Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional
That's all the state deals with now...soooo...changing the name is pointless.
You're saying the state shouldn't recognize what has been ruled to be a Fundamental Right, that the state should leave this right to private entities and not protect it.
What other rights do you suppose the State shouldn't protect?
First, are you suggesting that everything that has been ruled a fundamental right is unquestionably a fundamental right in exactly the way its been ruled? Just wanting to get that on the table first and foremost Jerry.
Second, I don't believe in a fundamental "right" of marriage because marriage in and of itself is a man made creation. I believe fundamental rights are ones that can be exercised without the aid of anything else or through a social contract. To me, "fundamental rights are the right to life (which thus includes defense. Everyone has the right to attempt to live), the right to liberty (freedom is the natural construct and no person should be forced to surrender that unwillingly), and the persuit of happiness (which includes attempting to gain monetary or tangible things without infringing upon someone elses rights). Anything beyond that to me would be a different kidn of right than "Fundamental", for example I view the right to bear arms a CONSTITUTIONAL right, not a fundamental one.
Third, I do not believe marriage is a constitutional right. I disagree with the courts on this one. I'm a strict constructionist generally and not one that only uses the term when its the 2nd amendment being talked about. While I believe people have a constitutional right to join together, IE essentially assembly, I see no constitutional right that mandates the state must give you preferencial treatment or recognize your union in any way shape or form.
Fourth, I do however believe that its in the interest of the state for a variety of reasons to recognize a union of two people. From taxes, property, power of attorny, etc there are a lot of reasonable reasons why its in the states interest to allow for this kind of thing. And I do think that if they recognize unions then, under equal protection, there is a constitutional right that if they are going to recognize a union of two people then people have a right to enter into such unions. IE the government can not say "You 5 people can enter into various unions, but you, Bob, you're not allowed". Its kind of like one of those things where if a law was passed that mandated everyone was allowed to have internet access that'd become a "right". Not a fundamental right, not a constitutional right, but a right as a citizen of the U.S. As such they couldn't then decide that "actually, um, males aren't allowed access".
As it stands, if "marriage" is going to be used by the government then when speaking of it in regards to a government setting it has
ZERO religious meaning. That means whatever religious traditions may be connected to it and what kind of infringement someone may think rules regarding it would have on religion is irrelevant, because in regards to the government its a 100% SECULAR term because our government is secular. As such, the notion that "its always been a man and woman" is irrelevant when it comes to the government because there is no overriding law or ruling with regards to government laws that says "laws that are one way must always be that way". As such there is no need for "defense of marriage" because its simply a secular government term for a government sponsored union, and under equal protection said unions should not be barred from people of specific classes of people. This includes discrimination towards sex, suggesting that the only benefit the government has in regards to combined tax laws, property laws, etc is when a man and woman are involved.
As such, there is any talk about the "Sanctity" of marriage is irrelevent because its not a sacred nor religious thing in this discussion, its a secular thing of the state. The only way to actually make it sacred would be to remove it from the secular wording all together and thus allow it once more to fall into the hands of religion and religion alone.
By seperating "Marriage" from the governmental terms you successfully assure its sanctity by making every individual religion or church having full and complete control over "marriage" with the government simply having domain over "unions" that bestow upon them recognition and benefits from the state.
Any religious arguments, sanctity arguments, tradition arguments are irrelevant in regards to marriage as a secular, governmental term. If the concern is truly about the sanctity of marriage the only way to legally and realistically allow for it is to remove it and give it back to the religions as the sole definition of the word, for as long as its a word in the government the RELIGIOUS meanings of the word are 100% irrelevant when talking about it under the auspices of its affects with regards to the government.
