Federal Judge gets it right

Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 10 months ago to Legislation
153 comments | Share | Flag

Regardless of where you stand on the issue, this judge was the first one to get it right: the definition of marriage is for the State to decide - not a Federal Judge.

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 6.
  • Posted by eilinel 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "Leave marriage to those that can actually create children."
    So if a man is infertile because he had mumps as a child, or a woman has a hysterectomy before she can get married, does this mean they can't be allowed to marry, because they can't reproduce? If Granny or Gramps find a new life partner, they can't be allowed to marry, because they can't reproduce?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I think you could avoid a lot of the problems with this if you repealed the 14th Amendment and restricted the ability of the federal Government to raise revenue to import/export duties and tarriffs as the Founders set forth. Corporate taxes are a facade because they just get passed on to consumers anyway. And IF we were to have a personal income tax, it would be flat tax.

    To go back a little, though, you made an interesting observation thus " this is an expression of the eternal struggle between the tyrannical ideology of "one size fits all" and absolute control of all "deviations" on one hand and the ideal of absolute freedom of action of all responsible individuals in possession of a conscience and the free will."

    The question really at hand is one relative value, is it not? If we want to look at the matter in the most objective manner possible, what we have to do is look at the value to the individual and to society of a particular behavior in comparison to the norm and the support the one with the highest value. It is applied in industry and patents, why not apply it here as well?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Your state is not the only one. The vast majority of states have passed referendums - not just Legislature-based laws but actual popular votes - seeking to codify the definition of marriage. And activist judges have decided that the people do not get to decide for themselves.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -1
    Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Of course you do, because objectivists are amoral, for want of a better term. The phrase, "cut their nose off to spite their face" is another one that comes to mind.

    The state butts its nose into marriage because of the good marriage represents for the society as a whole.

    Supposedly, objectivists are not anarchists; like conservatives they think a little government is a good thing. This is one of those good things.

    -----
    "We had a form of social contract that we called 'marriage,' but it wasn't the same thing as marriage was in the old days. There was no love. There used to be a crime called 'adultery,' but even the word had gone out of use on the Earth I knew. Instead, it was considered antisocial for a woman to refuse to give herself to other men; to do so might indicate that she thought herself superior or thought her husband to be superior to other men. The same thing applied to men in their relationships with women other than their wives. Marriage was a social contract that could be made or broken at the whim of the individual. It served no purpose because it meant nothing, neither party gained anything by the contract that they couldn't have had without it. But a wedding was an excuse for a gala party at which the couple were the center of attention. So the contract was entered into lightly for the sake of a gay time for a while, then broken again so that the game could be played with someone else—the game of Musical Bedrooms."
    ----
    from Randall Garrett's, "The Highest Treason"
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Which countries are you talking about, and what do they have to do with the member republics of the United States?

    In both sentences, the word "State" needs to be capitalized if you're referring to a member republic. See the 2nd and 10th Amendments for the importance of this.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by tdechaine 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    But it is a legal contract. Many ramifications.... Thus the State is involved. But that has nothing to do with defining marriage to exclude certain types of unions.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by BaritoneGary 10 years, 10 months ago
    Besides, marriage is a private contract between two people, which existed thousands of years prior to our even becoming a nation. It usually was a covenant with the couple and God. Maybe no government entity should give special favor to ANY status, married or not. I vote to keep government out of the issue entirely.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 10 years, 10 months ago
    I realize this is difficult for the AS community to discuss.

    The only reason marriage has any federal relevance, is the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. What people forget is: each State is entitled to its own standards of what constitutes valid registration of a life event. After that, the Constitution requires each State to reciprocate in its recognition of a vital event in another State, so long as the event meets the recognizing State's criteria. So that "married" in one State equals "married" in any other State--so long as the other States define marriage in a way that includes their situation.

    But what Same Sex Roommages Sharing Bed (SSRSB) are trying to do now, is get "married" in a State whose standards allow it, then come back to their own State, wave that marriage certificate in the faces of State officials, and shout, "Full Faith and Credit! Full Faith and Credit! Full Faith and Credit!"

    Now you will no doubt ask: how is that relevant? Now we deal here with guardianship of children, and with probate--a thing Rand treated in her essay, "Inherited Wealth." When an SSRSB dies, who "inherits" his or her "worldly goods"? Does the surviving *roommate* now qualify as the Beneficial Immediate Next of Kin, for the purpose of autopsy permission, funerary responsibility, and the like? And does the surviving roommate inherit the deceased's bank accounts, movables, real-estate deeds, and so on, in preference to the deceased's biological family?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnmahler 10 years, 10 months ago
    Whether a Judge 'got it right' or not, he got it wrong.
    The Constitution is SILENT on marriage / civil union license (state permission) to wed. The only place even close to Constitutional coverage comes under the Tenth Amendment. Arguments about relatives intermarrying, or homosexual union, or human/beast union, or human/ machine union is still not germane to the consideration ONLY when the Tenth Amendment is ignored. If any States Rights arguments are made on an individual basis in each state, under the Tenth Amendment, it is only proper to let the states decide. I am personally opposed to any state permission involving human relationships requiring license and state permission. Human relationships are matters of conscience between the people involved and one's god. If one has no god, then it is a matter of conscience only. The state has NO say in my personal conscience under the First Amendment. The only interest group sustaining marriage licensure is divorce lawyers who profit greatly thereby.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    " even if some States use those powers wrongly per the cultural mores of other States. "

    FIFY
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by H6163741 10 years, 10 months ago
    Wow. Must be nice to live in a state where your vote actually counts. We Californians voted for that same definition, but of course it was overturned.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by NealS 10 years, 10 months ago
    Marriage to me is what the majority of us believe. I would guess the movement started out to give same-same couples the tax incentives and other privileges offered only to (married) couples. If we could just extend those privileges to some other definition of couples, not necessarily defined by the marriage word, they would have been satisfied. Now, however, because of political correctness it's getting out of control. Allow same-same couples to legally join using some other name other than marriage and redefine the word marriage in our laws to include that group. I don't care if you want to do what you want to do, but I do know that you can't do what the majority of us do. We have children and that's why we have marriage, to insure our creation is taken care of. Same-same's could call their union Homoiage (I couldn't think of anything else) or some other new word. Leave marriage to those that can actually create children. That, again, is just my opinion, I could be wrong.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Maritimus 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It seems to me that, at the most basic level, this is an expression of the eternal struggle between the tyrannical ideology of "one size fits all" and absolute control of all "deviations" on one hand and the ideal of absolute freedom of action of all responsible individuals in possession of a conscience and the free will. The solution? A political compromise. How it is going to be reached? By making the decisions (on the most sound management principle) at the lowest possible level of "authority".
    To avoid the inconsistencies because of the Reciprocity Clause, why should not the States limit or eliminate the economic, tax and other privileges to marriages not based on their own definition of marriage? If the complaint is that this would make life too complicated for an individual, make them try to navigate on their own the IRS or EPA rules they must "obey" if they wish to start their own business. Actually, I would expect a pressure on the State to simplify and make things accessible more likely to succeed than the same would if applied to the arrogant and "omniscient" Federal bureaucracy and the Administration and Congress. Would you agree?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You miss the point that it's a means of control and revenue generation. That's its real purpose.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 10 months ago
    And only in those states that have, by state constitution or governing document, specified marriage as a state function. In those where it is not, then not even the state has that authority. It would then devolve to the counties, or towns/cities.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Frank899 10 years, 10 months ago
    No. The definition of marriage is for the church (or the individuals) to decide. Government has no place whatsoever in personal affairs. Whether it's state level or federal, you're still talking about master/slave relationship.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "The feds can’t control because it is not in the constitution, but why should peple have to apply to the state for a license? Sounds statist to me."

    An excellent point and one of the questions of the ages. Marriage has existed long before government. Many states even recognize a so-called "common-law" marriage that begins with cohabitation sans a license.

    It is a contentious subject. I agree that this seems to be an area of overreach by the State, but I also acknowledge that the State has a legitimate interest in its own furtherance and marriage and procreation are the single most vital part of that. But it does beg the question if the State is actually biting the hand that feeds it in appropriating an institution that existed long before it did. Thanks for the insight.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That is part of the debate. The Supremacy Clause has been cited as the reason to support a Federal definition of marriage, but the Supremacy Clause was written to as to keep the individual States from going to war with each other over taxes, etc. It was never proposed or even contemplated that the institution of marriage would ever be definitionally challenged.

    Then you have the Reciprocity clause, which states that a contract entered into in one state is good in another state. This one is the real one that is problematic, but I would cite the differences with respect to Concealed Carry permits as ample evidence that the inconsistent application of such renders it a moot point. Debatable, yes.

    I can see no recourse but an eventual hearing by the Supreme Court.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by eilinel 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I agree with the "statist" comment. Either marriage is a legal contract, in which case it shouldn't be discriminate, or it's a religious contract, in which case the state should play no part.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Esceptico 10 years, 10 months ago
    According to my trusted friend and authority, Mr. Google,
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_li...
    reports: A marriage license is a document issued, either by a church or state authority, authorizing a couple to marry. The procedure for obtaining a license varies between countries and has changed over time. Marriage licenses began to be issued in the Middle Ages, to permit a marriage which would otherwise be illegal (for instance, if the necessary period of notice for the marriage had not been given). The feds can’t control because it is not in the constitution, but why should peple have to apply to the state for a license? Sounds statist to me.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rex_Little 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "This was the argument the South used for miscegenation laws."

    True but irrelevant. Powers retained by the states are so retained even if some states use those powers wrongly.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 10 months ago
    And the definition of 'drivers license' is for the State to decide, not a Federal judge... except that your State is required to accept my State's drivers licenses.

    So you can get pretend-married in Massachusetts, and then my State has to recognize it on a par with real marriage.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo