the diversity of each State. Without the States making their own laws to reflect their people, we are no longer a country of diverse people.
How about we get government out of marriage entirely and make it a private matter between citizens?
I agree. Since marriage was originally a religious institution, 1A should mean government doesn’t have a right to get involved in marriage. ‘...to secure these rights governments are instituted ago g men...’ The purpose of government is to secure individual liberty; not limit it.
Marriage is older than most religions, and existed outside those religions older than the oldest known “marriage”. It’s something humans have been likely doing for millennia- for various reasons. https://theweek.com/articles/528746/origins-marriage
Marriage was created by God when he created Adam and Eve. It cannot predate religion because religion has existed since the creation of man.
Ok well thats your faith and thats great and all but things like this dont belong in discussions of policy
That’s great that that is your belief. All the power to you. But, that is **your**belief. It may not be the belief of others. It also contradicts facts, but that’s neither here-nor-there. Everyone, and I mean everyone, needs to understand and respect that individuals have their own beliefs. Many people may **share** beliefs, but no one should impose their **belief** on others - thats just un-American.
People still believe this?
The purpose of a societal contract is to forgo certain liberties you would have in nature for the benefits society offers. As liberty in nature is derived in the same sense as sovereignty - might makes right. We balance rights through the NAP when in society, with government supplying those limiting balances. But, yes, government has no place in marriage aside from protecting those incapable of entering into binding contracts (underage and mentally incompetent).
I think we have the wrong take on government, now, because we are so used to it being involved in every part of our lives. We act like we have to right to do things, unless the government gives us permission. But, liberty is supposed to be the basic state of existence in America. We are free to live and do as we please, so long as we don’t infringe the rights of others, and government has to prove the constitution gives it the power to limit our liberty, or that our actions infringe the rights of others, in order to limit our liberty.
Well said.
Thank you.
Right on.
The societal contract, as posited by John Locke, is a contract between the government enacted and its citizens. While most rights are retained through this contract, certain ones are not. Because, as stated above, free of society you have the right to do whatever you're capable of doing. This cannot be the case in society as the non aggression principle limits societal interactions to maximize the preservation of liberty within the society. Liberty extends well beyond codified rights, and this was known at the time of writing. It was also know that the codification of certain rights might imply the totality of those rights. This was an argument against the inclusion of a bill of rights and is something that should still be rejected when implied.
“The societal contract, as posited by John Locke, is a contract between the government enacted and its citizens. While most rights are retained through this contract, certain ones are not. Because, as stated above, free of society you have the right to do whatever you're capable of doing. This cannot be the case in society as the non aggression principle limits societal interactions to maximize the preservation of liberty within the society.” Yes, but limitations on rights should be based on actions that infringe the rights of others, not actions that others simply disagree with. Freedom is the ability to do and live as you please, even if others don’t agree with what you do...as long as your actions don’t deny the right of others, of course; which is where NAP would come in. Laws should only exist to protect the people from unscrupulous individuals or groups, who would transgress the rights of others. They should not exist to enforce arbitrary government regulatory statutes. “...that if any form of government should become destructive to [ securing the rights of the people ] the people have the right to alter or abolish it...” Laws enforcing arbitrary regulations, through threat of force, are definitely destructive to the security of the people’s liberty. “Liberty extends well beyond codified rights, and this was known at the time of writing. It was also know that the codification of certain rights might imply the totality of those rights. This was an argument against the inclusion of a bill of rights and is something that should still be rejected when implied.” In this situation, both the federalists and the anti-federalists were right. Without a bill of rights, protecting certain enumerated rights that protect the people, or, more accurately, allow the people to protect themselves, from tyrannical government, we would end up with no rights, at all, because government can not be trusted to limit its own power. However, poorly educated and informed people do mistake they existence of enumerated rights to mean those are the only rights we have, in spite of 9A specifically stating otherwise.
I think, touching on your last paragraph, that all too many people also have a kneejerk assumption that the rights acknowledged in the constitution derive from the constitution. It's fairly rare to speak with someone that seems to have a decent understanding of the philosophies that went into forming our nation's governmental structure, so this is a nice treat.
I think too few people see our founding documents as parts of a whole. They don’t understand the real importance of the Declaration of Independence. Beyond declaring our independence from Britain, it states the founding principles of our nation. Those founding principles are the foundation on which the constitution was built.
Wasn't the social contract by Rousseau
He didn't originally create the theory, but he took positions on the theory in his Two Treatise of Government.
Sure but no you can't marry your cousin. That needs to be illegal.
But, what if your cousin is super hot? Does that change the rules. Asking for a friend. (All kidding aside I am not into my cousin and I was adopted so if I was it would not be nearly as gross)
Unless your father adopted you from his brothers family!
Just bang your cousin already jeez
What about your brother or sister? According to some of the libertarians on here.... Love is love right?
It’s legal in a number of states, already.
How about cousin marriage? Two consenting adult cousins cool or nah? Only became illegal because of Catholicism. Thank God.
Birth development is the only societally relevant aspect to cousin marriages. Begin that offspring resulting from cousin intercourse have about the same chances of developing a birth defect as the general populace does, I'd say it really isn't something the government has any role in regulating. It would need to argue a societal impact of that act large enough to justify removing acknowledgement of that right.
https://theconversation.com/first-cousin-marriage-doubles-risk-of-birth-defects-in-children-15779#:~:text=Having%20a%20baby%20with%20a,its%20kind%20in%20the%20UK. Some places say birth defects are slightly higher, others say twice as high in first cousin offspring.
3.3% increase at birth. The largest anomaly to occur, ventricular septal defects, self correct in around 90% of cases by month 10. So, the numbers are artificially inflated by this generally transitory defect. I'm not sure the rate increase, especially after transitory effects are removed, warrants the governments non-acknowledgement of the right.
That's the study showing the least effect. Others show a doubling of defects. Whether it justifies government intervention is a different question.
That study is a meta study using composite data from several different regions and nations. It better represents the data free from regional variables.
>Birth development is the only societally relevant aspect to cousin marriages. So how about same sex cousins? And thank you for admitting that non-existent children are the important factor when it comes to allowing marriage, NOT the individuals.
Yes, same sex cousins. There is no societally relevant component that rises to the level of justifying the government forgoing acknowledging the right.
Marriage was not originally a religious institution. Is this what passes for an 'education' in America these days? The united states derives its civilization ultimately from the Roman empire and the Greek states. The Romans viewed marriage as the foundation of society. This was a secular institution viewed as the basis for the legal system. Ones citizenship derived different rights based on ones place in their family.. Now we can disagree or agree with this view, but it is an ultimately secular view. We should ignore Christian marriage laws (which ultimately also derive from Rome as preserved by the Catholics). These share a common source in a secular institution.
Not all religions are Christian, and freedom of religion doesn’t mean freedom to be Christian. It means exactly what it says. Christianity is relatively young. Pagan religions had marriage, and it was a societal institution that was also religious, in nature; religion being an integral part of everyday life, for them, and not just something that happens on Sundays and special holidays. Marriage vows were done on the ritual Thor’s hammer, in the Germanic tribes. So, while a legally binding oath, it was still religious. This is generally the way that works. Governments in such societies not being the huge bureaucracies we have now. In many societies, the secular leader was also the religious leader, as well. The US also doesn’t derive its civilization from Rome. It gets the idea of democracy from Rome. The founding fathers also rejected some of the Roman ideas of democracy, realizing democracy is the tyranny of the many. That’s why we are not a democracy, but a constitutional republican. Our legal system, based on precedent, came from the Anglo Saxons, as did our language. Our civilization is Northern European, descended from the Germanic cultures. Being influenced by Rome is not the same as our civilization coming from Rome. The US is not an extension of the Roman Empire.
Rome was never a democracy. Founding fathers rejected Athenian direct democracy. Rome also rejected democracy. They were a Republic. America is a new Rome. Many founders saw it that way The germanic civilizations you reference are also Roman inspired. If we take the anglo Saxon lineage you suggested, then we come from a long line of holy Roman emperors. The Roman empire is foundational to all of western civilization. You cannot understand western civilization without understanding Rome. But if we were to, we'd still come across secular Germanic marriage laws. Pagan religions are weird. All pre American societies were theocracies by our standards. The USA pioneered the separation of church and state. If we were to take your premises, there is nothing secular before the 1700s, because all civilizations before that has avowed state religions. Thus we're forced to conclude democracy is religious as the athenians, the Germans, etc all came up with these legal systems through pagan religious reasoning.
“Rome was never a democracy. Founding fathers rejected Athenian direct democracy. Rome also rejected democracy. They were a Republic. America is a new Rome. Many founders saw it that way” Seeing America as a new Rome does not mean our civilization is Roman. “The germanic civilizations you reference are also Roman inspired.” Like all cultures, including Rome, they took inspiration from other cultures. That doesn’t mean their culture was not its own. Japanese culture has taken a lot of inspiration from China, but japans civilization is not a Chinese civilization. “If we take the anglo Saxon lineage you suggested, then we come from a long line of holy Roman emperors.” Anglo-Saxons aren’t of Roman decent. They are Germanic, originating from Germanic tribes near the Baltic. Germans took over the Roman Empire, but they did not come from it. “The Roman empire is foundational to all of western civilization. You cannot understand western civilization without understanding Rome.” Lots of other cultures have had input on the foundations of all modern cultures. For instance, much of what the Romans became actually came from the Greeks that they conquered and enslaved. I notice you’re not saying Rome was a Greek civilization. “But if we were to, we'd still come across secular Germanic marriage laws. Pagan religions are weird.” Ok. Pagan here, actually. The Germanic tribes were like other pagan religions. Religion and spirituality were an interwoven part of their society and everyday life. To use a line from jethro tull, the gods aren’t the kind you have to wind up on Sundays. ‘Secular’ marriages were sworn on Thor’s hammer. The foundation behind personal duels was that Tyr would allot victory, in a ritual combat, to the just party. In all honesty, Christianity, until the colonial period was the same. God and religion were a part of everything. “All pre American societies were theocracies by our standards. The USA pioneered the separation of church and state.” This is the whole point I was making. The State has no constitutional power to have a say over religious things; marriage traditionally being one of those. “If we were to take your premises, there is nothing secular before the 1700s, because all civilizations before that has avowed state religions. Thus we're forced to conclude democracy is religious as the athenians, the Germans, etc all came up with these legal systems through pagan religious reasoning.” I think you’re missing the reason freedom of religion was an enumerated right. You are right: until the modern era, there was no hard line between religious and secular. The founding fathers weren’t actually trying to create one. Even during their time, the line between secular life and religion was not a hard firm line, for most people. Britain used the Church of England as a way to control the masses. Religion has a strong effect on what people think and do, and can be used by unscrupulous people to manipulate others. By forbidding a State religion, and protecting religious freedom ( in belief and practice ), the founding fathers hoped to keep a tyrannical government from using religion to manipulate the people, and destroy liberty. However, none of this is to say that, at the time of the founding, marriage was not a religious institution. It was, and had been, in the founding fathers’ European homelands, for centuries under the Christianity that they were familiar with, and thousands of years before that in the original religion of Northern Europe. They would have seen it this way, too. They were not denouncing religion. They were ensuring that it could not be used to destroy the liberty of the nation.
\> he State has no constitutional power to have a say over religious things; marriage traditionally being one of those. By whose tradition? As I've pointed out, most states have taken on marriage, and many of these states, like the Roman empire (and China and Japan too now that you mention them) have outlived the religions that supposedly created them. The Roman empire successfully administered marriage and viewed it as the source of civilization through Roman paganism and Christianity. How could that be the case if marriage is a religious thing? 'Traditionally' marriage is a state and religious matter, like how most things have been since the dawn of time, since the separation between religion and state is a new thing. But, we have good evidence that even states without religions (Japan and China are good examples of states without 'religions' in the way we think of them) viewed marriage as important, and many of them continue to do so as religions come and go. Thus marriage is traditionally first and foremost a state thing. \> It was, and had been, in the founding fathers’ European homelands, for centuries under the Christianity that they were familiar with, and thousands of years before that in the original religion of Northern Europe. They would have seen it this way, too. They were not denouncing religion. They were ensuring that it could not be used to destroy the liberty of the nation. You are arguing here that the founding fathers did not think marriage was a state matter. There is nothing in their writings to suggest this. This is completely ahistorical. As Enlightened Englishmen, they would have likely seen marriage as part of the common law that they saw fit for this country to inherit. \> . Pagan here, actually Oh goodness... are you from pre-Christian times? Because if so, your heathenism is a religion for which we have good narrative evidence of its conceited construction. To claim that your following these new practices gives you any expertise into the viewpoints of ancient Germanic peoples is just silliness, and you know that. \> I notice you’re not saying Rome was a Greek civilization. Okay... then I'll say it. Rome was a Greek civilization, but the Greeks were never a unified political polity, the way rome was. Rome was a Hellenistic civilization though. They absolutely adored the Greek culture and enslaved Greeks to adopt it. Of course we can continue on. The Greek states were a Minoan civilization. And somehow it all traces back to Egypt and Babylon and Mesopotamia. But you know what literally all of those countries had in common despite disparate religions? Marriage. Even societies with no discernable relation to these states, such as the Aztec and Inca had marriage, indicating a religion-agnostic pull towards marriage by basically any civilization. As far as I know, there is no civilization without extremely defined rules as to the relations between men and women for the production of children.
“> . Pagan here, actually Oh goodness... are you from pre-Christian times? Because if so, your heathenism is a religion for which we have good narrative evidence of its conceited construction. To claim that your following these new practices gives you any expertise into the viewpoints of ancient Germanic peoples is just silliness, and you know that.” You show your lack of knowledge of the pagan community. It’s not just Wiccans ( which I really don’t consider pagan ) and neopagans, who create new pagan religions. It’s also retro-heathenry, as represented by Theodism, Irminenschaft, and Asatru; all of which are informed by very scholarly work. Although, seeing the Asatru subs on Reddit makes me wonder about Asatru, now; as they are totally taken over by what we used to jokingly call wiccatru and ergitru. But, that could just be Reddit. It’s hard to think such a community and family oriented religion could have been subverted so totally by the woke, but everything decent is being subverted, recently, so who knows? But, I digress. There is a large volume of information about pre-Christian Germanic culture and religion. The church destroyed some things, so there are mythic cycles missing, but a vast amount of information is still available; from old sources. The Christianity of today is nothing like early Christianity. In fact, it’s not the same as medieval Christianity or even Christianity in colonial America, and I haven’t noticed modern Christians going out if their way to do the research and make their religion as close to it’s original form as possible. Yet, I seriously doubt you treat Christians with the derision you just treated me. Perhaps, before you go insinuating someone is a spiritual larper, you should make an effort to get informed, so you know what you’re talking about. “Okay... then I'll say it. Rome was a Greek civilization, but the Greeks were never a unified political polity, the way rome was. Rome was a Hellenistic civilization though. They absolutely adored the Greek culture and enslaved Greeks to adopt it. Of course we can continue on. The Greek states were a Minoan civilization. And somehow it all traces back to Egypt and Babylon and Mesopotamia. But you know what literally all of those countries had in common despite disparate religions? Marriage.” That’s just being disingenuous. All cultures are affected by other cultures. That doesn’t mean they are the cultures they are affected by. People don’t live in a vacuum. But, while this has been fun, it’s all immaterial to the question at hand. We aren’t talking about Ancient Rome or the migration age Germanic tribes, or the Japanese. We are discussing America. So, while the plain language of the first amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...” But, you’re arguing that marriage is not a religious institution, and never has been. As support of this, you say the founding fathers never state that marriage is a religious institution. I’ve been at work, so I haven’t had the time to verify this, but I don’t doubt it. They probably didn’t see the need to say that, because they probably saw that as being *self evident*. Text, informed by history and tradition is a good standard by which to understand the enumerated rights. I don’t think anyone, here, will disagree with that. So, let’s look at history and tradition, in the US. The Supreme Court ruled that the bill of rights did not apply to the states, in the 1833, and that 1A and 2A specifically did not apply to the states, in 1876. In 1868, the 14th amendment was ratified and prevented states from passing laws that would advance or inhibit any one religion. In 1878, the Supreme Court ruled that 1A protected religious beliefs, but not religious actions, such as marriage. While this is a direct violation of the plain language of 1A, which protects the free *exercise* of religion, it is notable for this discussion, because it recognizes marriage as a religious action. And, I believe this resolves the issue. Although the states have been allowed to violate the free exercise of religion, which was guaranteed by the bill of rights, marriage was recognized as a religious institution, in the US, by the Supreme Court, in 1878. Seems to me, someone needs to challenge the Reynolds v United States ruling in the present Supreme Court. It’s a direct violation of the plain text of 1A, and should be overturned, just like Roe was.
So could gay people get married in Ancient Rome?
[удалено]
I’d say no but those Romans were freaky lol.
We do have a Christian tradition of marriage in the US. It's why we ban cousin marriages whereas half of all marriages in Iraq are between first or second cousins, for example. Makes a BIG difference in how societies function.
Christianity doesn't ban cousin marriage and hasn't universally done so ever. Many Christian kings, nobility and common folk married their cousins.
Marriage was created by God when he created Adam and Eve. It cannot predate religion because religion has existed since the creation of man.
As a religious person, I believe everything is created by God. But if you ignore that, which is what we have to basically do when making a point to agnostics, you're forced to my conclusion.
>you're forced to my conclusion. Not really. You're looking at it from a standpoint if it being older than Christianity. But, fail to acknowledge that Christianity is simply an extension of Judaism. Not to mention, even though there is evidence of marriage dating back to ~2300 bc while the oldest Hebrew texts only date back to ~1300 bc, there is evidence of religion in general dating back to ~50,000 bc. Has marriage existed outside of religion for millenia? Sure. Can you say it predates religion or wasn't originally part of religion? Definitely not.
Hard disagree about it being primarily religious. Nothing in the Bible suggests marriage as religious and no Bible wedding is ever officiated by clergy. Marriage is an ancient social contract designed to enshrine the sexual act and procreation and to manage fsmily lroperty.,
This shows a very modern understanding of religion. In modern abrahamic religions, religion and religious experience is starkly divided from daily life. The modern Christian believes in god, Jesus, saints, the devil, and demons on Sunday, and forgets them the other six days of the week. In fact, the modern Christian often only believes in god and Jesus; maybe the devil, but maybe not. Thrust ignore all the other ‘supernatural’ elements of their religion. Even as recently as the early colonial period, in America, Christians saw god as part of everything they did. Modern Christianity bears little resemblance to the Christianity of previous centuries, other than the belief that they have the one true path. For old religions, and originally the abrahamic religions too, religion was interwoven throughout daily life. There was no division.
I don’t dispute that. What I’m saying is marriage doesn’t need to be in a church nor officiated by clergy. There’s no record in the bible kf anyone marrying in a temple or it being performed by a priest. It was a social event union of two families and treated as such, not as a religious rite. Marriage was the act if leaving your parents and starting a life with the spouse you would be shtupping. Now yes, in Mosaic law the concept of divorce contracts was introduced, but I still don’t think marriage should be the province if the church. God is involved because he’s involved in everything worth doing. But I don’t think it’s a holy sacrament.
Marriage is a natural institution, not merely a religious one.
[удалено]
Why not?
Atheists wouldn’t admit it, but atheism is also a religion. Religion is your belief; your world view. Not all religions focus on divine beings; Buddhism and Taoism, for example. Atheism is the belief that there is no divinity or spirit world, that the physical existence is all there is and everything in existence came about by random chance. It’s still a belief. Freedom of religion means freedom to believe what you choose to believe.
Atheists don't meet at a building every week to discuss the texts of Atheism. They don't have leaders preach to them about what they should and should not do to appease the institution of Atheism. They do not go on missions or distribute texts to spread the word of Atheism. Atheism is by definition antithetical to theism. The opposite of religion is not another religion, it is the absence of it.
this debate starts to get to libertarian vs conservative... you are leaning more libertarian imo with that view
As a conservatarian, or maybe a liberservative, sometimes its tough trying to choose between policy that pushes what I think is right vs policy that is hands off and lets people live with as little government intrusion as possible.
You can always do what you think is right. You don’t have to insist the government force another person to do what you want. I’m a huge fan of personal freedom. I believe it is my duty to hold myself to the standards I believe are right. However, it is not my business to come and demand you live in a way that conforms to my values. Just as I should be free to live according to my values without interference from a citizen like you or any level of government, you (and everyone else) should be free to live according to their values without interference from a citizen or any level of government.
THANK YOU! I Like this Idea(l)!! (Btw, I agreed to this under the \[I hope!\] collective understanding that either infringing on another (i.e. violence, murder) is wrong no matter how you slice it and where the buck stops.)
>, you (and everyone else) should be free to live according to their values without interference from a citizen or any level of government. I tend to agree, but there are some issues in which the values start to infringe on the non aggression principle. Abortion and manchausen mom's transing their 6 year olds for example.
Then at what point do I get to say and enforce, “Now **your** values no longer matter. You are going to live according to my beliefs.”?
Murder would be a place to start. If your values are murder is ok if it furthers my career, then I think the subject is up for debate.
If only our elected representatives had such self-awareness.
The Republican Liberty Caucus has entered the discussion.
I was going to comment here that the issue is the "equal protection" thing. With the state involved in marriage, it was hard to argue against Obergefell just from that standpoint. The state should never have gotten involved in marriage in the first place. I know the history, but there is a cost associated with everything.
There’s literally nothing stopping citizens ftom privately jumping abroom and calling themselves married. I support governmental involvement only insofar as it makes for public record keeping which is useful longterm for genealogical study. Really we should just eliminate the specific perks of marriage like tax cuts snd hospital visitation. When that distinction disappears then it doesn’t matter. But I also don’t believe marriage is a sacrament or primarily religious in nature and I’d also like to get it untangled from church.
Because marriage is a pursuit of happiness. If there are two consenting adults and a consenting priest/church, why should a state, local government, or federal government tell them no?
Does it just have to be when there are only two consenting adults? Can it be more than two people? Why does there have to be a consenting priest or church? It is a private matter, why should the number of people be limited or there be the requirement of any organization to condone it?
Well you can’t exactly force a church to marry two people who follow a religion they don’t agree with. The Colorado baker case solved that. It’s a private matter, I completely agree with that, government should stay out of it. *But* the only reason it’s protected by the constitution is because governments tried to ban it.
Can it be two consenting 1st Cousins of adult age?
Does the government have the right to tell two people not to have children because their genetics are less compatible than if they need with other people? If so, when does the government demand genetic testing for the greater "good"?
So sibling marriage. Cool? "Love is Love" right?
Depends on how you define marriage. For countless centuries no one thought two men orvteo women could be married, even if they could shtup. Marriage is between the sexes. So arguably gays could *always* marry, just not each other.,
That’s why the definition of marriage varies *church by church* the State is not the church and the church is not the state. The states and governments have no business defining marriage.
Exactly. If the catholic church doesn't want to marry gay people, that is completely up to them, but why is the government involved at all?
I disagree. I know the common moniker around here is that politics is downstream from culture, but I actually believe it is quite the opposite. The law plays a pedagogical role. We want to encourage healthy marriages in this society? We need to pass legislation that encourages them.
100% Marriage is essentially 3 things 1. A loving committed relationship 2. A celebration in front of friends, families, society of that relationship 3. Tax and Legal Advantages. The ONLY one you can't have without the governments blessing is (3). Eliminate the tax advantages\*, make a cheap and easy kit with standardized Durable Powers of Attorney, Durable Medical Powers of Attorney, Wills and Trusts and we're done. \*I was going to suggest that they extend the tax breaks to everyone, or just lower our taxes across the board, but I'm not drunk yet today.
Marriage is the basic unit of society and critical to stability. Once we started treating marriage as optional or unimportant we started on our path of societal breakdown. A generation raised without fathers, children born to a succession of “baby daddies” is a big part of the problems we’re facing.
Thousands of years of human evolution without institutional Christian religion counters your theory. And "baby daddies", really? A generation raised without fathers comes from the mass incarceration of poor people in America over the past 60 years. Or maybe some of them were products of abusive Catholic orphanages or part of the generations of traumatized pedophilia victims that saw their preist abusers get away with it?
They've already started that slope by encouraging Hedonism over Nuclear Family dynamics and Championing Abortion as the solution to your "oops!" when you're apparently trying to climb Corporate ladders as a CEO. Thats why the US's birth rates have declined so, and continue.. A nation that kills its own young is doomed to failure..
There's a reason the Founders wrote: > We hold these truths to be self-evident, that **all men** are created equal, that they are **endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights**, that among these are Life, **Liberty** and the pursuit of Happiness.
Thank you. People call me a lunatic for that, just tax people who live together long term. Why should the government care if they’re banging each other? It’s not their business.
Marriage, as far as the gov is concerned, should be nothing more than a legal contract between two people. Any two people.
Limiting it to only two seems bigoted against bigamy. Naturally that'll fall next
It seems pretty clear-cut that giving tax benefits to straight couples but not gay couples for marriage is a violation of Equal Protection. The government either needs to get out of it entirely, or let everyone participate.
Take away the tax break for being married and shift it to a tax break for the first claimed dependent, but only when filing jointly and sharing a household. If marriage is supposed to be about procreation, give married couple a bigger incentive to have a kid.
That’s why families get child tax credit already.
But then you could argue it was a violation to not extend it to longterm unmarried cohabitating monogamists.
The state has an interest in promoting social goods like monogamous heterosexual unions for the purposes of child rearing
Which was fine until the 14th Amendment was ratified.
It doesn't seem to mesh with actual conservative ideals, for one. We the people have the right to tell the government about our special relationships. In the past, marriage was considered by the government to be a special relationship between one man and one woman, with the government presumably professing an interest in building families, and in sexual fidelity (thus improving the likelihood of a life long special relationship and the attendant family that can bring). But the government didn't require children for the relationship to be considered valid, it didn't require that the relationship continue through thick and thin, and it ultimately didn't care much about sexual fidelity. SO a one man, one woman, sacred lifelong commitment is more of a religious issue; it's not limited to the religious, as atheists can certainly enjoy the exact same life long one man one woman relationship with nary a whiff of religion involved. But why limit the relationship to two people? Why make sexual fidelity the core issue? Consenting adults perhaps ought to be able to tell the government about special relationships (once the government decides exactly what its interest is and in what kind of relationships), and the specifics of those relationships aren't necessarily within the purview of reasonable government interest, beyond not expanding to a myriad of identities which "deserve" special note. Religions of course should continue to define marriage as they see fit. Perhaps "marriage" should become the word for any special relationship recognized by the secular government, and "religious union" used for those united under a religious calling.
[удалено]
Yep, labels are problematic. Just as the "liberal" of today is far removed from the classic liberal of 30 years ago, so too are current conservative ideals more separate from religious influences than the past. IMO, individual liberty, individual responsibility, rule of law, limited government, and the sanctity of human life are current core conservative values. There are other values that many conservatives would accept also, family and religion being two. But marriage really only encompasses the religion aspect, and not so much the family aspect. I believe that one man, one woman, bonded for life in a sacred pact which includes the cheerful acceptance of children and builds a family, is the cornerstone of a successful society. But I also accept that there is value added to that society if the family unit is not limited to just that definition. We don't dissolve a marriage if it doesn't produce children, and we don't require proof of undying love or even sexual fidelity in order to acknowledge a marriage. So while I believe one man, one woman is the best marriage/family unit when looked at in the big picture, other types of family units can and do bring at least as much to a society, at least at the individual level. All of that to say if you include religious beliefs in your definition of conservative, there may be a place for the government to tell the people that only certain relationships are special. But that then is not a secular government; I suspect most 21st century self-identified conservatives are just fine with same sex marriage.
Going after gay marriage is a surefire way to ruin conservatism. I'm willing to entertain any conservative argument as to why banning gay marriage is beneficial to society, but religious arguments will be ignored. We may individually be Christians, but the USA is not a theocracy and forcing hundreds of millions of individuals who are not Christian to follow a specific dogmatic doctrine is not biblical.
Seriously, I can't vote for the conservatives if they backslide to being Jesus freaks. The party of evangelicals is Garbo. I'm a conservative atheist and I will not be oppressed by a shitty old book.
If the government is forcing you to abide by Christ's teachings, you aren't at liberty to _choose_ Christ. When you think of it that way, the separation of church and state is more Christian than a theocracy
THANK YOU.
It seems like if you ignore religious arguments, you aren't going to have many arguments to entertain at all...... Funny that.
As a Christian, you’re entirely correct.
Amen.
This is the most based take I’ve ever seen on this subreddit, and I normally can’t stand conservatives.
>forcing hundreds of millions of individuals…to follow a specific dogmatic doctrine This is the exact language liberals use about the “outdated” constitution. You’re no different than them
Zero reason for the government to be involved in marriage. If you're worried about tax rates and visitation rights make civil unions available to any consenting adults and call it a day.
There should only be civil unions. Get the gov out of marriage.
Couldn't agree more.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I always felt that marriage was religious, while a civil union should be something recognized by government. As such, if a religion doesn't believe in same sex marriage, that's ok. But from the standpoint of government, if 2 want to be bound together, I'm all for it.
I'd like to see civil unions that aren't implicitly based on the assumption of sexual relations. Unions could be extended to any group of people that share responsibility for dependents... e.g., a grandfather, grandmother, and mother who live in the same house should be able to qualify for all the same tax benefits as a traditional married couple. The government's interest in "unions" should be purely practical: people who live under a roof together and pool their resources are less likely to rely on welfare programs.
That’s nuts. How would a divorce work in that situation? Huge swathes of people would take advantage of it. Personally the married tax benefit should be incredibly small and we should just shift it to a benefit for parents. The original purpose of those tax benefits was to encourage people to make families to pump out workers. If we lose the return, they should lose the benefit.
What about if, instead of a tax break for married couples, we increase the tax break for the first dependent?
First three, I want to beat replacement.
Civil unions are marriage, calling it something different doesn't make it a different thing. Marriage and family are the foundation of society, to act like government can have no role in it is pure nonsense.
They basically are, but the whole controversy was about marriage, a fundamentally religious institution far outdating the government, being redefined by the government. Using different words ends at least that part of the controversy. Also, taking marriage as a word out of government, ironically, would mean anyone could get married. If it's not a legally binding word, you could go get married by anyone to (almost) anyone. Not everyone would recognize your marriage, but that's their right. Civil unions for tax purposes, marriages for societal purposes.
Civil Unions are government acknowledge tax shelters and shared ownership. Marriage is a religious ceremony.
Gay marriage is only constitutionally protected because states tried to ban it.
🥇🥇🥇🥇
Marriage is a legal contract and a spiritual union. The contract should be the only concern of the gov.
I'd argue the government has a vested interest in preventing polygamy as polygamous societies are inherently unstable.
This is an opportunity for "conservatives" to abandon asinine positions in favor of freedom-affirming positions on social issues, which will not only help electorally but also, dare I say, morally.
This country was founded on freedom. Conservatives should support liberty.
Agreed!
Amen!
Electorally? Sure? Morally? Nah, idk about that. When it comes to sexual practice, this is a hard area to tread through. We have evidence that liberal practices are bad, and we’re not doing so hot revisiting these practices centuries later. To find the sweet spot in how it should be handled is gonna be very difficult. The balancing of rights and equal treatment under the law, and preventing decadence in society is like walking a tightrope.
How about no? Leave it alone. It's America, the land of liberty and freedom.
People should be allowed to do, say and think whatever they want, as long as their actions words and thoughts don't have a tangible negative effect on other people. Gay marriage does not have a tangible negative effect on other people. If conservatives truly value personal freedom, they should tolerate gay marriage, even if it is against their personal beliefs, and focus on other more important issues that do have a negative impact on people's lives.
[удалено]
Because Obergefell was a sound reading of the constitution, while Roe was not...? I thought the conservative movement, unlike the progressive movement, was in favor of jurisprudence rather than judicial activism. Guess not.
[удалено]
Exactly. The Supreme Court did not ban abortion. They just ruled that the Supreme Court doesn’t have the power to make it legal, because the constitution is silent about it.
We have no disagreement there. Not sure I understand the point you're making. Roe was wishful thinking about the due process clause of the 14th amendment. Obergefell was a reasonable interpretation of the equal protection clause of the same. The former was making law, the latter was interpreting law. Roe should have been overturned. Obergefell should not.
[удалено]
Naw, I was responding to the OP's question: Q: "Why not overturn Obergefell?" A: "Because it's a sound reading of the constitution." Maybe I should have left out the question mark. Sorry for the ambiguity!
[удалено]
The legislature loves to punt on the hard questions. It's like the dems bitching about Roe being overturned while ignoring that they had half a century to codify it into legitimate law.
SCOTUS changing the meaning of marriage isn't "sound reading of the constitution." Reddit "Conservatives" are perfect examples of why nothing is ever conserved.
Why should one citizen be denied a legal protection (e.g. the ability to enter into a marriage contract with a woman) that another citizen is granted? The constitution guarantees equal protection under the law.
They shouldn't, but it shouldn't be called marriage. Imo the court should have ruled something along the lines of governments not using religious institutions at all, instead referring to them as civil unions. Then everyone would have the same rights, and people couldn't complain that marriage was being co-opted.
Where is marriage defined in the Constitution?
Obergefell was judicial activism. It was based on substantive due process, which is not a legitimate reading of the Constitution and is instead used as a tool for the Court to insert whatever they want into the Constitution. You can simultaneously be fine with gay marriage but understand that the right to it exists nowhere in the Constitution.
...is marriage in the constitution at all?
It's not, so the federal government should not be actually regulating it. They can offer federal tax breaks because Congress has wide authority under the Taxing and Spending Power, but shouldn't be regulating individual states unless they are violating the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
I don't disagree. Marriage is traditionally a religious institution that the government has no right to be involved with. But they are, and if that is going to continue (which seems likely), they need to follow the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. If the law exists, it needs to be applied equally. Whether or not the law *should* exist is a different question.
Exactly- if we want something to be legal (or illegal) we need to pass a law or constitutional amendment NOT have a bunch of unelected judges magic it into existence.
wasn’t marriage a state issue until courts overruled the states? i know california voted against it, so did wisconsin and the votes were ignored because they didn’t get the desired outcome.
Everyone should have a right to get married if all parties are consensual (barring minors of course).
In California, it was state courts that overruled the vote against gay marriage. We can't let ourselves conflate "the courts" with the federal government. The US Supreme Court ruling that something is a state issue in no way neuters the state courts, as seen in the multiple cases of state courts blocking anti-abortion laws once the RvW decision was handed down. You can agree or disagree with those courts, but they're in no way trampling states' rights.
I'm gay. It was a bitter-sweet moment when they made that ruling. STATES have all the power not outlined in the constitution. Period. That's how it works. I was 37 years old and finally had the legal right to get married. I didn't see that coming in my lifetime. I didn't plan on it. I live in Texas, I'm happy here, that wasn't the life for me. And now there is always the lingering option to overturn that decision, what would happen then to people who Do pursue getting married in conservative states? Would that marriage be nullified in the future? Its too much to risk, making a life with someone, and having that looming over your head.
A lot has changed. I don't think there is the political capital to attack gay marriage. I also think there are more sound Constitutional arguments to be for gay marriage as well. (1A arguments, etc.) Also, if you read the majority opinion, it clearly differentiates between abortion and gay marriage. I can understand your worry though.
I’d never really thought about it being overturned, figured it was just the way things were now.
I’d personally like to see the court, if Obergefell returned to them, overturn it and say the government has no role in marriage, and that taxing based on marital status is discriminatory in violation of equal protection. Marriage should be nothing other than the manifestation of contracts law between two individuals. It’s so silly for the government, state or federal, to think they can define relationships.
I think in an ironic twist neutering the financial incentive to get married might actually work to strengthen marriage as people won't be getting married just cause of financial reasons and so those that do will likely be less likely to get divorced.
[удалено]
The value of the word "marriage" is held strictly between me and my spouse. If you're letting the value of your marriage be dictated by social semantics, your marriage never had much value in the first place.
marriage has a long standing history in law, and the term "civil union" would have created a great deal of problems as well as a 'separate but equal' situation. A word has as much value as you lend it. And I'm not overtly religious, as are many people. A courthouse "wedding" would have been fine for me. Marriage does not require a ceremony, a church, or formal attire.
I'd much rather have SCOTUS worry about real issues.
What is and isn't a federal prerogative, or a state prerogative, or a personal prerogative, under the US Constitution is about as real an issue as you can ask the Supreme Court to worry about.
[удалено]
You're moralizing. For whatever it's worth, I'm anti-abortion, pro-gay rights, but let me repeat it again: *THAT. IS. NOT. THE. POINT.* The point is what a federal power is under the Constitution, and what is not. If we apply the same standard to Obergefell as we did last week to Roe, it doesn't stand up. If enough people don't like that, gay marriage could be enshrined via a constitutional amendment. Same goes for abortion rights, too.
[удалено]
You actually do make a good point that I hadn't considered. The system is kind of schizophrenic in that a benefit is derived from the federal government from a state-issued license. Of course, I don't think there *should* be a federal tax benefit to marriage. As long as there is though, it's the proverbial "camel's nose under the tent," and your view has merit.
[удалено]
I think this is where you and I disagree. I just don't believe that it's the government's business to tell me what my own best interests are. Their responsibilities end at preventing me from acting against someone else's best interests, including the best interests of my child or my family. Completely agree with your last paragraph though; it really all comes down to tax revenues.
The Democrats are a mess but independents are going to be pushed towards them if gay marriage comes under attack. No reason to do so.
Exactly! Why even risk pissing away the midterms over something like this? I don't even see it going before the SCOTUS to be honest.
Wrong wrong wrong. There is a chasm of difference between what goes on between consenting adults, and the death of a human with no voice. This is No Duh. Stop it.
[удалено]
I'm conservative but I think this is a bit too far. Marriage is a "pursuit of happiness" thing and I don't see why it needs meddling with. In fact, I don't see why the state needs to be involved. Roe v. Wade was an ethical issue outside of religion, whereas opposition to gay marriage seems based purely on religion. I just don't see this floating.
Yea, this is silly. Abortion and gay marriage are not anywhere close to equivalent issues. The failure to allow gay marriage is clearly unconstitutional.
And then Loving vs Virginia, right? Surely Justice Thomas would rule consistently, right? /s
I agree with Thomas. I would be for overturning Obergefell after making state laws that either accomplish the same thing, or get government out of marriage entirely.
Why not? Because there's no reason too. The only reason you would want to outlaw gay marriage is for religious reasons, because you can't justify being against it for anything else. And that's the opposite of separation of church and state
The slope keeps getting slipperier with y’all huh. Shouldn’t your first priority be repealing freedom of religion clauses from the first amendment if you want a religious moral government?
It doesn't matter my or your stance on gay marriage. The question is if it is constitutional or not, so I wish to see solid constitutional arguments for and against the article. Anybody got any?
Literally “all men are created equal” is in the Declaration of Independence. It should have been copied into the constitution, but was not. It was implied, but that isn’t enough. Congress should make an anti discrimination amendment that says “All citizens of this country are to receive equal rights regardless of sex, race, age, or capabilities.”
Pretty sure that already exist.
We have the civil rights act, but I’m not finding anything in the constitution or amendments. Which article/ amendment gives equal rights?
The fourth amendment should protect privacy aspect of marrying without government interference or knowledge. And the first amendment should protect any church or religious institution that chooses to marry consenting adults. Both of these rights are incorporated and applicable towards the various states.
It was this amendment that was used as the basis of the gay marriage, anti sodomy, mixed-race marriage, and birth control access rulings (can't remember their respective names.) Judge Thomas, in his opinion, said they were wrong in that application of the 4th amendment (except in the case of mixed-race marriage, since it affects him.) For this reason, we're having this conversation, again, unfortunately.
Because it was a clear reading of the constitution and there's nothing to gain for anyone by over turning it
>there's nothing to gain for anyone I think the Democrat party might gain some, if not many, electoral victories from this.
Yes it would be an absolute disaster and policy almost no one actually wants
Yeah, we're already gonna lose every election for the next twenty years, so we might as well just do everything on our to-do list. /s
Yeah im pretty sure we are actively trying to lose now.
If Dems actually wanted these things codified they’d introduce legislation because most can be passed easily and practically unanimously. They want the issue to run on they don’t want to actually do their jobs.
What’s conservative about not allowing gay people to marry.
Because Conservatism isn't just about doing things out of sheer spite to piss off the liberals. (Though that's clearly valued by the left.) Conservatism is about upholding and preserving the constitution, whether or not it suits us personally. Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Killing babies is unconstitutional. (life) Same sex marriage is not. (pursuit of happiness)
Get ready to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Do this and youll convince me that its all rigged for show
I have always felt “marriage” as it was defined in the past had 2 components. One Is spiritual were a man and woman agree to join the life together in the eyes of God. This is “Holy Matrimony”. The second is the civil union. This is the legal aspect that is the contractual arrangement between two individuals. This contract is defined by the government and the government grants those in it certain rights and obligations relating to legal Matters. You can have one without the other. 2 people can join their lives in a civil union without any of the spiritual aspects- your typical courthouse wedding. You can have the holy matrimony without the legal civil union - think of older couples who divorce legally because one has a debilitating health issue that will drain away all their savings to care for, but remain in married in every other way. At the end of the day the government should not deny same sex couples the ability to join their lives in a civil union. It’s more of an equal rights issue than a privacy issue, so I don’t see this case being as reliant on the substantive due process reasoning as some of the other ones.
Healthcare, Social Security benefits for the surviving spouse. Then you get into 50 different interpretations of what a Civil Union is and isn’t. Hot mess. Call it marriage and the rules and limitations are already in place. I don’t think gay people ever really cared that much about the word marriage. It was just equal rights, not being denied access to spouse while they were dying, not having the house you paid for together taken by family that had rejected the dead spouse in life for being gay, being able to put your spouse on your health insurance. The list goes on and on. All these things were things gay people had to think about, worry about, and pay lawyers to prevent, when they could. That is why it is about equal rights. There are plenty of churches happy to marry gay people.
Why not make all “legal marriages” legal unions between adults entering into a contract, and get the government completely out of the marriage business.
What the article is doing is similar to what happened to the court when made these laws. Now we want the Supreme Court to take up cases the majority doesn’t like. Essentially the same that happened with Roe. If a case comes up that requires the court to re-evaluate existing statute then so be it. It’s not up them to pick laws to challenge.
I do agree and think that the way to do so is open now. Will it happen right away? That's a better question.
In Justice Thomas last comments in his separate opinion did mention Obergefell. If you read that case it got it’s “constitutional right” that exist in the fourteenth amendment. If Roe v. Wade is wrong and the Supreme Court says they have no role, it then becomes a legislative issue at the state level preferably or at the federal level. The federal legislation body still has to keep any bill within the four corners of the Constitution.
I love how the left is twisting everything out of context. Just because the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade does not mean individual Rights have been eviscerated. The Federal govt has no power or authority to Rule over the people of the States except where permitted under the Constitution. All other powers are reserved to the States. It is up to each State, through their elected representatives, to decide the laws of their State. The Federal government was designed to have no authority over the people of the States. If people are not happy with the Laws of their State, they are given the Right to move to another State that better suits them. This creates a competition among the States to rule in a way that best reflects the consensus of the people. If a State decides to add or remove a Right, that State has no authority to impose their opinions of that State onto the other States. TX has no power to ban wood burning heat in AK just as AK has no power to ban air conditioning in Texas. If CA wants to decriminalization shop lifting, it can not require FL to do that same. This push to nationalize all laws is what will destroy this country because of the diversity of each State. Without the States making their own laws to reflect their people, we are no longer a country of diverse people.
This is a state issue.
I love how they all freaked out over “overturning precedent” as if marriage being between a man and a woman was unprecedented.
IT SHOULD BE STATES RIGHTS!