Marriage Is A Private Matter That's None Of The Federal Government's Business

Forbes ^ | 12/11/2012 | Bill Flax

[billflax]

The U.S. Supreme Court recently opted for two cases pertaining to same-sex marriage. Windsor v. United States challenges the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. Had Edith Windsor's deceased “spouse” been a man she would have been saved $363,000 in estate taxes. The other concerns the Ninth Circuit’s overturning Proposition 8; a successful ballot initiative which prevented same-sex marriage in California.

Leave lawyering to lawyers, but when pendulums swing sometimes they return like wrecking balls smacking those who previously prodded the pendulum. Government, at least Washington, should not interfere in marriage. It has, sometimes at the insistence of those most adamantly defending marriage, but this underscores how treacherous Washington makes for an ally. Christ admonished “for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” Seeking federal backing too risks being crushed under government’s boot.

Political authorities overturning marriage represents the greatest invasion by government into what should be a private sphere in American history. Marriage is a religious concept long indelibly imprinted into Western Civilization. The federal government must refrain. States have a valid role preserving culture and not undermining our heritage, but marriage reflects a sacred covenant before God. Many who otherwise rarely attend church besides their weddings must implicitly understand its religious underpinnings.

It’s puzzling why non-Believers who surely represent the preponderance of same-sex marriage advocates care beyond the economic implications. If government's role lessened these impacts would be negligible. For instance, the hefty estate tax suffered by Miss Windsor is best rectified by eliminating confiscatory estate taxes, not redefining marriage. Two government wrongs makes not a right.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

What I was primarily trying to point out is that billflax's position is inconsistent.

He is somehow trying to claim that we should get government out of religion and that somehow that would just mean stopping gay marriage. If we truly, fully got government out of marriage it would mean an end to a lot of things that married people count on.

I think conservatives are now in a very tough spot. I don't see a majority of Americans continuing to support the traditional view of marriage, especially since such a large number of "traditional" marriages end in divorce or turn out to be frauds for the sake of getting people citizenship, gold-digging, etc.

If gay marriage is made legal (whether or not you or I think that a gay marriage is possible in the metaphysical or spiritual sense) throughout the US then we would have to extend the same benefits to them as are extended to truly married heterosexual couples.

We could take away all the benefits just because we didn't want them to go to homosexuals, but that would be perceived as vindictive and malicious by the general population.

We could come up with some arguments that the benefits should only exist for those couples who intend to bring up children, but then gay couples who adopt would also be qualified to receive them. (BTW, it is a complete shock to me that the gays were by-and-large allowed to adopt children before they were allowed to get married. At least with gay marriages only consenting adults are involved.)

[Psycho_Bunny]

Oh please.

[Responsibility2nd]

Thanks for clarifying this. I agree that an end to governmental involvement in traditional marriages is dangerous.

If anything, the government should prop up and support marriage and watch the welfare roles drop as fast as the the marriage licenses are issued.

[andyk]

The two of you could not be more wrong if you tried.

Your post would have been more effective without the above.

I don't care if your state wants to provide special inheritance or incrimination privileges to married folks - go for it. But the federal tax policy that benefits married folks, and folks with children is disgusting.

[trisham]

Marriage is the familial, societal, governmental, and economic building block of our civilization, our society, our country, and our communities. It is a God-ordained, God-given institution, the first and most important one. It is fundamental to the laws of nature and of nature’s God, and absolutely necessary to the fulfillment of the ultimate stated purpose of the U.S. Constitution, which is “to secure the Blessings of Liberty to our Posterity.” It must be fiercely defended on every front from any and all who would pervert it or subvert it, or America cannot possibly survive. The attack on the natural family represents an existential threat.

******************************

Amen, EV.

[PapaNew]

This post looked like SCOTUS amazingly had made the right decision overturning lower federal court decisions and leaving the whole issue up to "the states and the people respectively" (10th Amendment).

But, alas, the post was misleading as this is only a Forbes columnist's headline and his own opinion. Would that SCOTUS makes this call.

The official SCOTUS banner in theses posts make it look like a SCOTUS decision. How to fix?

[BuckeyeTexan]

Hmmm. Never had that issue raised.

I used to rotate images of the Supreme Court in my pings. (e.g. conference room, bench, attorneys tables, outside views of the building) Then I changed to the banner. I could switch back to the other images for most articles and use the banner only for official SCOTUS decisions. I’m open to suggestions.

[Antoninus]

Marriage Is A Private Matter That's None Of The Federal Government's Business

Welcome to the United States of Relativism.

[PapaNew]

I could switch back to the other images for most articles and use the banner only for official SCOTUS decisions.

I like that idea. Maybe two standard images: one, the official banner announcing a SCOTUS decision and, another image alerting to a DISCUSSION about a PENDING constitutional or SCOTUS issue.