Until the happy day arrives that government is out of the marriage and welfare business, gay couples should not be treated differently from non-gay couples by any level of government, local, state or federal. This includes the right to enter into a marriage contract.

And again, these all originated because the government decided to interject itself into places it shouldn't be in the first place!

Get government out of the welfare business and make everyone responsible for their own money management. Then wills (contract law again) become the vehicle of wealth transfers, end-of-life care decisions, etc. Health insurance would benefit the same way - by making the applicants list the beneficiaries of the policies. Currently, government control over the health insurance industry complicates what should be a process as simple as getting auto insurance.

What you are referring to is the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution - which covers contracts. The Fourteenth Amendment deals with rights. No rights are being violated, therefore there is no deprivation of rights under consideration.

Try handling spousal Social Security benefits and employer health insurance for a spouse with a power-of-attorney. Can't be done.

Relevant. As in "equal protection". If a state or county issue marriage licenses, it cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Most of which can be handled with a simple Power-of-Attorney. And you can still list someone as a dependent on your tax forms (no matter who they are) provided they lived with you for part of that year and aren't also claiming to be either their own head-of-household or a dependent on someone else's tax form.

Not true. Marriage is not a right, thus does not fall under the Fourteenth Amendment. I would also note that according to the author of the Fourteenth Amendment's own words, it was to apply to the liberated slaves and to no other parties. It was to enforce the fact that they were full citizens and that as such were to be protected just as any other citizen.

Irrelevant. There is no "right" to marriage one way or the other. Marriage is a contract.

The real issue is that of contract enforcement.

Actually, original marriage licenses were to prevent miscegenation - the co-mingling of two people society deemed unworthy of marriage. This initially included prohibitions against inter-racial marriages, but also included prohibitions against near-relations. And these laws were on the books even before the Constitution was written.

Excellent point, but there is no right to marriage. Marriage is a contract and as such is not a right because rights are individual. One may have the right to enter into a contract, but one does not have the right to coerce anyone to be the other partner in the contract.

Additionally, it is the enforcement of the contract that is really in question. The only legal leg the Federal government has to stand on is the "Full Faith and Credit" clause.

These laws are called miscegenation laws and have been not only popular culture but law since before the United States became a nation. They include prohibitions on cousins marrying as well as laws prohibiting inter-racial marriage, etc.

What is important to note, however, is that there is no Constitutional foundation for the Federal government interfering in marriage.

Correct. She holds an elected position. So either the people can hold a recall election and have her removed, or she can be removed by impeachment, but that's it. A judge can't oust her.

Actually, the origins and authorizations of marriage have always come from religion. Secularism didn't even exist until the 19th century.

"adults at age of majority (regardless of biological genitalia assignment) should not need a state license or permission to enter into a legally binding Domestic Contract "

Agreed. I don't know what authority the State claims to be able to interfere. There certainly is nothing in the Constitution.

And what is interesting is that marriage licenses were created for that very purpose: to try to prevent inter-racial marriages.

Get rid of marriage licenses and the whole issue disappears into smoke. Get government out of the marriage business.

All I said was that the Floyd Ferris quote is being used inappropriately. And it is. Kim Davis was sent to jail for refusing to perform the duties of her public office. She can gain her release at any time either by performing those duties or by resigning. I doubt that Ayn Rand had Kim Davis' actions (or inactions) in mind when she wrote that passage.

So, CBJ, you agree that a judge having the unlimited power and discretion to imprison an individual WITHOUT TIME LIMIT for non-violent "civil contempt of court" arising from a moral conscientious objection is lawful and not a violation of that individual's 8th Amendment Right not to be subjected to cruel or unusual punishment? Are the decisions of the branch of government which once gave the US the Dred Scott Decision never wrong? Should the President of the United States be held in civil contempt of Federal court and jailed for not abiding by the decision of a Federal judge? Is a President more "equal" than John Q. Public?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2...
Should the officials of Sanctuary Cities not be held in contempt of court for defying Federal Immigration laws? Does SCOTUS have the delegated power by the Constitution to actually change the provisions of Obamacare? Complex and confusing to say the least.

Therefore, I stand by my Ferris quote about the arbitrary creation of criminals to further various special interest agendas through conflicting, confusing non-objective laws and regulations. Or as my brilliant old country boy of a Dad used to say, "It all depends on whose ox is being gored, which is why the best government is the most limited government."

YAWN. Let me tick off some points.
1) The government has way too much power over much too much including licensing (!?) marriage;
2) She was working in official capacity in a government function;
3) The Constitution does require equal treatment of all from government under law;
4) The government ordered the parameters of her government job to include giving out marriage licenses to gay couples;
5) She disobeyed the government, her employer in this and the type of disobedience is punishable by government in this case.

She is not a "prisoner of conscience". Yes in a correct society you would not need a government license to get married or do much else. Yes a private organization or party is free to discriminate on any basis they choose in a free country. But to pick this out of context of where we are now and the capacity she acted under is absurd.

Totally agree. This is a blatant violation of the absolute separation of Church and State, state law and biblical or traditional definitions of "marriage" notwithstanding. No one is restricting her from practicing her religion. She, on the other hand, is trying to force her religious views on others, and using her government position to do so. She is 100% wrong.

+5 for the last sentence alone.

I believe that's the most reasonable approach. Simply because she is a government employee shouldn't give her special protection from being fired from her job for non-performance, as in the private sector. However, as these things vary from state to state, (and no doubt counties within a state), I believe I read that in Kentucky this particular woman would need to be "impeached" by the Legislature to lose her job, which, of course, they will never do for political reasons. I can't say that 100% accurate, but even if not, it appears evident that nobody there is about to fire her, anyway. Meanwhile, she is where she belongs, in the honorable and long tradition of civil disobedience.

That is absolutely one of their goals. But the solution is not to fight to keep them from getting those "goodies" by virtue of being "married", but to stop using the tax code, regulations et.al. to favor some groups over others. A law that says my employer "must" provide me with health insurance is wrong, and even worse if it goes further and says the policy has to cover my spouse (or, until SCOTUS,"life partner") or kids. There shouldn't be government decreed benefits specific to those it decrees as "married".

Laws, at least ideally, in this country, are not made to "sanction or permit" anything. That is the antithesis of our (original) form of government: laws should only be made that limit individuals, and perhaps more importantly, the government, from violating the objectively defined rights of other individuals. That should be the sole purpose of a law, not "sanctioning" things, like marriage, that are none of the government's business in the first place.

If Federal law supersedes state law then why hasn't the federal government taken any action against the marijuana dispensaries being set up everywhere? Marijuana is still not legal under federal law, unless I missed something. All these people are definitely breaking federal law aren't they? Have any of them been sent to jail yet?

Remember to include the transgender and "gender neutral" who shall be referenced as person 1/person 2

So the real root cause 'question' is "When does a Supreme Court 'decision' (or use alternate descriptor/noun there) become the Law for All States, and if not, why not?

I'll tune in for THAT debate... any time, any channel...