Pray for America.
We need wisdom.
Posted on 06/03/2015 8:03:46 AM PDT by The_Reader_David
If, as seems likely, the Supreme Court will shred the Constitution and impose Gay "Marriage" on all 50 states, here is what states could do to nullify that decision.
I have often argued that the state can't "get out of the marriage business" because the state has an interest in it, but I think I have come up with a way that the state could deal with what it has as a legitimate interest, change some labels, legally, and not have to deal with the question of gay marriage, all in one fell swoop.
Granted, it is ridiculous that the Supreme Court would force us into this position, but if they want to pretend that there is no difference between a gay relationship and a marriage, we can break it down in the law in a way that they would not be able to call discriminatory:
1. Pass a law that says that going forward, marriage will be treated as a private religious matter, that the state will no longer either license or concern itself with.
2. Create a state-wide "potential birth registry,"* that would have the same restrictions that current laws have regarding who can get married: which would include prohibited relationship (incest), age requirements, and limit this to one man and one woman. Children born from a woman in this registry would be presumed to be the children of the man registered with her, just as it works now in a real marriage. Those registering in this registry would be affirming that they were entering into an exclusive, monogamous relationship, that is likely to produce children (i.e. is heterosexual).
3. Create a state-wide "community property partnership registry," that any 2 people, regardless of their sex, or regardless of whether or not they are in any sexual relationship can enter into.
4. When people register for the potential birth registry, give them the option of also checking a box to be included in the community property partnership registry.
5. Instead of divorce, you would terminate your registration from from the above registries; but if you could not agree on the division of property, you would have a court case to decide that matter. And if you had any children, you would have to get a child support order (which would address custody, visitation, etc.).
6. Any heterosexual marriages prior to these new laws going into effect would automatically be listed in both registries. Any homosexual "marriages" that might have happened because the courts forced the state to allow them prior to this law would automatically be added to the community property registry.
* Another name that could be used for this would be "Presumed Paternity Registry."
That’s the thing about the sodomites: they are screaming for marriage “rights”, but they only want the “privileges”.
Hit them with the marriage penalty taxes and ObamaCare taxes, and listen to them REAALLLY shriek.
The only way to reverse the USSC on gay marriage is a Constitutional amendment. Period.
Anything else is a total waste of time and a distraction.
I’ve heard that far less than 50% of homosexuals in relationships in states where legal, have gotten married.
It seems to me that homosexuals have done the whole liberal civil rights hijacking thing, and have gotten the right to marry a same sex partner. But now having gotten that right, they really don’t want to get married anyway.
As an adoptive South Carolinian, living in Calhoun’s territory, I say the solution is NULLIFICATION! Let us tell the Supreme Court that we do not accept their ruling and let John Roberts enforce it!
“I have often argued that the state can’t “get out of the marriage business” because the state has an interest in it..”
I don’t believe the state has an interest in marriage. This is one of those areas that the state has involved itself in for reasons of taxation, control, and authority. And we have gotten so used to it, that we expect it and think of it as normal and acceptable. Go back many thousands years of history and see the reasons why some states determined it should have and interest in marriage, and why some states determine it shouldn’t have an interest in it.
Pray for America.
We need wisdom.
Not really. Marriage is a non-state institution that pre-exists all organized religions (certainly all extant today) and the very notion of a nation-state. The fact that the government has chosen (for good reasons) to regulate it (for instance to suppress incestuous marriages, child marriage and the like), and to support it (since it is a social good) with favorable treatment under the law, does not make it a state institution. If each of the several states chose not to have a corresponding state institution and SCOTUS ruling about marriage law would become moot.
I’ve thought of a similar approach. Just have all couples register for “marriage” as they do now but call it a “civil union”. Everyone gets a civil union, remove any association of “marriage” to said union (in a legal sense) and transfer all legal rights and duties that are now associated with marriage to the civil union.
The state gets what it wants (regulation of the Union of two people) and religion gets what it wants (absolute claim and definition of what is indeed a “marriage”).
The only thing those with same sex attraction want anyway is the money/benefits entitled to married couples. So once they get that they shut up. Or they should. So let them have their mammon.
If people like the dear Father here are serious about their claim to want to separate the legal from the religious my proposal shouldn’t be a problem. It’s only a problem to those who, for whatever reason, want to regulate marriage itself by force of law. There is no reason, unless one believes that the laws of a society reflect the morality of the society. There’s some merit there, but I think we are way past the educative value of the law in this respect.
It’s time now to cut losses and focus on protecting the institution itself, before it becomes the mockery it inevidibly will be given this course, full of triplets “married” and man and dog “marriages”. If we want to protect the religious reality we better start being pragmatic. And there’s no reason to be as complicated as Father proposes.
Force the issue where it needs to be. In the religious sphere. The only way anyone could have a problem with the above proposal is if they wish to redefine “marriage” RELIGIOUSLY, and not just legally. Then we will know to make our final stand there. On much firmer ground. Right now it’s muddied in-between all sad claims of denied benefits and legal rights. Take them out of the battle and see if the radicals are satisfied. I’m betting not but at least then their evil will be easier to point out.
The problem with your approach is that the legal “civil union” will be regarded as marriage by the secular culture, will be called “marriage” by people in general, even if the law never calls it that, and will displace the real meaning of the word. Fr. John’s approach of having no legal institution analogous to marriage, by separating the two interests the state have ever had in marriage into separate legal functions — one of which, community property, is based on the contractual nature of marriage, the other of which, the interests of children, is base on the biological nature of marriage — avoids this.
Right and I should have also said I realize your (Father’s and your) point WRT that. The problem is though that people are going to start calling Father’s proposed unions “marriages” also, AND/OR, those only in the “community property” unions (i.e., the homosexuals) will say, “Hey, we want to have kids too, why can’t we be in the ‘potential birth registry’ too? That’s discrimatory!”
The only counter argument to that could be “You can’t have kids by natural birth” to which they would reply “so what we can still adopt or have a surrogate etc...” Blah blah and the usual tripe we hear now about why they want to be recognized as “married” would continue just under a new name.
They aren’t going to stop until forced to admit that what they want is to be recognized as “married” in the eyes of every church. And even then they probably won’t stop but at least then it’ll be easier to point out their tyrannical evil.
Actually, that’s still a virtue to Fr. John’s proposal. The potential birth registry reminds everyone that nature (or God) is “discriminatory”: only actual biological women with more-or-less normally functioning wombs and ovaries can give birth, only actual biological men can father children, something that the lunatics on the left are trying very hard to deny, forget, make everyone deny and forget in an effort patterned on 2 + 2 = 5 because the Party says so, and you *will* love Big Brother.
That which you must permit can be denied.
We should not say that the state’s permission should be required to have children, except perhaps to say if you’re on welfare, every female gets contraception until you’re off welfare.
But registering to have children, as a productive taxpayer, is an insult.
Community property registration is a separate problem, because not every state has community property laws in marriage, and the LBGTA are going to argue for group rights. Heck, just an ex-wife demanding partial property shares when the guy gets remarried is enough to challenge it.
The only thing those with same sex attraction activism want isequality withsocial superiority over married couples.
That is ridiculous, if you don't care if your gay marriage or polygamy, or traditional marriage performed by your "religion" is legal, then don't seek to make it legal, you could have done that in 1950 or right now, and since when do Americans, by law, have to belong to a religion, to get married?
bfl
I think you miss the point of the registration in Fr. John’s proposal. It’s not state permission to have children, it’s creating the legal attributes of legitimate birth without a state institution of marriage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.