I can’t believe I actually support something the ACLU does. In this case, I do.
Marriage. It is a religious, spiritual, cultural, and societal issue. Throughout history, marriages have been sanctified by an organized church, or blessed in one form or another by a village elder. Church marriages were reserved for the upper classes, although many others were officiated by clergy.
But I can’t think of a single sentence in our Constitution or its Amendments which gives the federal government the power to regulate marriage, or any other societal or cultural issue. In fact, this is one issue where I believe the church/state separation philosophy actually applies. I don’t know with any real certainty, but I seriously doubt that any state constitution has provisions for regulation of marriage, either.
Government got into the marriage business when politicians saw another way to raise revenue–licenses. Of course, there was a pretext of “for the public good” by requiring blood tests. (Are those still done?) Logically, why do I need the government’s approval to get married?
Today there are far more issues involved. And those issues are the prime reason for the ACLU to press this case. Marriage grants certain privileges, most due to givernment edict. What the ACLU is supporting is same-sex marriage partners receiving privileges (not rights) that heterosexual partners have. My dog in this fight is exactly the opposite result the ACLU wants. I want to see the government out of the marriage business in every way. Privileges must be based on individuals. Companies should not be required to offer equal privileges. They need to have consistent policies, but the government has no place dictating what they recognize. If a gay couple can get recognition of their union by some group, good for them. I feel the same about polygamy, which is the stated focus of this suit.
I am not optimistic, though. If the ACLU is successful in this suit, it will have exactly the opposite effect I want to see.
This is the danger of allowing our judiciary to legislate. I would only support a Marrigae Amendment to the Constitution if it stated the government had to stay out of the marriage business. The issue is already resolved by the Constitution–it doesn’t give the government any authority in this matter. Therefore, the Feds must stay out of it. If a state wants to make a law regarding marriage, and their constitution allows it, the matter is settled.
Don’t count on it.
i disagree slightly in that i believe that the state has an interest, under civil law, in reallocating the property after a marriage fails and as a result the Federal government has an interest in assuring that disputes arising from different state rules are given an appropriate hearing, which the Full Faith and Credit clause permits.
but much more importantly, here is one of the few places where i have a hard stop and that is at polygamy. i oppose it. there are many who argue that it is impoverishing and bad for the welfare of families and children in them. these arguments may be true, but i don’t make them. i oppose polygamy because it is dangerous to have unattached young men wandering around a society trying desperately to do something outrageous enough to attract the attention of one of the few available women. i develop the case a bit more at http://198.30.156.67/000112.php
currently there is federal law against polygamy that has been tested before the Supreme Court, i will get the cite, but it is something like “The Late Mormon Corporation vs. United States.” I don?t know the enabling clause that they hung their argument on right now and again I will get the cite. (my computer is about to crash).
Comment by rammer — February 14, 2004 @ 7:41 pm
Again, culture and society once controlled that. I’m sure there were instances where someone was treated poorly because of that, but I wouldn’t be too surprised if more get shafted today due to sleazy lawyers!
Mark Twain: “Laws are sand, customs are rock. Laws can be evaded and punishment escaped, but an openly transgressed custom brings sure punishment.” I agree completely.
Comment by Bunker — February 15, 2004 @ 6:02 am