Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
What would a new court mean?
Author Message
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 33,090
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 887
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #1
What would a new court mean?
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/a...eme-court/

Article discusses implications of a more originalist court. I'm inclined to agree about Roe. The conservative instinct is not to make dramatic changes. I think it gets nibbled at, not overturned.

Also agree about gay marriage. Its hard to see a case that could challenge the precedent. Who is being harmed (other than the Constitution-but that has already happened)? So if there is no case, there is no chance to overturn. And it would be a dramatic upheaval. I think Roberts and Alito would find a way to avoid that like Roberts saved Obamacare.
06-29-2018 08:42 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 23,177
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 698
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #2
RE: What would a new court mean?
(06-29-2018 08:42 AM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/a...eme-court/

Article discusses implications of a more originalist court. I'm inclined to agree about Roe. The conservative instinct is not to make dramatic changes. I think it gets nibbled at, not overturned.

Also agree about gay marriage. Its hard to see a case that could challenge the precedent. Who is being harmed (other than the Constitution-but that has already happened)? So if there is no case, there is no chance to overturn. And it would be a dramatic upheaval. I think Roberts and Alito would find a way to avoid that like Roberts saved Obamacare.

I don't follow.

How was the constitution harmed?

States and the Federal government afforded those of us straight marriage certain privileges and rights denied same sex couples.

Specifically:

-Usually better taxation rates and the freedom to choose more than one filing category to try to find the better rate.
-The right to inherit property intestate by operation of law.
-A vested property right in the partner's retirement benefits.
-Special class of property ownership. In most states a spouses acquiring real property do so by a special class of ownership that provides that one spouse cannot convey more than a one-half life estate in the property and cannot impair the other spouse's use or enjoyment of the property by the conveyance. If I sell my interest in my house the buyer cannot evict my wife or impair her use and if predecease my wife the buyer loses what interest they bought. Only married couples can gain this ownership status.
-The legal right to manage the affairs of an incapacitated partner.
- Legal protection regarding the dissolution of the relationship.

The state has to have a compelling interest to deny one relationship these enhanced rights and privileges.

I cannot formulate one that doesn't rely on religious belief or "we've always done it that way". Protection of children doesn't work else my father-in-law could not have married because he and his wife cannot have kids and it would follow that a sterile person could not enter into marriage.

The real problem with gay marriage is that long ago two bad decisions were made. The first was to push government to start recording what had been a religious ceremony and the second was to conclude marriage in and of itself was not sufficient of a reward and government should afford marriage enhanced rights and privileges to encourage people to marry.

Church inviting government to do church things never works out well for the church in the long-run.
06-29-2018 10:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Native Georgian Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 20,932
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 501
I Root For: TULANE+GA.STATE
Location: Decatur GA
Post: #3
RE: What would a new court mean?
(06-29-2018 10:55 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  How was the constitution harmed?
By usurping the rightful powers of individual states.

Quote:States and the Federal government afforded those of us straight marriage certain privileges and rights denied same sex couples
Yes.

Quote:The state has to have a compelling interest to deny one relationship these enhanced rights and privileges.
Two issues here. First, whether such a compelling interest actually exists, and secondly whether the State is (or should be) required to explain/defend/justify that interest to the federal judiciary. For me, the answer to the first question is Yes and to the second question is No.

Of course, Anthony Kennedy feels differently about this than I do. We live in a time when most Americans defer to the Supreme Court on such matters, so as a legal matter, I realize the issue is resolved. But that’s hardly the same thing as being persuaded that the resolution is correct or sensible.

Quote:The real problem with gay marriage is that long ago two bad decisions were made. The first was to push government to start recording what had been a religious ceremony and the second was to conclude marriage in and of itself was not sufficient of a reward and government should afford marriage enhanced rights and privileges to encourage people to marry
To me, the idea of recording marriages is to enable the broader community to be aware of who is married (and to whom), and who is not married. To be deliberately unaware of this is an invitation to social chaos.

The idea of “marriage benefits” in the tax code, etc., reflects a view that marriage is a stabilizing institution in society. It helps connect husbands and wives to one another, and it helps connect parents to their offspring. There are, of course, some tragic exceptions to the rule, but such connections are of great benefit to families and the broader society in the overwhelming majority of cases.

I realize we are trying to communicate across a vast ideological divide. But it still surprises me that anyone would dispute those two concepts. Yet, here we are.

......

In reference to the linked article in the OP: yes the post-Kennedy Supreme Court will be very delicate with formally overturning precedents. They know as well as anybody that the Left has successfully transformed Roe v Wade into a kind of secular-icon for a lot of people and to simply throw it in the trash would cause a lot of needless political disruption and strife.
07-01-2018 07:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,992
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 286
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #4
RE: What would a new court mean?
(07-01-2018 07:45 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  
(06-29-2018 10:55 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  How was the constitution harmed?
By usurping the rightful powers of individual states.

Quote:States and the Federal government afforded those of us straight marriage certain privileges and rights denied same sex couples
Yes.

Quote:The state has to have a compelling interest to deny one relationship these enhanced rights and privileges.
Two issues here. First, whether such a compelling interest actually exists, and secondly whether the State is (or should be) required to explain/defend/justify that interest to the federal judiciary. For me, the answer to the first question is Yes and to the second question is No.

Of course, Anthony Kennedy feels differently about this than I do. We live in a time when most Americans defer to the Supreme Court on such matters, so as a legal matter, I realize the issue is resolved. But that’s hardly the same thing as being persuaded that the resolution is correct or sensible.

Quote:The real problem with gay marriage is that long ago two bad decisions were made. The first was to push government to start recording what had been a religious ceremony and the second was to conclude marriage in and of itself was not sufficient of a reward and government should afford marriage enhanced rights and privileges to encourage people to marry
To me, the idea of recording marriages is to enable the broader community to be aware of who is married (and to whom), and who is not married. To be deliberately unaware of this is an invitation to social chaos.


The idea of “marriage benefits” in the tax code, etc., reflects a view that marriage is a stabilizing institution in society. It helps connect husbands and wives to one another, and it helps connect parents to their offspring. There are, of course, some tragic exceptions to the rule, but such connections are of great benefit to families and the broader society in the overwhelming majority of cases.


I realize we are trying to communicate across a vast ideological divide. But it still surprises me that anyone would dispute those two concepts. Yet, here we are.

......

In reference to the linked article in the OP: yes the post-Kennedy Supreme Court will be very delicate with formally overturning precedents. They know as well as anybody that the Left has successfully transformed Roe v Wade into a kind of secular-icon for a lot of people and to simply throw it in the trash would cause a lot of needless political disruption and strife.

I think the most important social aspect are those bolded above. And, for the life of me I cannot fathom why one would think that a man and woman do this so much better than Jane and Madge (or Larry and Moe, for that matter).

That role is best defined by the two individuals --- not the gender role or sexual preference of them.

I am *not* a fan of Obergfell -- simply because it reached out in a very non-textual way to create a fundamental right out of thin air; much like Roe v Wade or Casey did for abortion.

But I would think that while the institution of marriage *is* a vastly stabilizing force, the individual states were each well on the way to normalizing it in the case of single sex marriage. And, when that happened, the operation of the Constitution in terms of the full faith and credit clause required the other states to recognize single sex marriage as a matter of course. And, to be blunt DOMA was an absolute affront to the Constitution in terms of that.

Obergfell would have passed my muster if all it did was to strike DOMA as unconstitutional -- it most unassuredly was. But my problem with Obergfell was that it created a fundamental right for gay marriage --- which, while I am not opposed to in the slightest, I believe was made up out of whole cloth as far as I can ascertain.

As for overturning it -- the credo of the textualist is not to overturn due to stare decisis unless absolutely imperative. To be blunt, that is why Korematsu was still good law for close to 80 years until this last month. As long it is there, it will be given due respect *unless* there is a critical need to address it or overturn it. And, given the social structure of the country, if overturned it will be done so in a way to fundamentally diminish the impact.

What may very well occur is if others cite Obergfell for vastly increased Constitutional protections for gays as a suspect class, Obergfell will be distinguished as something such as "Obergfell only deals with the application of fundamental rights for all individuals -- not an entree to expand the class of gay or transgendered persons into a full-blown suspect class".
(This post was last modified: 07-01-2018 08:43 AM by tanqtonic.)
07-01-2018 08:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 33,090
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 887
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #5
RE: What would a new court mean?
(06-29-2018 10:55 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(06-29-2018 08:42 AM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/a...eme-court/

Article discusses implications of a more originalist court. I'm inclined to agree about Roe. The conservative instinct is not to make dramatic changes. I think it gets nibbled at, not overturned.

Also agree about gay marriage. Its hard to see a case that could challenge the precedent. Who is being harmed (other than the Constitution-but that has already happened)? So if there is no case, there is no chance to overturn. And it would be a dramatic upheaval. I think Roberts and Alito would find a way to avoid that like Roberts saved Obamacare.

I don't follow.

How was the constitution harmed?

States and the Federal government afforded those of us straight marriage certain privileges and rights denied same sex couples.

Specifically:

-Usually better taxation rates and the freedom to choose more than one filing category to try to find the better rate.
-The right to inherit property intestate by operation of law.
-A vested property right in the partner's retirement benefits.
-Special class of property ownership. In most states a spouses acquiring real property do so by a special class of ownership that provides that one spouse cannot convey more than a one-half life estate in the property and cannot impair the other spouse's use or enjoyment of the property by the conveyance. If I sell my interest in my house the buyer cannot evict my wife or impair her use and if predecease my wife the buyer loses what interest they bought. Only married couples can gain this ownership status.
-The legal right to manage the affairs of an incapacitated partner.
- Legal protection regarding the dissolution of the relationship.

The state has to have a compelling interest to deny one relationship these enhanced rights and privileges.

I cannot formulate one that doesn't rely on religious belief or "we've always done it that way". Protection of children doesn't work else my father-in-law could not have married because he and his wife cannot have kids and it would follow that a sterile person could not enter into marriage.

The real problem with gay marriage is that long ago two bad decisions were made. The first was to push government to start recording what had been a religious ceremony and the second was to conclude marriage in and of itself was not sufficient of a reward and government should afford marriage enhanced rights and privileges to encourage people to marry.

Church inviting government to do church things never works out well for the church in the long-run.

The court invented a constitutional right that almost noone had imagined just 10 years before. A court that can invent rights can take them away. It was one of the most overreaching opinions since Dred Scott. It means the constitution is no more firm than the 225 year old paper it was originally written on. It relates to current whims and popular trends.
07-01-2018 10:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 33,090
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 887
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #6
RE: What would a new court mean?
As for all of those issues you mention, they could all be dealt with in ways other than a federal court changing the definition of marriage in every state.
07-01-2018 10:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 45,878
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 1294
I Root For: GT, USCU, FU
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #7
RE: What would a new court mean?
The conservatives need to throw overboard the "judicial deference" model they've been using because all that means is liberal activist judges will slowly erode everything their way over time. A more libertarian bend of "original intent" and "enforcement of checks and balances" would be a better and more productive stance.
07-02-2018 04:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

tanqtonic Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,992
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 286
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #8
RE: What would a new court mean?
Swagger:

the problem is that to do that you by definition have to ignore and throw out the concept of stare decisis. And stare decisis is a fundamental cornerstone in the difference between 'rule of law' and 'rule de jour'.

Both 'originalist activists' and 'living Constitution activists' that ignore stare decisis are fundamentally bad for the concept of rule of law for exactly the same reasons.

Further, 'deference' isnt just to past decisions; it is deference to the other branches. The other branches can be absolutely bat **** bonkers, but there is a world of difference between 'bad idea' and unconstitutional. I think Scalia said this in his dissent to the gay sex case Lawrence v. Texas, when he opined that the Texas law was a fundamentally stupid law, but being fundamentally stupid did not make it unconstitutional.
(This post was last modified: 07-02-2018 10:17 AM by tanqtonic.)
07-02-2018 10:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 23,177
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 698
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #9
RE: What would a new court mean?
Here's my issue.

I was opposed to gay marriage and legal recognition of same unless the states did it.

This created two problems.

First is in Article IV
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

So if Mary and Sally lived in a state that recognized gay marriage and married but then took a job in Arkansas, the Arkansas law provided that their marriage no longer existed it just disappeared the instant they crossed the state line. Mary's vested interest in Sally's retirement account would vaporize. In fact if Mary and Sally were merely passing through on their way to someplace else and Mary was injured in accident and some sort of medical decision had to be made Sally was by law a stranger to Mary and consent would have to be obtained by a family member of Mary's or an emergency order obtained by an ad litem

That is a ridiculous result.

Second problem the state has to have a compelling interest to treat people differently. The early gender equity cases were not brought to grant women the same rights as men but rather to attack areas of the law that favored women because it was easier to get the courts to grasp the issue.

Native Georgian you might not think a state should have to answer to the Federal judiciary but as long as the 14th Amendment is part of the Constitution you are incorrect. If the Federal judiciary is unable to protect the civil rights of the citizens of the United States there are no civil rights that exist unless a state is in the mood to protect those rights
07-02-2018 10:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,992
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 286
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #10
RE: What would a new court mean?
(07-02-2018 10:16 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Here's my issue.

I was opposed to gay marriage and legal recognition of same unless the states did it.

This created two problems.

First is in Article IV
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

So if Mary and Sally lived in a state that recognized gay marriage and married but then took a job in Arkansas, the Arkansas law provided that their marriage no longer existed it just disappeared the instant they crossed the state line. Mary's vested interest in Sally's retirement account would vaporize. In fact if Mary and Sally were merely passing through on their way to someplace else and Mary was injured in accident and some sort of medical decision had to be made Sally was by law a stranger to Mary and consent would have to be obtained by a family member of Mary's or an emergency order obtained by an ad litem

That is a ridiculous result.

Actually, your issue was with DOMA. What you describe above would be the result if DOMA were found (somehow) Constitutional. You literally describe above why DOMA was not just an utter bad idea, but cite the reason why it was not proper (Full Faith and Credit)

Quote:Second problem the state has to have a compelling interest to treat people differently. The early gender equity cases were not brought to grant women the same rights as men but rather to attack areas of the law that favored women because it was easier to get the courts to grasp the issue.

Native Georgian you might not think a state should have to answer to the Federal judiciary but as long as the 14th Amendment is part of the Constitution you are incorrect. If the Federal judiciary is unable to protect the civil rights of the citizens of the United States there are no civil rights that exist unless a state is in the mood to protect those rights

Again, you hit the nail on the head. Prior to the 14th Amendment, the Constitution was asserted solely against the Federal Government; accordingly each individual state could literally pick and choose which protections under the Constitution that it would honor -- the Bill of Rights could not be enforced against the action of an individual state.

It was only the passage of the 14th Amendment that allowed any of the Bill of Rights (or other implied rights in the Constitution) to be applied to the governments of an individual state.
07-03-2018 01:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 23,177
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 698
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #11
RE: What would a new court mean?
(07-03-2018 01:37 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  It was only the passage of the 14th Amendment that allowed any of the Bill of Rights (or other implied rights in the Constitution) to be applied to the governments of an individual state.

Very few people know that there were states with an official religion (specifically Christian denomination) after the First Amendment was adopted. All disestablished prior to the 14th but if they hadn't it might have led to a different approach to the incorporation doctrine.
07-03-2018 11:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoodOwl Offline
The 1 Hoo Knocks
*

Posts: 10,532
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 315
I Root For: New Horizons
Location: Planiverse
Post: #12
RE: What would a new court mean?
As it stands now, government "marriage" is pretty worthless. An unenforceable contract, or more precisely, a negatively enforceable contract--the only one I am aware of where the breaching party is the one entitled to damages and the non-breaching party is the one who is liable. This makes zero sense, and causes much of the resultant damage in our society, IMHO.

It would seem to make more sense for the government to limit its interference in the institution of marriage to merely registering, and enforcing, contract agreements between two human parties. This way those who wish to be married via the requirements of a faith/religion can have their verbal vows rendered enforceable (as some faiths require only certain vows to be used, and others allow the parties to make their own up--it would protect the sanctity of respective beliefs, as well as enlighten people as to the differences in actual faithful marriages and mere marriages of appearance with pretty church pictures for show), and those who do not care about religion can get a government "marriage" which is enforceable as any other normal contract between parties who have the legal ability to give consent.

The further advantage of this for society is to allow transparency and honesty to once again be included in marriages recognized by the government, and greatly limit the damage and trillion-dollar annual costs to society by those who disingenuously enter into these unenforceable 'agreements' we currently call marriage by requiring and enforcing actual thought and consequences for what the actual terms would be that the two people are agreeing to. Currently most people who marry have no idea of the harsh reality of what the legal implications of their action are--and often assume the opposite of what the legal reality has become. This is especially harmful to children in particular, and society in general--and completely unnecessary.

Why not just allow any two people to get married by a fully enforceable written contract instead? Then each party would have to provide documentation of their intentions, basic disagreements could be worked out ahead of time, and disputes would be reduced tremendously by the same way that divorce disputes are currently handled: "You agreed." End of dispute. Money and time saved. Also, caveat emptor would again be an important (and enforceable) part of marriage, and discernment, and cleaning up each person's act before and during would again be valued by our society--which means less waste and destruction.

So, gay government "marriage" would remain, but not intrude on any religion that does not recognize it--you simply would not be able to be gay "married" in a church that does not believe in its validity, yet you could have your gay government "marriage" to brag about to your friends all you wanted, or go on hospital visits, sign papers, etc... Proper separation of church and state once again like it was meant to be.

Any religious institution requiring adherence to traditional marriage vows would then have the additional benefit they are denied (unconstitutionally it would appear via the current government interference in enforceability of their religious beliefs) of having those simple vows codified and backed by the government and courts. Therefore, people would be able to discern which religions actually understood and enforced the idea of marriage and what the respective religions actually meant by their understanding of marriage. Anyone who wished to marry in a religious setting would then clearly see which ones were shams and which ones actually stood for something.

Those who view marriage as just an extended "date" with no consequences would then be able to be free to decide if they wanted to maintain that view, and its unpleasant legal consequences and risks, or if they would prefer a "safer" marriage haven, could opt for a more solid and binding contract (whether religious or not) afforded to any two parties in most any other transaction currently enforced by the courts as a protection of both parties' rights, not merely solely protecting the breaching party's (the current situation, which again makes zero logical sense.)

Serial marriages and the damage they do would very likely be vastly reduced. Philandering would have a more transparent cost, children would be valued again, etc... After an initial adjustment period, people would largely return to being far more considered of who and why they are marrying, and a corresponding significant reduction in the number of "bad" marriages would follow. This would save trillions of dollars for the government in the reduction of unnecessary programs designed mostly to replace the enforcement of reasonable marriage contracts, which is where we are now, and it just does not work. Shame and decency would again have some value. Peer pressure would keep most people from thinking they knew better than thousands of years of human experience have shown. Poverty, fatherless children, and many other ills would be reduced to realistic and manageable levels. Trillions (perhaps quadrillions) of dollars would be saved and redirected to positive economic growth, instead of being wasted on redundant and largely ineffective "programs" that largely seek to replace simple enforcement of an agreement between two consenting parties.

Smaller government, a safer, more rational workforce and families that actually were more secure and meant something again would all come together to make the US a vastly stronger, more efficient and powerful nation that would again be the envy of the world far and away above where we are at now.

Or we could just keep doing whatever we want, whenever we want for whatever random reason we want and pretend there are no consequences to and no responsibilities for our choices like we've been doing for the past 60-odd years and keep slowly destroying our country.
(This post was last modified: 07-22-2018 11:21 PM by GoodOwl.)
07-22-2018 11:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 33,090
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 887
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #13
RE: What would a new court mean?
There was nothing preventing that type of contractual agreement before. For heterosexual couples, it was called a pre-nup.
07-23-2018 09:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

tanqtonic Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,992
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 286
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #14
RE: What would a new court mean?
The only difference being that the 'terms of the contract' were put into place by law with a single act.

I have no issue with the 'state' action being 'if any two people want to enter into the the predefined 'living contract, step right up and sign up' as a 'preplan deal'. Open that 'preset deal' to anyone who wants to sign up for it.

And have the separate act of a religious marriage be just that -- a separate act of religious marriage.

I seem to recall going to several weddings in Italy where there was both a 'religious' union *and* the separate 'civil ceremony' that created that relationship with corresponding legal rights attaching.
07-23-2018 11:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 23,177
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 698
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #15
RE: What would a new court mean?
(07-22-2018 11:07 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  As it stands now, government "marriage" is pretty worthless. An unenforceable contract, or more precisely, a negatively enforceable contract--the only one I am aware of where the breaching party is the one entitled to damages and the non-breaching party is the one who is liable. This makes zero sense, and causes much of the resultant damage in our society, IMHO.

It would seem to make more sense for the government to limit its interference in the institution of marriage to merely registering, and enforcing, contract agreements between two human parties. This way those who wish to be married via the requirements of a faith/religion can have their verbal vows rendered enforceable (as some faiths require only certain vows to be used, and others allow the parties to make their own up--it would protect the sanctity of respective beliefs, as well as enlighten people as to the differences in actual faithful marriages and mere marriages of appearance with pretty church pictures for show), and those who do not care about religion can get a government "marriage" which is enforceable as any other normal contract between parties who have the legal ability to give consent.

The further advantage of this for society is to allow transparency and honesty to once again be included in marriages recognized by the government, and greatly limit the damage and trillion-dollar annual costs to society by those who disingenuously enter into these unenforceable 'agreements' we currently call marriage by requiring and enforcing actual thought and consequences for what the actual terms would be that the two people are agreeing to. Currently most people who marry have no idea of the harsh reality of what the legal implications of their action are--and often assume the opposite of what the legal reality has become. This is especially harmful to children in particular, and society in general--and completely unnecessary.

Why not just allow any two people to get married by a fully enforceable written contract instead? Then each party would have to provide documentation of their intentions, basic disagreements could be worked out ahead of time, and disputes would be reduced tremendously by the same way that divorce disputes are currently handled: "You agreed." End of dispute. Money and time saved. Also, caveat emptor would again be an important (and enforceable) part of marriage, and discernment, and cleaning up each person's act before and during would again be valued by our society--which means less waste and destruction.

So, gay government "marriage" would remain, but not intrude on any religion that does not recognize it--you simply would not be able to be gay "married" in a church that does not believe in its validity, yet you could have your gay government "marriage" to brag about to your friends all you wanted, or go on hospital visits, sign papers, etc... Proper separation of church and state once again like it was meant to be.

Any religious institution requiring adherence to traditional marriage vows would then have the additional benefit they are denied (unconstitutionally it would appear via the current government interference in enforceability of their religious beliefs) of having those simple vows codified and backed by the government and courts. Therefore, people would be able to discern which religions actually understood and enforced the idea of marriage and what the respective religions actually meant by their understanding of marriage. Anyone who wished to marry in a religious setting would then clearly see which ones were shams and which ones actually stood for something.

Those who view marriage as just an extended "date" with no consequences would then be able to be free to decide if they wanted to maintain that view, and its unpleasant legal consequences and risks, or if they would prefer a "safer" marriage haven, could opt for a more solid and binding contract (whether religious or not) afforded to any two parties in most any other transaction currently enforced by the courts as a protection of both parties' rights, not merely solely protecting the breaching party's (the current situation, which again makes zero logical sense.)

Serial marriages and the damage they do would very likely be vastly reduced. Philandering would have a more transparent cost, children would be valued again, etc... After an initial adjustment period, people would largely return to being far more considered of who and why they are marrying, and a corresponding significant reduction in the number of "bad" marriages would follow. This would save trillions of dollars for the government in the reduction of unnecessary programs designed mostly to replace the enforcement of reasonable marriage contracts, which is where we are now, and it just does not work. Shame and decency would again have some value. Peer pressure would keep most people from thinking they knew better than thousands of years of human experience have shown. Poverty, fatherless children, and many other ills would be reduced to realistic and manageable levels. Trillions (perhaps quadrillions) of dollars would be saved and redirected to positive economic growth, instead of being wasted on redundant and largely ineffective "programs" that largely seek to replace simple enforcement of an agreement between two consenting parties.

Smaller government, a safer, more rational workforce and families that actually were more secure and meant something again would all come together to make the US a vastly stronger, more efficient and powerful nation that would again be the envy of the world far and away above where we are at now.

Or we could just keep doing whatever we want, whenever we want for whatever random reason we want and pretend there are no consequences to and no responsibilities for our choices like we've been doing for the past 60-odd years and keep slowly destroying our country.

The Swiss Reformed Church and later John Calvin set us on the path of the church strong-arming its way into government by means of the government becoming the register of marriages (also forced baptisms but not relevant to the point here).

The English Reformation picked up on that was able to get Parliament to pass a law requiring the state to record and recognize the religious rite of marriage.

It also defused a nascent civil rights movement for women, kicking that can down the road several centuries by extending the then theology of the rights of women into the government arena.

Let's not forget that government is actually quite the enemy of marriage.

Anyone with a decent working knowledge of poverty relief programs in the US understands that generally the worst thing you can do is get married. If Jane and Bob have low wage jobs and work full-time, they are worse off financially if they marry. Yet we seem surprised when they have a child together and Bob isn't in the house, even though being in the house is a terrible financial decision.

Then you have this recent case of the couple in Texas contemplating divorce because they cannot afford health coverage for their disabled child.
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2018/07/10...-says.html

People are at heart capitalists. They will use the resources they have access to for their best benefit. When a guy is making $40,000 a year and his wife has to stay home to care for their daughter and they are paying $15,000 out-of-pocket, the logical decision is to divorce.
07-23-2018 04:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2019 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2019 MyBB Group.