In which the Supreme Court seems to be asked to define a word

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Wednesday, March 27. 2013

In which the Supreme Court seems to be asked to define a word

Two confused thoughts:

1. Marriage. Everybody is writing about the gay marriage topic. How is marriage defined? Is the Supreme Court being asked to be a dictionary? To revise the dictionary? That's above their pay grade.

2. Is there a "right" to gay marriage? Isn't that the wrong question? The Federal government was never assigned the power to determine such personal things in a country in which the presumption of local and, most importantly, individual liberty is the centerpiece. We do not have, or need, delimited rights. Government has delimited powers (supposedly). I guess the issue had to become a federal case because marriage is not so much about a relationship, but, maybe unfortunately, about a legal status with many legal implications.

Posted by Dr. Joy Bliss in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects, Our Essays at 10:42 | Comments (27) | Trackback (1)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

PingBack

Weblog: www.dailypundit.com
Tracked: Mar 28, 22:30

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

I suspect, if the truth could ever be known, it's about getting one cohabitor access to another cohabitor's government and/or private benefits in the vast majority of cases.

#1 BillH on 2013-03-27 11:01 (Reply)

Pretty much it.

The real issue is about justice. Benefits given to those traditionally married are b/c they provide more to society than singles. Same-sex couples want those benefits. However, same-sex coupoles do not provide those benefits to society, and thus shouldn't receive any in return.

#1.1 DrTorch on 2013-03-27 11:52 (Reply)

I'm uncomfortable with the idea that "society" is supposed to be granting benefits to people because they're providing something to "society." If by benefits we mean taxpayer-funded largesse, I'm against it. I would not like to see any laws that burdened anyone's reasonable attempt to set up mutually beneficial households, especially those in which children are raised to become productive members of civilization, but that's a different matter from "benefits."

A huge part of the problem is that people expect their employers to provide necessities of life as in-kind benefits rather than simply going out and buying them with their cash salary. Then we get into arguments about how one has to be related to a worker in order to qualify. The employer ought not to have been involved in the first place. If I want to set up house with my brother, or my high-school buddy, that should be my business -- and no one else needs to know if we're sleeping together. Whether we're "married" or not is a question of what we think about it, what we can get our social group to acknowledge, and (if appropriate) what our churches teach.

For this reason, I hate laws and deed restrictions that prohibit "multi-family" living arrangement under one roof.

#1.1.1 Texan99 (Link) on 2013-03-27 20:37 (Reply)

Inheritance of social security benefits and taxation of estates seems to be the big problem with most of the couples I know. Very few making this commitment have wanted to adopt children and, I believe, most of those rights have been secured depending on the source of the adoption.

All else can be established via a power of attorney (medical and otherwise), an appropriate will/trust and contracts regarding ownership of banking accounts, IRAs and pension funds, real estate and other property, etc. My brother-in-law executed such documents for couples all the time.

#2 jma on 2013-03-27 11:31 (Reply)

They are being asked more than that:
They are being asked "If the voters through a constitutional referendum pass a law that the elected officials don't like, do the elected officials have an effective veto by defending it badly in court (or refusing to defend it at all)?

Whatever one's opinion on the case that brings that question to the court, the court's answer to that question will have enourmous implications on the shape of our government going forward.

#3 Douglas2 on 2013-03-27 11:35 (Reply)

Should the case go that way, dismissed on standing regarding Prop 8, then it truly would be disturbing. Especially since standing is a state issue and the California Supreme Court issued an opinion that the Prop supporters had standing to represent the state on this matter. Otherwise, the whole initiative process can be undermined by uncooperative state constitutional officers.

In short, the opinion I read was that the United States had no right to decide on standing as that was strictly a State matter, i.e., who may represent the State before the federal courts.

So to throw out the case on standing would be a bad incursion into State's rights.

Although, one discussion did see the whole Prop 8 court case falling apart because if there was not standing for SCOTUS, there was no standing for the appeals court and that could mean that there wasn't sufficient adversity for the District court to hear the case. Lots of juicy legal prof stuff it seems.

#3.1 JKB on 2013-03-27 12:53 (Reply)

what gays are mostly after is economic equality with normal married couples in terms of property and other economic rights. a lawyer's drafting work can't do exactly what the legislature can by statute.

what normal people are most offended by is the gross perversion of the word "marriage" when applied to gay unions.

#4 wirraway on 2013-03-27 11:49 (Reply)

wirraway, how's is a any statute doing to do away with behavior? I'm just asking because I don't know the answer.

Homosexuality and assorted means of association have been around for thousands of years. Animal and plant behavior still frustrate those who try to maintain species. Who knows what minerals will tell us.

Now, the bigger question becomes: do we acknowledge the existence of this behavior and try to weave it into the financial -- because it is FINANCIAL -- texts of our laws, or do we spend endless funds by taxpayers, companies and government to end this futile fight?

Just asking you opinion.

#4.1 jma on 2013-03-27 18:09 (Reply)

I don't think so. As for property rights and will / hospital rights, those are all already available under Civil Union acts, and if those aren't available trusts/wills and living wills can be set up.

There are Social Security advantages - but they are really "advantages" to women who had a career and ended up staying home to take care of kids. If a person qualifies for SSA but their benefits are less than half the spouses, then the other spouse (usually the woman again) can get SSA at half the partner's rate. But wait, if you aren't raising kids - and the homosexuals can adopt is the biggest canard because it is so rare, there is no need for the benefit. I as a male, shouldbn't be able to have a kept guy at home for no apparent reason.

The other benefit would be insurance. Of course in private industry companies are already forcing people to not insure spouses if the spouse has their own insurance. So it only works with government jobs. But with those, You can have your kept partner at home and supply him with your insurance. Again, shouldn't my guy friend get his own job - he isn't at home taking care of kids. (this all applies to lesbian couples as well)

So as a Libertarian/leaning towards conservatism, I think the real problem is Government. They messed up the whole marriage thing, and made everybody want to get the "free" government benes. Answer is to get rid of SSA, get everybody to get their own insurance - and make the benefits based on raising kids rather than based on being married.

I would also suggest that we go back to Marriage being a church thing (or whatever you feel is necessary to commit to someone) and the government should only grant Civil Unions to allow for easy transfer of will and living will rights.

#4.2 marque2 on 2013-03-27 19:28 (Reply)

EXACTLY!! The government needs to get completely out of deciding who is committed to whomever!
If a couple wants to create a civil union, the state should issue them a licence, so either party has proof of this fact, and the date. That's IT.
If that same couple then wish to celebrate their union, they can then voluntarily go to their religious institution of choice, and perform whatever ceremony is proper. Why not continue to call it marriage?
The insitution of marriage, between a man and woman, to raise children, and conserve their resources, is well nigh universal across cultures. But WHICH couple (or more than a couple) is different.
What DOESN'T work very well, is attempting to raise those children by yourself; ask ANY parent!
We shouldn't be wasting our time and resources worried about the less than 3% of our population who are homosexual wanting to get married. We should instead try to figure out how we are going to save the institution of HETERO marriage!

#4.2.1 cas on 2013-03-28 08:51 (Reply)

Thank you, marque2 and cas. Big government seems to be at the crux of this problem. The WWII regulations that gave rise to employer-sponsored benefits and social security have blossomed into a never ending array of calculated distractions from what Big Government is doing "while we're not watching" their Louis XIV takeover of our lives.

Smoke and mirrors.

#4.2.2 jma on 2013-03-28 09:21 (Reply)

Wow, nothing like being targeted by pro-gay marriage crazies! I made several comments on a news site yesterday about my views/worries concerning legalizing gay marriage, only to have a commenter there track down my personal information and post several it in a public forum.

This is where we are headed...down the road of threats and intimidation if you don't agree with gay marriage. I posted nothing mean, cruel or derogatory, only my disagreement with gay marriage, and my fears for what that might entail for the future regarding free speech, education and freedom of religion.

I am posting this comment because I am truly scared for what is coming down the road. Churches are soon to be cast as bigoted groups. Children will be forced to learn that they must accept gay marriage or else be considered a bully and punished for their beliefs.

I wish I could just ignore what is going one and hope for the best, but it is so very hard when I feel my beliefs are being threatened. Not to mention how scared I am about having my private information posted for these pro-gay marriage people to see....

#5 faithful on 2013-03-27 11:54 (Reply)

Be careful - just like other bloggers whom tangle with the crazies, you might alert your local Police to prevent being SWATed....

This Bloke http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kimberlin has had a rep for doing this for his opponents

#5.1 fred zeppelin on 2013-03-27 12:20 (Reply)

Thanks for the warning, Fred. You just never know these days. I did notice no one else in the comment thread I mentioned said anything about my info. I think they all knew that what this person did crossed a line. But, clearly, there are people out there who are okay with harassment of innocent people with differing opinions.

#5.1.1 faithful on 2013-03-27 12:35 (Reply)

Just as they did to Prop 8 supporters. They are jihadists--unbelievers must be destroyed.

#5.2 Sam L. on 2013-03-27 12:47 (Reply)

If you really want to have some fun, frame the issue as gender discrimination, i.e., in actuality, there is no discrimination based on sexual orientation as both homosexuals and heterosexuals are restricted that same, to opposite sex partners. However, there is discrimination based on gender since a person of one gender is not permitted to marry someone of the same gender, regardless of their preference in sex partner.

It doesn't undermine their case for ssm, but it does seem to reveal that many are in this less for access to marriage benefits but forced acknowledgement of homosexual relationships.

As we've seen with gay adoption, etc., the state recognition of homosexual relationships is already being used to drive religious affiliated adoption agencies from business. As well as assaults on religious individuals who wish to operated non-profit or commercial enterprises that provide services beyond religious practice. Basically undermine the "church" participation in society in favor of the state.

#5.2.1 JKB on 2013-03-27 13:05 (Reply)

I've done that. Alas, today's college student just can't comprehend deductive reasoning.

#5.2.1.1 DrTorch on 2013-03-27 14:59 (Reply)

When the barbarians begin to use our own system against us, its time to use the old playbook... Alas, its almost getting like Victorian times for these types...

#5.2.2 fred zeppelin on 2013-03-27 13:20 (Reply)

Yes, the government should GET OUT of the marriage business.

That there can still be marriage (within a church, for instance) is a given. That gays can marry, that should also be a given. I simply DO NOT CARE. That a church will NOT marry gays? The government should not get involved any more than they get involved in the Catholic Church not having female clergy.

If people want to have 'legal standing', then they should write a contract., Contracts are understood as part of the interstate commerce clause.

So. Make a 'marriage contract', which can be between any TWO people. This puts the polygamy question aside for another day. Although I don't give a heck what people do to each other, as long as they are all happy with the arrangement. But keep government OUT of personally responsible behavior. Such as drugs. Marriage. Guns.

Leave it to the lawyers to hack it out. They do anyway, when marriages dissolve.

#6 Cap'n Jan on 2013-03-27 13:00 (Reply)

But, you see, that is how they whittle away power.

Take it by tiny bites from the citizenry, not to raise their concern, and it doesn't seem to be threatening. Immanent Domain, public smoking, salty foods, Big Gulps, owning guns, using a 401K, owning gold, reporting your BMI index number, etc.

Even the frog won't realize the soup pot is getting warmer, since its only going up by single degrees, until its too late.

#6.1 fred zeppelin on 2013-03-27 13:31 (Reply)

Cap'n,
"So. Make a 'marriage contract', which can be between any TWO people."

Marxism hates private contracts. Which is why recusing government from Marriage is a non-starter with the Democrats.

If Big Gov does not own a stake in your private contracts, it'd rather you didn't form them at all.

#6.2 steveaz on 2013-03-27 22:24 (Reply)

Actually, government cannot get out of the marriage business because without government there is no marriage.

It is the churches that should get out. They can and should have a rite sanctifying the union, but that rite should not constitute a legal marriage, and ministers should not have the power to create a legal marriage.

The legal marriage should be a regular commercial contract that meets various state-issued standards for property, inheritance, children, etc, and the state should register and enforce the marriage contract like it does any other.

Then, anyone can get "married", and ministers will not have to "marry" persons that do not meet the church's requirements.

Also, since it is a regular contract, there is no problem with gay marriage or polygamy or whatever.

Griswold v. Connecticut made all state regulation of sex unconstitutional. Gay marriage and polygamy will eventually become legal. We can only hope to prevent NAMBLA's goals. Actually, the courts may well reinstate an age of consent equal to puberty, but we can hope they won't legalize pedophilia or beastiality. No telling with those guys in SCOTUS.

#7 bob sykes on 2013-03-27 13:45 (Reply)

I can't remember where I saw it recently but someone made the observation that the marriage/divorce laws are simply a default pre-nuptial agreement.

This is an interesting take from Megan McCardle. Same gender marriage will come to pass :

QUOTE:

But this will not mean that we drive ever onwards towards greater sexual freedom--rather, it will mean quite the reverse. The sexual revolution is over. And the revolutionaries lost.

#7.1 JKB on 2013-03-27 14:09 (Reply)

Just wonderin' why they hate nature so much.

#8 Nate Jeer on 2013-03-27 14:28 (Reply)

--because of 'natural law'. They don't abide it, so they're not law-abiding.

#8.1 buddy larsen on 2013-03-28 02:59 (Reply)

All that polyamorists want is equal rights. The right to marry multiple partners and have it anointed by the state.

#9 GoneWithTheWind on 2013-03-27 23:45 (Reply)

Steveaz, it's not just private contracts they hate --it's private transactions --of ANY sort.

All these hot issues --DOMA, Guns, outrageous handling of Benghazi, F & F, healthcare, costs, Fed QE, Budget, Bloomberg, monthly once-in-a-lifetime vacations, all are press-hyped in order to drive below the event horizon such 'half-day in the news' system crashers as --just in the last few days -- Calpers and Apollo management (which designed Obamacare) caught in a major scandal the news of which lasted a half day, same for friendly Chinese takeover of the Paki seaport (last month), Bernie Madoff today, naming names and offering proof that his fellow crooks are JPMorgan, Bank of NY, HSBC, and Citigroup, and the IMF 'troika' taking extra measures to give the Cyprus event every chance possible to destroy civil order and current currencies in the West.

#10 buddy larsen on 2013-03-28 02:49 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Wednesday, March 27. 2013

In which the Supreme Court seems to be asked to define a word