Post
by Seth » Sat Jun 27, 2015 7:19 am
The problem with the ruling is not that it approved gay marriage, I don't care a bit about who marries whom or what and neither does the Constitution. The problem with this decision and the Obamacare decision that came out last week is that it shows that the Supreme Court is no longer a judicial body, it has vested itself with the power to make law rather than the limited power to review laws made by the legislature.
This is an extremely dangerous tack for the Court to take that endangers the rights of every single person, right, left or center, gay or straight.
With these two decisions the Court has finally and completely destroyed the fundamental fabric of the United States by unequivocally arrogating power to itself to redefine words (Obamacare case) and take it upon itself to create government power that simply exist nowhere in the Constitution.
Marriage in the US has NEVER been a federal matter, not being mentioned in the limited powers granted to Congress by the Constitution, and it has ALWAYS been the subject of state regulation under the 10th Amendment.
Worse, the rationale cited by the Court is simply not within their authority, and they simply ignored the one Constitutionally-sound provision of the Constitution that settled this issue years ago: The Full Faith and Credit provisions of the Constitution, which require that ALL states accept the official acts of the other states, which is why we don't have to get a driver's license for each state. Once the first state in the Union authorized gay marriage, every other state in the Union was obliged by those provisions to recognize and respect that governmental act.
Of course the simplest solution to the whole debacle is simply to expunge the word "marriage" from all federal and state statutes and expunge all programs, laws or benefits that accrue to "married persons" by virtue of that "marriage." That is the basis of this dispute; the fact that gay couples cannot enjoy the same government provided benefits and immunities as heterosexual couples who enjoy such perks under the mantle of government-approved marriage.
Government has absolutely no business, either at the state or federal level, regulating personal intimate relationships, much less offering benefits to one select group and denying them to others, like me, who don't have such relationships. It's a violation of the Equal Protection Clause for the government to benefit "married" people over non-married people in the first place. There is simply no excuse for it, and the roots of US regulation of marriage are found in racism and segregation. These laws were formulated to prevent interracial marriage and things expanded from there, as they always do with government once it gets its nose under the tent.
We need a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting government at all levels from offering "married" persons benefits or protections of any kind that are in any way different from the benefits and protections that are offered to individuals.
Marriage is inherently a religious practice and always has been, and therefore our government is absolutely forbidden from interfering with it by the First Amendment.
Get government out of the marriage business altogether and the problem goes away. Marry anybody you want to marry. Marry a dog, or a horse, or your own child, just don't expect government to recognize that religious act as either making you eligible for benefits from government or immune from laws regulating social behavior (like incest...which itself is a highly debatable issue in and of itself).
Personal intimate relationships are personal and none of anybody's business, certainly not the government. Why is that so hard for everyone to understand?
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
