Interesting subject, I thought you might approach this from a certain angle such as “gay marriage’ or something like that but I think you just want all the restrictions on marriage dropped. Let’s take a look at that.
Your first paragraph: “I hope that the Supreme Court uses some of the same thinking it used in looking at the Affordable Care Act. SCOTUS, and Roberts stretched the bounds of the argument by allowing that the ACA was a tax, and by extension constitutional.”
Do you realize that Roberts broke the law by changing the ACA? Roberts and SCOTUS have the authority to let stand, or strike down a law that does not find authority to exist in the Constitution.
There is no authority in the Constitution for the federal government to FINE someone for not participating in commerce. Roberts and the rest of the court all acknowledged this as is evident in the various legal opinions (so far so good), and the ACA was correctly struck down on that point.
Then Roberts, not the rest of the court although he did it in the name of the court, decided to change the word “FINE” to the word “TAX.” As a TAX it could stand as a matter of the taxing authority of the United States Congress. Subsequently the ACA (in reference to buying health insurance) has NOTHING to do with health insurance and is ONLY a TAX. Sure, it will be administered for a while on those who refuse to buy health insurance but eventually (and we see this now) that tax will be levied on everyone regardless of whether or not you buy a health insurance plan (one has nothing to do with the other because of the use of the word “TAX”).
Roberts violated the Constitution (Supreme Law of the Land) when he changed that word because ONLY the legislature of the United States (Congress) can change a law once it is passed.
Roberts claimed precedence of changing a “simple word” in a previous case and that change stood. Two things here:
First it was illegal then and it is still illegal now. If I murdered someone in 1954 and got away with it would that justify my murdering someone today? I don’t think so. For those of you who would like to see me swing from a gallows and I know there are many, I wasn’t even born in 1954.
Second, IF he is going to change a word, even though he does not have that authority under the Constitution but feels the need to do so for the purpose of clarification it MUST NOT be a substantial change. You will admit that the change from “fine” to “tax” was substantial, in fact the Supreme Court said it would not be allowed to stand if it was a “fine” but they would let it stand if it was a “tax.” On the other hand correcting a misspelled word MIGHT be allowable.
Your next paragraph: “With regards to same sex marriage I hope that the court expands the discussion to it’s logical conclusion; why is the government licensing a religious ceremony?”
The government issues a marriage license for many reasons, one of which is they offer benefits to married couples. I see you don’t believe they should but they do. They offer benefits to married couples because we the people believe that the family unit is the foundation of a society. You are free to disagree with that if you want.
One other reason the government issues that license (there are many reasons) is that if one parent neglects the child the state can legally go after that parent in the best interest of the child.
Your next paragraph: “States should not be giving marriage licenses to any couple. If your church will marry you, then you are married. Frankly, if you “feel” married, you should be married.”
Apparently you aren’t old enough to remember things like polygamy (one man having several wives). This was very offensive to much of the public and the answer was to restrict who could get that marriage license. Polygamy pretty much went away because of this.
What about the crazy people who want to marry their cat? How about when some rich lady who owns a bunch of real estate marries her cat and then the lady dies? The property then becomes that of the cat. The renters stop paying rent and the place goes downhill so all the tenants move out and hoodlums move in. The place becomes a crack house that people cannot do anything about because the owner has no opinion on the matter. Eventually the police come in and rout out the crack heads but in the ensuing battle three cops are killed. Then since the property is so run down and now unsafe it must be bulldozed. That damn cat won’t pay for a thing so the cost is borne out of your tax dollars, but the benefit goes to the cat. Perhaps the original will that gave the property to the cat specified that when the cat died the lady’s nephew Joe gets the property. See how things go downhill when you take off all the restrictions?
Your next: “The government should also not offer any benefits or penalties for being married.”
I am for these benefits and things that entice the birth of babies to be INSIDE wedlock vs outside wedlock. Studies overwhelmingly support the fact that children born in wedlock (of loving parents) are more successful in life.
I do not support penalties for those who choose to remain single. I also hope that those who choose to remain single will abstain from having children though.
Your next: “I believe the two sides in the argument are missing the point and I hope SCOTUS will set this point straight.”
Marriage is not a right but a privilege. If marriage was a right we could not stop or even limit polygamy. If marriage was a right we could not stop two four-year-old kids from getting married. If marriage was a right we could not stop that lady from marrying her cat.
We can restrict these things because marriage is a PRIVILEGE and NOT a right.
Now, if your goal was to address the gay marriage thing you have a valid issue, you just went about it wrong.
Those who profess “gay rights” and the “right of gays to be married” are fighting an illogical battle (but they might win because the courts are somewhat illogical on this).
Quite simply, gays have no “rights” that they can claim due to their status of being gay. Gays have no more rights than me (I’m not gay) and I have no more rights that a gay person. We ALL have the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” and that’s it.
The specific “rights” listed in the Bill of Rights are included in the right to “life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness” and are only mentioned for clarity and specificity.
Notice that there is no mention in any of that of marriage, or other things like driving a car. Yet we marry and drive cars every day! How can we if we don’t have a “right” to do either of these?
Again, same with marriage which if it was a right we would not be able to stop polygamy, kids getting married, immediate siblings getting married, parents marrying their kids, or the lady marrying her cat; if driving was a “right” we would have significant problems as well.
If driving was a right we could NOT stop people from driving drunk, we could NOT stop a three year old kid from driving, and we could NOT force people to drive under a speed limit or on the right hand side of the road. I think we should be glad that driving a car is a PRIVILEGE and not a right. Likewise with marriage, if it was a “right” as gays will tell you it is we would have many problems we don’t want to have.
If marriage is then a privilege then the people can define it the way they want. That voted upon definition (voted upon by the people) was that marriage was to be between one man and one woman. That was the lawful will of the people. The courts are now overturning the lawful will of the people and that is wrong in every way it can be wrong.
To note, if the PEOPLE (via their voting power) decide that they want to change the definition of marriage to allow gays to be married, the PEOPLE can do that. Some states have done this (even though DOMA has not been properly dealt with) and some states have not. In fact some states have on numerous occasions stated their will to NOT allow gay marriage and have done so at the election booth (therefore properly) and the courts still overturn the lawful will or the people. This is a Constitutional violation.
Here is my OPINION on the matter (my opinion is mine): I believe that most gays (there are exceptions) want to be married for the benefits of marriage. I believe they rightfully want to inherit property (tax free) of their mates, just as married couples do. I believe they want to have the authority to make medical decisions for their loved one and I support this as well.
However, what I don’t agree with is the failed notion that to get those government benefits they need to be married. I believe that there can be some other legal arrangement that is very similar to marriage (call it “same sex legal bond” or something like that) that gives the couple the same inheritance and medical benefits.
The problem is that gays think they can ONLY get these benefits by getting married when these benefits have NOTHING to do with the sanctity of marriage. Marriage is more than one thing, it is a spiritual bond between two people, in Gods presence, who have the ability to further the human race (have offspring), AND it is a legal bond recognized by all of society.
There are not many gays who are seeking that spiritual bond in the presence of God. In fact when the notion behind marriage is to perpetuate the human race ALL gays by definition fall considerably short of the reason for that spiritual bond.
We need to leave alone that bond between one man and one woman and seek other ways for gay couples to get what they want in terms of medical authority for a sick partner.
I fully support gays who truly love each other and want to dedicate their lives to each other having the legal authority to make medical decisions for an incapacitated loved-one and should that person die I have no problem with the remaining spouse having legal claim to the deceased property much the same as married couples do.
I do not personally approve of the gay relationship but that is only my opinion and I recognize that gays have the same rights as me. I am also smart enough to see that the sanctity of marriage is NOT the problem. The problem is in the IRS code and medical laws that dictate who can and who cannot make medical decisions for an incapacitated person.
I think if the “gay marriage” movement wants to tear down marriage they will have one hell of a fight on their hands (look around to see that I am correct) but if all they want is a change in the IRS code and the medical authority laws they would find those who support only heterosexual marriages would be fighting right alongside them to help them get those benefits.
What say you Jackson, or anyone else on this site?