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.