Skip to comments.DOMA is an abuse of federalism (George Will tastes the rainbow)
Posted on 03/21/2013 4:02:21 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
click here to read article
Will is simply asking his homofriendly and homosexual bosses if he can keep his job. Period.
No, never let them get away with that. Turn it around, hose them with their own swill.
Libs don't really "argue" anymore .... they hiss, shriek, and shrill at people like the Pod People in Invasion of the Body-Snatchers.
Exactly, BUT it assumes that any marriage in another state is valid in that state. Are you claiming I could get married in another state and come to your state and get married there, and it wouldn’t be a crime. The fact that every state has a state law that includes bigamy charges for someone who was married in another state, proves marriage is a federal issue.
If marriage is not specifically enumerated in Article 2, Section 8 of the US Constitution it is NOT a Federal issue. Period
What state do you live in? Can I get married in my state and then come to your state and get married to another woman there? Why would that be?
Ah, but the religious will face one, too. They are quite happy to have the government legislate in favor of traditional marriage: tax law, insurance law, etc..
Many of the religious -- supporters of the Constitution to a one, no doubt -- may find they don't care much for a truly dispassionate federal government.
I have said for years that the reason I am married is because I made a commitment before God in a church.
If the state mailed me a document saying they had nullified my marriage, it would not matter one iota to me.
To say the religious face a dilemma is potentially true. DOMA had a logic which was to prevent unconstitutional state actions from becoming reciprocal.
Government modifications of marriage are clearly a violation of the establishment clause and yet I cannot think of one opinion leader who has suggested this.
Gay marriage as given my courts and legislatures is a civil rights violation. Where is even one advocate explaining this obvious fact?
It really matters rather little that the government decided after the fact to jump on board with civil marriages. What is the church to do?
sue the state? Send out the church army?
When people choose civil marriages I always wonder what they would do if the state mailed them a notice saying— its been nullified.
The state continually messes with religion and neither libertarians or liberals seem to mind much. They both share a pretty firm alliance in this respect that annoys me greatly.
Perhaps I should have clarified: if I had the ability to psychically control the behavior of Congress and the President, but could not compel them to act in any fashion contrary to the Constitution, I would have them write legislation as indicated. Perhaps a little less snarky, but the key aspect would be that Congress can specify the extent to which one state is required to recognize another state's actions. As such, if Congress were to say that one state's X's obligation to recognize a homosexual union performed in state Y would be satisfied by having state X issue a statement "State X recognizes that State Y has declared Bob and Joe to be a union, for what that's worth", that would pretty well insulate state X from demands that it do anything else in recognition of that union.
More generally, I would suggest that Bible citations represent a losing argument on issues like this. Not because the Bible does not contain truth and wisdom, but because anyone who does not believe in the Bible will not only regard such citations as meaningless, but will also regard them as affirmation that there are "real" arguments.
Unfortunately, probably 99% of conservatives totally miss the fundamental issue in the gay-marriage argument: whether institutions, companies, and even individuals, that engage in various forms of generalized reciprocity with married couples should be required to engage in such generalized reciprocity with unions that do not contain exactly one man and exactly one woman, or which fail in other ways to meet the traditional definition of "marriage".
Suppose a rental car company states that it costs $40/day for both members of a married couple to rent one car, and $45/day for two non-married individuals to rent and drive one car. Suppose further that two people arrive at the counter and show the clerk a contract that specifies that neither of them shall engage in any sexual activity, except with the other, without providing advance notice of such intention, and that violation of such terms shall entitle the aggrieved party to compensation of $10,000 payable at 10% interest as of the date of a discovered infraction. Should those two individuals be charged $40 or $45 for the rental? On what basis should the clerk make the determination?
A major point which conservatives miss (I'd argue that it's the most important point) is that many individuals, institutions, and companies voluntarily give certain benefits exclusively to married couples, on the expectation that they will indirectly benefit from doing so. Those pushing gay marriage don't like the fact that many of the institutions, companies, and even individuals would want to offer such benefits to people in "traditional" marriages, but not offer them to people in "non-traditional" marriages. If a question "Is X married to Y" can be quickly, easily, and unambiguously answered yes or no, then individuals, institutions, and companies that wish to voluntarily offer benefits exclusively to married couples will have a practical means of doing so. If the state is not involved with marriage, then the question "Is X married to Y" may become essentially unanswerable unless one is willing to regard as "married" any pair of individuals who claim to be married to each other.
The clerk should,be a clerk and not an attorney.
If policy says that two individuals who are married have to pay one rate to share a car, and two individuals who are not married have to pay a different rate, how should the clerk determine what rate to charge people?
A major problem with the "marriage is just a contract" notion is that for a variety of reasons, many institutions, individuals, and companies want to provide various benefits to people who have a particular kind of relationship. Anyone from whom a couple would seek such benefits would have an interest in being able to establish, quickly and easily, whether the couple does in fact have that kind of relationship. The only practical means I know of via which such a thing can be achieved is to have an official process for recording such relationships. Otherwise, just about any pair of individuals could claim to be married whenever it suited them, offering as "proof" copies of contracts they filled out with each other, but dissolving such contracts as soon as the immediate need to prove the "marriage" had abated.
BTW, here's another thought: suppose every state gave any couple that was or had been married there an option to voluntarily fill out a form with the state that specified that in the event they wished to dissolve the marriage, they would pay some amount of money as an extra "divorce" tax [to be paid by the party at fault, if any, or else split between the parties]. Suppose further that couples could specify the amount as either $0.01 or $5,000, and specifying the larger amount would offer no benefit except that every couple's stipulated amount would be searchable public record. Do you think most couples would rather be recorded as having $0.01 worth of confidence in their marriage or $5,000? I doubt many couples would want to go on record as not having at least $5,000 worth of confidence in their marriage, even if doing so could save $4,999.99 in case of a divorce.