The Gross National Debt

Friday, June 26, 2015

A dark side of the SCOTUS opinion

The Supreme Court's decision declaring that two consenting adults can marry each other, regardless of their chromosomal status is something I both cheer and fear.

Cheer because it is none of government's business what two or more consenting adults do to and with each other. Marriage should be none of government's business. Have said that for years and gonna keep saying it.

However, SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that government has a vested interest in what two or more consenting adults do with each other. This makes me want to build a fortified bunker.

Me bud TC offered this observation, "Sadly, many think this is a victory. Now that it's precedent that government can determine very personal, private circumstances, you can be assured they will again. Next time, though, it may not be so trendy."

Big Brother is definitely watching.

Rebel fired back with, "Sorry TC but this is a victory. The government was already doing that by defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Equal treatment for all is not trendy, it's the right."
Big Brother has been watching for a long time.

In case you missed, I see them as both being correct. That bothers me.

This decision is an unwarranted, unnecessary, unneeded & etc. intrusion into the rights as outlined in the Declaration of Independence. I realize the Declaration does not have the same force of law as the Constitution, but the Constitution is based on the Declaration.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Why does one adult need government permission to spend time with and share with another adult?

That is exactly, no ambiguity and no dissembling involved, what a marriage license is.

TC is right. If government has the right to license and govern what we do with another consenting adult, then more oversight is on the way. If you do not think a license is government dictating what you can and cannot do, governing, then you are sadly mistaken.

Some people are asking what is my opinion on the decision. Simple. I object to the whole idea of marriage licenses. What two or more consenting adults do to and with each other is none of my business, none of your business (unless you are part of that group) and absolutely beyond question none of government's business.

I realize that won't satisfy everyone's question. So here ya go.

You wanna be married to someone? You need someone to officiate the ceremony? Call me. I'll be delighted to perform a marriage ceremony for all involved. I'm headed to Canada in spring to perform a marriage and have been asked to do the ceremony, probably in Tennessee, for MacT's two moms. Waiting on them to set a date & time.

Does that explain my view?

I also hugely object to "equal treatment for everybody," as Rebel posted, but that's another post for another day.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Hi. I welcome lively debate. Attack the argument. Go after a person in the thread, your comments will not be posted.