Some questions for same gender marriage Part IV

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Re-read or get what you missed here.

To repeat myself, part of the SCOTUS ruling from 1967 bothers me, a lot: "While the state court is no doubt correct in asserting that marriage is a social relation subject to the State's police power..."

Again, this bothers me. A lot. It's my contention that government has only very limited business being involved social relations, if any business whatsoever. Yes, I am a libertarian, so keep reading to let me explain. (break news note - SCOTUS sided this morning with individual rights in the Hobby Lobby case and the unions case HUZZAH! May blog these later).

I object, but not totally. What two or more adults of sufficient mental capacity do to, with, by and for each other is no one's business as long as it is consensual. I point you to NAMBLA (and now my browser history has NAMBLA in it, dammit). I personally believe child molesters, which is what NAMBLA is, should be loaded into a catapult and hurled into a cliff face. So yeah, I can tolerate a tad of government involvement there.

The statement by SCOTUS says government can get involved in marriage. This also bothers me.

I do object to marriages minors to mature adults. I believe this is child abuse and government does have the right to step in to stop this. Where adults are concerned, none of your business unless you’re in the relationship.

“The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.”

In a statement hat hugely amuses me, the court states, “Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.”

Really? How is it fundamental? Certainly it is one of the oldest contracts man has. But I do not see how it is a bedrock of human existence.

As for it being a basic civil right, SCOTUS did say “marriage is a social relation subject to the State's police power.” However, the Supremes have never defined concretely marriage. The decisions do point to marriage being a function of the state of economics and not a religious ritual, but this is not a firm statement, rather weighted inference. I remind y’all that for most of humanity’s history, religious authority was also the political authority. Secular government is a recent convention. Theocracy is the history of human government.

Historically, marriage has been a function of rulers. A ruler in this case can be the head of state, a local official or the head of a family. The ruler orders a marriage. Freedom of choice is a new concept where marriage is concerned. Arranged marriages are not made with the thoughts of the two or more people being married in mind. Rather, the people planning that arranged marriage are working on building political ties and fiscal gain.

Fortunately, the court case did put some brakes on government power in marriage.

The court said, “The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.”

In the case which turned the tide on same gender marriage, United States v. Windsor, the 5-4 majority opinion states “It (the Defense Of Marriage Act which was signed by a Damnocrat president) also forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect.”

Why does government need to protect the stability and predictability of basic personal relations? Government is doing a greatly damned horrible job if this is a basic function of government. In regard to this government function, we exist in a river of chaos flowing with anarchy and piled high with islands of well-nigh inexpressibly stupid fascism.

It’s not government’s business to regulate basic personal relations. Anarchy, defined as a total lack of government, is the best option.

I also note the words “marry” and “marriage” do not appear in the Constitution.

More tomorrow if I remember to post.

Some questions for same gender marriage Part III

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Pick up Part II (and the link to Part I) here.

Part of the SCOTUS ruling from 1967 bothers me, a lot.

In the Loving v. Virginia SCOTUS decision, Justice Warren also wrote, "While the state court is no doubt correct in asserting that marriage is a social relation subject to the State's police power..." Where this is elaborated on, it’s always in reference to race.

Much hangs on the word “race” and its variants. Court cases turn on a single word, so the relevance of “race” in this decision has to be fundamental.

SCOTUS makes it clear: “The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.”

The 14th Amendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.  No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

In the Wikipedia article on Loving v. Virginia, the article states: "Before Loving v. Virginia, there had been several cases on the subject of interracial relations. In Pace v. Alabama (1883), the Supreme Court ruled that the conviction of an Alabama couple for interracial sex, affirmed on appeal by the Alabama Supreme Court, did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. Interracial marital sex was deemed a felony, whereas extramarital sex ("adultery or fornication") was only a misdemeanor. On appeal, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the criminalization of interracial sex was not a violation of the equal protection clause because whites and non-whites were punished in equal measure for the offense of engaging in interracial sex.”

Race is mentioned in the Constitution.

Some questions for same gender marriage Part II

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
In part 1, we looked at two definitive SCOTUS cases on marriage.

I pick up now on the Loving v. Virginia case and your relations with another consenting and mentally capable adult. This case revolves around whether or not interracial marriage is a criminal offense.

I cannot find any examples of a same-gender couple being arrested in the United States on the charge of being in a same-gender marriage. My search was far from exhaustive. I did find an article stating “Texas, like many other states, outright bans issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Any official who issues a license to a same-sex couple can face misdemeanor criminal charges.”  Yes, I understand people are so arrested in other countries, but I don’t live there.

I can find plenty of articles stating certain states do not recognize same gender marriages performed in another state. Refusing to recognize is not the same thing as a criminal offense.

The SCOTUS ruling states basing a criminal offense on race is extremely questionable. “Indeed, two members of this Court have already stated that they cannot conceive of a valid legislative purpose . . . which makes the color of a person's skin the test of whether his conduct is a criminal offense.” and “There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification.”

Writing for himself in a concurring opinion, J Stewart said, “I have previously expressed the belief that "it is simply not possible for a state law to be valid under our Constitution which makes the criminality of an act depend upon the race of the actor." McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184, 198 (concurring opinion).”

I have to point out race is a matter of genetics and ancestry. More on this in subsequent posts.

Some questions for same gender marriage Part 1

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This blog goes through six parts. One per day, if I can remember to post each day.

To start, let's run this train back to 1883.

In Pace v. Alabama, SCOTUS ruled that Alabama's anti-miscegenation statute was legal. They were not actually married, but having sex. Extra marital sex was also frowned on at the time, much moreso than today. Adultery was also illegal. At the Jail Museum, we have records of people being criminally charged with adultery and given various sentences.

Later cases upheld this even in the face of the "Cruel and unusual punishment" challenges. In other words, having established that interracial relations was wrong, the court further ruled that since both sides were given the same treatment under the law (HAH! That is bullshit and we all know it), there was no problem.

Now if Mr. Peabody will set the Wayback Machine to 1967... in a somewhat ironically named case, Loving v. Virginia, SCOTUS tossed Pace v. Alabama to the curb. At issue here is race. Writing for the court and the unanimous decision, Justice CJ Warren wrote, "The clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States."

There's a whole 'nother blog in that phrase "eliminate all official state sources."

In the Loving case, Justice Warren wrote, "Over the years, this Court has consistently repudiated '[d]istinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry' as being "odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality.'" Indeed, the court had shifted on the topic of race.

Race is a matter of genetics and ancestry. A person cannot choose their ancestors.

In short, no matter your ancestry, the law has to treat you the same as everyone else. What is legal for one is legal for another.

Ancestry is one thing. Sexual orientation is another. For this series, same gender marriage means two or more women, two or more men or any combination as long as at least two are of the same gender and swap bodily fluids. Nitpickers of my definition are invited to slap themselves smart and go away.

[insert string of violent words here]

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Few things make me madder than getting something wrong in the paper. Typos drive me around the bend, yes, but it's nothing compared to what happens when I get a mistake of fact in the paper. Typos are like getting your legs chew by briars when you're in the woods. It comes with the territory. A mistake of fact is like being mauled by a bear. You (or in this case me) screwed up badly because you (me) didn't pay attention, were not prepared, etc etc etc. All. Your (My). Fault.

And yes, it happened this week according to our City Manager.

He says I got a quote wrong in a major story on page 1. I do not doubt him. I thought we had this corrected before the paper went to press. Apparently not.

[insert second string of violent language]

Those who know me will tell you I am

But the great majority of the time, when this image is posted in a FB thread, it's done out of fun. Same thing when I point to the errors in logic in my friend's posts. Some call this trolling. The group of people I've known for nearly 30 years call this bustin' some chops. It's done out of fun.

But sometimes, the post is in earnest. Sometimes when I correct someone's presentation of "facts" it is in earnest.

Folks who know me will also tell you a good way to get my hackles rising is to misquote me. If done for chop bustin' it's OK. But if you do it and mean it, as in you are trying to convince others that is what I said, no.

I also come down incredibly hard on another news outlet in my region of Georgia. This outfit regularly, routinely and pretty much with every story they produce, gets something factually wrong. Every. Time.

So, I misquoted our City Manager in a major news article this week. It's going to bother me for a LONG time to come.

[insert third string of violent language]

The other problem is I don't just publish a newspaper. I publish a history book. Yes, I do. Come to my office, and I can prove it to. Go to our courthouse and I can prove it to you. Real. Books.

So, now that I have made this mistake, it will be recorded in the history book of my community. As John Lee once said when I worked at the Apalachicola Times, it doesn't matter that a correction will appear in the next edition. It's wrong forever. People doing research years from now will not bother to check subsequent editions for corrections. They'll pick the error up and it will go forward and be compounded through the years.

[insert fourth string of violent language]

The stupid is strong in these people

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
We get a couple of fake classifieds a week at the office. It's always someone with poor English skills looking to hire part time help to work from home, give away some dogs, a motorcycle, etc.

It is, of course, a scam. For the business ad, anyone who bites is sent money orders or checks and instructed to deposit the checks, withdraw some cash and wire it to another address. The credit card they would use to pay for the ad is also stolen information. For the others, wire some money to handle shipping. Either way, bye bye money!

They are amusing to read.

Every now and then, I yank some chains and apply for the job. I always give a Post Office as the address because UPS won't deliver there. This throws them into a tizzy about 60 percent of the time.

If I ever do get the fake checks or forged money orders, I just stick 'em in a folder and forget about them until I get an email wondering where the money is. First reply is always I did not get it. This generates a slightly more heated email. Second reply is I have the MO, but have not had time to get to the bank. Now there are threats to involve law enforcement. I pretend to panic. On the 4th email, the swearing starts. I reply I used the money to buy some drugs and ask if they will send more.

Every great once in a while a real winner comes in.

The best one was someone using the TeleType (telephone communications for deaf people) to run a scam. They claimed to have an office at 106 N. Gordon St. My office is 109 N. Gordon St. I really doubted Bob was going to allow anyone else to run a business out of his coin laundromat across the street.

After I discussed the matter at length with the lady doing the interface work, the scammer finally hung up.

Here's the latest one:

Hello How are you doing…Please I want to Place Below AD on your Newspapers and on your website for 2weeks, Please email me back and let me know how to Proceed

ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
Appointment coordination, Generated reports, invoice documents, Billing Adjustments, Event and meeting planning,setting appointments, send your resume and salary expectations to: js24113@________.com

Jose Sanchez
3**** Stanford Rd 
Ashburn, GA 31714
404-***-0320

Turner County is a small place. But just to be sure, I checked. The 3**** Stanford Road is a field under cultivation. The nearest mail box is half mile away. The phone number is an Atlanta area code, which could be legit considering how cell phones jump all over the nation these days.

A quick Internet search links this number to a variety of scams sent by text message.

But I also used one of my emails to reply to the email, hoping I might eventually be able to trap one of these idiots well enough to catch him or her. Not heard back yet.

Ah the joys of running a community newspaper.