Breaking: Per SCOTUS, Same-Sex Marriage is now law of the land.

[MisterChester]

Maybe. The court stepping in as they did in this case and short circuiting the peoples' will on abortion has not followed this route.

The court stepping in is a necessary evil. The intent here is to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. The people's will isn't always a constitutional will.

 

[steveh_131]

The intent here is to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority..

That was never the intent. Let's not play games here.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The court stepping in is a necessary evil. The intent here is to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. The people's will isn't always a constitutional will.

And neither was this court's decision.

 

[bmbutch]

GFGT is on a roll!

Wow, he's landing solid "Superman Punches"!

 

[MisterChester]

And neither was this court's decision.

I believe the decision was the right one, but their reasoning to me wasn't the best. I would prefer the government to get out of marriage completely but this was the next best thing. The government ain't getting out of it anytime soon.

 

[MisterChester]

That was never the intent. Let's not play games here.

If neither the legislative or executive branch can fulfill it, then the judicial has a duty to uphold it.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

If neither the legislative or executive branch can fulfill it, then the judicial has a duty to uphold it.

Once again, they stepped outside their jurisdiction. They stepped onto the turf that, by the constitution, is left to the people and the states. And let's say for a moment, I buy into this equal protection argument, then by their very own words, they applied these supposed equal rights to one type of sexual behavior. None of the others are explicitly, or from my reading even implicitly, covered by their decision. That's hardly a fair decision for all the other people that have a third, forth, or umpteenth different sexual and/or marriage appetite.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

NYT Op-Ed: Is Polygamy Next?

 

[mrjarrell]

Getting "government out of marriage" would not end government involvement in marriage. It might just make it worse.

Privatizing Marriage Is a Terrible Idea - Reason.com

 

[HoughMade]

Getting "government out of marriage" would not end government involvement in marriage. It might just make it worse.

Privatizing Marriage Is a Terrible Idea - Reason.com

Rather than privatizing marriage, I've wondered whether Churches, etc. should get out of the business of solemnizing marriages for the government. This would help ensure that any church marriage ceremony was fully religious in nature. Couples could get their state license and marry civilly and then have a religious ceremony if they want to where the clergy does not perform any function from a legal standpoint, but only presides over a religious ceremony.

I've just been noodling on it.

 

[bwframe]

Getting "government out of marriage" would not end government involvement in marriage. It might just make it worse.

Privatizing Marriage Is a Terrible Idea - Reason.com

It might have to get worse, before it gets better. I am certainly hoping all this current trend opens the eyes necessary to help vote gov't out of the couples business all together.

I have no care whatsoever about who you or anyone is with, but I don't want to have to pay to support anyone's spouse. However directly or indirectly it may be.

 

[steveh_131]

'Reason' magazine is quickly becoming a fountain of progressive nonsense, bending over backwards to shove the round peg of their progressive agenda into the square hole of libertarian philosophy.

That was a lot of metaphors.

 

[BugI02]

'Reason' magazine is quickly becoming a fountain of progressive nonsense, bending over backwards to shove the round peg of their progressive agenda into the square hole of libertarian philosophy.

That was a lot of metaphors.

In a thread about same sex marriage? lol

 

[cobber]

If neither the legislative or executive branch can fulfill it, then the judicial has a duty to uphold it.

Because one branch of government disagrees with another doesn't make either of them right. Or wrong.

It might be settled, and it might not be.

If the judiciary were the supreme arbiter on such matters, the Founders would have said so. And the SCOTUS has dropped the ball often enough, we need not give them the benefit of the doubt.

NYT Op-Ed: Is Polygamy Next?

While I tend to disbelieve anything a law prof says about real life, this sums it up. People assumed this was only about same-sex, but the justification behind the court's decision opens the doors. Just try getting the horse back now.

 

[steveh_131]

In a thread about same sex marriage? lol

yes, it aptly describes what 'reason' magazine is doing to libertarians.

 

[mrjarrell]

yes, it aptly describes what 'reason' magazine is doing to libertarians.

The only thing you have to ask is...are they wrong? They correctly assert that government would still be involved in privatised marriage contracts, as well as the dissolution of those marriages. And they also point out that the involvement might well be more onerous than it currently is. The fact that you disagree with this particular authors message in no way invalidates it or the magazine.

 

[steveh_131]

The only thing you have to ask is...are they wrong? They correctly assert that government would still be involved in privatised marriage contracts, as well as the dissolution of those marriages. And they also point out that the involvement might well bemore onerous than it currently is. The fact that you disagree with this particular authors message in no way invalidates it or the magazine.

They're certainly wrong in their strange idea of what 'privatized' marriage would look like. It kinda reminds me of the 'blood flowing in the streets' idea of what gun freedom looks like.

There should be no such thing as 'marriage' as far as the government is concerned. Individuals can form voluntary, contractual partnerships. That contract can include a variety of methods for ending said contract, including financial penalties and benefits. The only role of the government should be enforcing that contract. If two muslims form a contract that says the husband can say 'divorce' three times and leave his wife destitute, so be it. She doesn't have to sign the contract if she doesn't want to.

People form contractual relationships all the time. The world wouldn't end if marriage was reduced to that, as far as the government is concerned.

 

[mrjarrell]

So...who would enforce these contracts? Arbitration companies, (like many corporations use to their benefit every day)? The courts would still be involved in the upholding of these contracts at all phases. Don't believe it? Ask one of our INGO lawyers, (who would also likely be involved in crafting these contracts. As officers of the court).

 

[steveh_131]

Yes, the courts would enforce them. That's what I said. Enforcing contracts is one of the few legitimate purposes of government.

Would there be more contract enforcement going on? Maybe, I don't know. Who cares?

It would put this 'marriage' business to rest, once and for all. It would put an end to this farcical notion of 'equality' that the rainbow crowd is shoving down our throats. That sounds good to me.

 

[mrjarrell]

Yes, the courts would enforce them. That's what I said. Enforcing contracts is one of the few legitimate purposes of government.

Would there be more contract enforcement going on? Maybe, I don't know. Who cares?

Apparently, you care enough to cast aspersions on an article you disagree with, even though you now admit that they might just be right.