Marriage as a FREEDOM under the Constitution: Can it be practiced equally without relying on govt?

[emilynghiem]

A Question for Conservative Christians and GLBT Rights Advocates: Why Not Civil Unions? - Roger E. Olson

I don't get why people can't see that opposing beliefs on "whether marriage is a right"
deserve equal treatment under law. Why adopt one viewpoint at the exclusion of the other?

Isn't there a way to accommodate BOTH those who believe in "marriage as an equal right"
and those who believe marriage is part of free exercise of beliefs that govt does not need to be regulating!

Why not separate the civil contracts from the "beliefs and social relationships that people associate with marriage."

I am finding more and more people who have come to the conclusion
it's simpler to separate these policies, so everyone can practice freely as they believe,
and not depend on govt to endorse their beliefs one way or the other!

 

[emilynghiem]

"My Compromise
I propose severing the religious/social terminology associated with “marriage” from the secular benefits that the state grants legally unified couples. Under this proposal, the government would only legally recognize the contract of civil union—which it would avail to any two, nonrelated people over the age of consent—and would let the individual call the bond what they will.

All current secular marriages and civil unions would be standardized to the rights, protections, and benefits available to married couples but the language of the bond would be shifted entirely to the civil union terminology. The term “marriage” would be eliminated from the law and relegated to a purely social and religious terminology."

--- SOURCE:
A Simple Solution to Marriage Equality: Separate Secular Unions from Religious Marriage

 

[Timmy]

You confuse legal marriage wh religion marriage .

 

[emilynghiem]

Marriage privatization - Wikipedia

Libertarian advocacy[edit]
In 1997, libertarian David Boaz wrote an article for Slate titled “Privatize Marriage: A Simple Solution to the Gay-Marriage Debate." In the article, Boaz suggests privatizing marriage in a way that models the nature of standard business contracts. Boaz's idea is to allow two (possibly more) individuals to set the terms of their own private marital contract in a way that is best for the individuals involved. "When children or large sums of money are involved, an enforceable contract spelling out the parties' respective rights and obligations is probably advisable. But the existence and details of such an agreement should be up to the parties."[1] According to Boaz the government could be called upon to enforce the contract but may have no other role in developing the contract and setting the terms.

In 2002, anarchist Wendy McElroy echoed Boaz's business contract model in an essay for Ifeminists titled "It's Time to Privatize Marriage."

Marriage should be privatized. Let people make their own marriage contracts according to their conscience, religion and common sense. Those contracts could be registered with the state, recognized as legal and arbitrated by the courts, but the terms would be determined by those involved.[2]

McElroy has also said:

Why is marriage declining? One reason is that it has become a three-way contract between two people and the government.[3]

In 2003, political columnist Ryan McMaken, writing on LewRockwell.com, raised the issue of marriage privatization arguing that the rise of state-sanctioned marriage coincides historically with the expansion of government. In his article titled "Married to the State," McMaken wrote:

The question we are then left with today is one of whether the churches and individuals should be looking to privatize marriage yet again and to begin making a distinction between secular contracts between private citizens and religious unions that should be kept beyond the power of the State. Such a move, of course, would bring with it new assumptions about the role of the State in divorce, children, and a variety of other aspects of family life. The State will not give up control over these things easily, for the assertion that the importance of marriage makes it a legitimate interest of the State is only true from the point of view of the State itself, for as the foundation of society, marriage and family cannot be entrusted to governments just to be blown about by the winds of democratic opinion, for the same government that has the power to protect can just as easily destroy.[4]

In a similar libertarian vein, the radio talk-show host Larry Elder endorsed the privatization of marriage. In "The State Should Get Out of the Marriage Business", a 2004 article published in on the website Capitalism Magazine, Elder wrote:

How about government simply getting out of the marriage-license-granting business? (Ditto for government licenses necessary to cut hair, drive a taxi, open a business or enter a profession.) Leave marriage to non-governmental institutions, like churches, synagogues, mosques, and other houses of worship or private institutions. Adultery, although legal, remains a sin subject to societal condemnation. It's tough to legislate away condemnation or legislate in approval. Those who view same-sex marriage as sinful will continue to do so, no matter what the government, the courts or their neighbors say.[5]

In 2006, law professor Colin P.A. Jones wrote an article appearing in the San Francisco Chronicle titled "Marriage Proposal: Why Not Privatize?" following the business model for privatization Jones writes:

Subject to certain statutory constraints, businesspeople have long been free to form whatever sort of partnership they felt appropriate to their needs. Why not make the same possible for marriage, which is a partnership based on one of the oldest types of contractual relationships? [6]

In 2009, author and journalist Naomi Wolf wrote about getting the state out of marriage in The Times:

Let's also get the state out of the marriage union. In spite of the dress and the flowers, marriage is a business contract. Women, generally, don't understand this, until it hits them over the head upon divorce. Let's take a lead from our gay and lesbian friends, who, without state marriage, often create domestic partnerships with financial autonomy and unity spelt out. A heterosexual parallel: celebrate marriage with a religious or emotional ceremony — leave the state out of it — and create a business- or domestic-partner contract aligning the couple legally.[7]

Professor Gary Becker, a winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, has said that:

With marriage contracts that set out the couple's commitments, there is little reason why judges should retain their current involvement in marriage.[8]

As of 2015, the only known members of US Congress to support privatization of state marriage are Sen. Rand Paul,[9] Rep. Justin Amash (R–Michigan)[10] and Rep. Gary Palmer (R–Alabama).[11]

Religious advocacy[edit]
Pepperdine University law professor Douglas Kmiec told the Catholic News Agency that churches that do not accept same-sex marriage have a genuine concern that they be subject to penalties such as losing public benefits or receiving lawsuits. He argued that the state should just allot people "civil licenses," with the terminology "marriage" left "as a religious concept" for groups to debate outside the scope of government.[12]

Liberal advocacy[edit]
Though often introduced from conservative commentators, marriage privatization has received attention from advocates on the left. In 2003 left-leaning political columnist and journalist Michael Kinsley wrote a second essay to appear in Slate on the topic. Kinsley's essay is titled "Abolish Marriage: Let's Really Get the Government out of Our Bedrooms." Kinsley follows the model set by his libertarian counterparts Boaz and McElroy; like Elder's he emphasizes marriage privatization's potential to end the controversy over same-sex marriage:

If marriage were an entirely private affair, all the disputes over gay marriage would become irrelevant. Gay marriage would not have the official sanction of government, but neither would straight marriage. There would be official equality between the two, which is the essence of what gays want and are entitled to. And if the other side is sincere in saying that its concern is not what people do in private, but government endorsement of a gay "lifestyle" or "agenda," that problem goes away, too.[13]

Marriage privatization received attention from the legal scholar Alan Dershowitz in 2003 when Dershowitz wrote a Los Angeles Times editorial titled "To Fix Gay Dilemma, Government Should Quit the Marriage Business." More so than commentators from the right, Dershowitz frames his view on the topic in terms of church-state separation; unlike libertarian leaning discussions Dershowitz maintains that the state does have an interest in the secular rights of marriage. Dershowitz proposes that civil-unions as a secularreplacement for state sanctioned marriage, be extended to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. Under Dershowitz's conception of privatization, couples have a choice as to whether or not they wish to be married by a clergy willing to perform a marriage ceremony or to exclusively partake of secular/state-sanctioned civil unions. Dershowitz writes:

Not only would this solution be good for gays and for those who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds, it would also strengthen the wall of separation between church and state by placing a sacred institution entirely in the hands of the church while placing a secular institution under state control.[14]

 

[emilynghiem]

You confuse legal marriage wh religion marriage .

Dear Timmy
Yes, clearly we are BOTH trying to distinguish the civil contracts from the social institution of recognizing people's relationships in personal ways apart from the contractual roles for legal purposes that the govt is used to license.

The issue is how can states write laws so these ARE truly neutral
and represent ONLY the civil unions and do NOT invoke all these other issues!

That IS the point we are trying to get to!
But if we aren't there yet, that IS what I am trying to resolve so the laws ARE at that level.

For example, if you had no issues attached,
then the words "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" could be substituted
in place of the term "marriage" and that shouldn't affect you.

If people DON'T agree to substitute neutral language, why not?

What issues do people have that need to be resolved
so that we AGREE that the laws represent the CIVIL contracts only?

And don't have any SOCIAL relationships or requirements attached?
[Because obviously, the people ATTACHING social conditions
are in conflict over those and that's what is causing the problem.]

 

[occupied]

The entire gay marriage debate occurred because conservatives chose, from the beginning, to fight even the legal rights and protections afforded civil unions. Gay people did not deserve the right to inherit, adopt children they have raised, visit their dying partners in the hospital, be included in insurance plans or anything that included having compassion for homosexuals in committed relationships. You seem to be a decent person but so many on the "christian" side of the debate were not decent and were not interested in anything that even looked like compromise. They brought hatred and narrow morality to a legal argument and actually seemed surprised they lost.

 

[emilynghiem]

The entire gay marriage debate occurred because conservatives chose, from the beginning, to fight even the legal rights and protections afforded civil unions. Gay people did not deserve the right to inherit, adopt children they have raised, visit their dying partners in the hospital, be included in insurance plans or anything that included having compassion for homosexuals in committed relationships. You seem to be a decent person but so many on the "christian" side of the debate were not decent and were not interested in anything that even looked like compromise. They brought hatred and narrow morality to a legal argument and actually seemed surprised they lost.

Well occupied given the choice of either marriage for all or civil unions for all,
which do you think is going to settle these issues?

 

[occupied]

The entire gay marriage debate occurred because conservatives chose, from the beginning, to fight even the legal rights and protections afforded civil unions. Gay people did not deserve the right to inherit, adopt children they have raised, visit their dying partners in the hospital, be included in insurance plans or anything that included having compassion for homosexuals in committed relationships. You seem to be a decent person but so many on the "christian" side of the debate were not decent and were not interested in anything that even looked like compromise. They brought hatred and narrow morality to a legal argument and actually seemed surprised they lost.

Well occupied given the choice of either marriage for all or civil unions for all,
which do you think is going to settle these issues?

The issue is settled, gay people have the same rights you do. The supreme court has ruled and it is a done deal. No possible legal argument exists that can reverse it.

 

[emilynghiem]

The entire gay marriage debate occurred because conservatives chose, from the beginning, to fight even the legal rights and protections afforded civil unions. Gay people did not deserve the right to inherit, adopt children they have raised, visit their dying partners in the hospital, be included in insurance plans or anything that included having compassion for homosexuals in committed relationships. You seem to be a decent person but so many on the "christian" side of the debate were not decent and were not interested in anything that even looked like compromise. They brought hatred and narrow morality to a legal argument and actually seemed surprised they lost.

Well occupied given the choice of either marriage for all or civil unions for all,
which do you think is going to settle these issues?

The issue is settled, gay people have the same rights you do. The supreme court has ruled and it is a done deal. No possible legal argument exists that can reverse it.

Dear occupied the same way atheists don't see the world the way theists do, I am thinking there are either 2-3 groups here who don't see govt the same way.

So to write and apply laws equally regarding marriage may take 2-3 different systems;
A. For people who put God and church authority first as the universal default, and then govt and civil laws follow as a subset, they need laws spelled out a certain way so it isn't the state imposing on beliefs and religious freedom
B. For people who use Secular Govt as default laws, and then religion is optional after that, they don't frame the laws the same way. Govt is not dictating for anyone which is outside, but Govt just defines the Secular neutral laws apart from any religious preference. Or at least that is the goal.

C. For me, when I work with people who prioritize these authorities in the opposite order, it changes when I am addressing a Secular or nontheistic person who doesn't put a divine spiritual authority first and then human and naturals laws second as following from what is already existent as universal laws and truths. The people who see laws as relative to man, rely on govt to establish and define these.

So if they don't see laws and authority the same way due to difference in their faith based concepts and perceptions, doesn't it explain why the arguments about marriage laws don't make sense to the other side that frames it completely in reverse order!

So this explains why both sides argue the other is imposing their belief system.

 

[Snouter]

The qu33r marriage thing is kind of cute, but it is so ridiculous. It definitely makes a family tree confusing at ancestry dot com.

Gay people did not deserve the right to inherit

But qu33r ideology does not support inheritance does it? Don't they want it taxed?

adopt children they have raised

So the qu33rs kidnapped innocent children, then later wanted to legalize it?

visit their dying partners in the hospital

If they are dying, don't they just enroll with a hospice for home care?

be included in insurance plans...

Since qu33r relationships do not produce children, why should they get coverage for pregnancies?

 

[Kosh]

The entire gay marriage debate occurred because conservatives chose, from the beginning, to fight even the legal rights and protections afforded civil unions. Gay people did not deserve the right to inherit, adopt children they have raised, visit their dying partners in the hospital, be included in insurance plans or anything that included having compassion for homosexuals in committed relationships. You seem to be a decent person but so many on the "christian" side of the debate were not decent and were not interested in anything that even looked like compromise. They brought hatred and narrow morality to a legal argument and actually seemed surprised they lost.

Another far left drone that does not understand that the Marriage license was all about racism..

 

[owebo]

Only gay marriage is a constitutional right....otherwise, marriage is not in the constitution.....

 

[emilynghiem]

The entire gay marriage debate occurred because conservatives chose, from the beginning, to fight even the legal rights and protections afforded civil unions. Gay people did not deserve the right to inherit, adopt children they have raised, visit their dying partners in the hospital, be included in insurance plans or anything that included having compassion for homosexuals in committed relationships. You seem to be a decent person but so many on the "christian" side of the debate were not decent and were not interested in anything that even looked like compromise. They brought hatred and narrow morality to a legal argument and actually seemed surprised they lost.

Well occupied given the choice of either marriage for all or civil unions for all,
which do you think is going to settle these issues?

The issue is settled, gay people have the same rights you do. The supreme court has ruled and it is a done deal. No possible legal argument exists that can reverse it.

Dear occupied you don't even need to argue that far. Because by my beliefs that these rights and freedoms already exist and are inalienable, govt cannot regulate them to begin with.

Any marriage laws were always unconstitutional if they managed social beliefs through govt that didn't include or represent all people.

Had all these practices and policies been set up and managed independently outside of govt we wouldn't have these conflicts.

The main difference is I believe in mediation and consensus to settle these conflicts by agreed resolution. While other people use judges as arbiters who rule either with or without appeal. I find that people will contest and appeal if decisions don't reflect their consent, so why not use consent as the standard to begin with.

Especially with beliefs this sensitive.

So we are dealing with at least 3 different political beliefs. At least by my beliefs in isonomy or isocracy by free choice, I believe in treating people equally regardless if one group puts church laws before state and the other puts state laws before church. They should both be able to practice beliefs equally without infringing on the other. And govt should allow both equally not endorsed one system more than the other.

Until both are respected equally, my beliefs in equality are violated as well. But I cannot help if people insist on abusing govt to violate each other beliefs, because they don't treat each other as equal as I am asking to do.

I cannot force my beliefs on people either.

I can just contest both sides as violating equal freedom by imposing their belief system on others, and then complaining when it's done to them.

Sneekin Faun
This is why we keep running into walls.
By my beliefs those rights and freedoms already exist without relying on govt to act as arbiter or establisher of beliefs or laws or rulings on this. To my system, it's almost like using judges as secular priests to rule on laws for people, well, if people don't believe or agree then they are contesting it. So that's why I believe the issues call for mediation, and if people cannot agree on political beliefs about the role and authority of govt, then they should lawfully divide like separate denominations of Catholic and Protestant and govern their own social programs independently. If you need govt to make sure this is done lawfully that's fine but it should be in the role of mediation and facilitating due process, not dictating the policies. People need to use their own systems if we can't even see laws the same way due to our inherent beliefs.

Thanks I do recognize that my political belief constitutes a political religion that is not compatible with forced arbitration, but only with free choice of arbitration if consensus is not sought as I believe in. It isn't right to force any of this on people but must be by free choice in order to respect beliefs equally.

If your beliefs require you to be compelled by court ruling that is your right if you consent to that. Not all people do and deserve equal right to appeal until grievances are redressed, conflicts are resolved, and agreement is reached.

 

[Syriusly]

"My Compromise
I propose severing the religious/social terminology associated with “marriage” from the secular benefits that the state grants legally unified couples. Under this proposal, the government would only legally recognize the contract of civil union—which it would avail to any two, nonrelated people over the age of consent—and would let the individual call the bond what they will.

All current secular marriages and civil unions would be standardized to the rights, protections, and benefits available to married couples but the language of the bond would be shifted entirely to the civil union terminology. The term “marriage” would be eliminated from the law and relegated to a purely social and religious terminology."

--- SOURCE:
A Simple Solution to Marriage Equality: Separate Secular Unions from Religious Marriage

We have no right to a civil union- we do have a right to a legal marriage.

No- you don't get to take away my legal marriage to my wife just because some people are unhappy that gays can legally marry.

 

[Syriusly]

Only gay marriage is a constitutional right....otherwise, marriage is not in the constitution.....

All of us have the legal right to marry- straights and gays.



Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life," id. at 125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"


Zablocki

The statutory classification at issue here, however, clearly does interfere directly and substantially with the right to marry.

The Turner court specifically cited many purposes of marriage, including:

expressions of emotional support and public commitment .... many religions recognize marriage as having spiritual significance; for some inmates and their spouses, therefore, the commitment of marriage may be an exercise of religious faith as well as an expression of personal dedication. Third, most inmates eventually will be released by parole or commutation, and therefore most inmate marriages are formed in the expectation that they ultimately will be fully consummated. Finally, marital status often is a precondition to the receipt of government benefits (e. g., Social Security benefits), property rights (e. g., tenancy by the entirety, inheritance rights), and other, less tangible benefits (e. g., legitimation of children born out of wedlock).



—Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 96.

(a) Prisoners have a constitutionally protected right to marry under Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 . Although such a marriage is subject to substantial restrictions as a result of incarceration, sufficient important attributes of marriage remain to form a constitutionally protected relationship. Butler v. Wilson, 415 U.S. 953 , distinguished. Pp. 94-96.

 

[Syriusly]

The entire gay marriage debate occurred because conservatives chose, from the beginning, to fight even the legal rights and protections afforded civil unions. Gay people did not deserve the right to inherit, adopt children they have raised, visit their dying partners in the hospital, be included in insurance plans or anything that included having compassion for homosexuals in committed relationships. You seem to be a decent person but so many on the "christian" side of the debate were not decent and were not interested in anything that even looked like compromise. They brought hatred and narrow morality to a legal argument and actually seemed surprised they lost.

Well occupied given the choice of either marriage for all or civil unions for all,
which do you think is going to settle these issues?

We have marriage for all.

It is settled.

 

[Syriusly]

So the qu33rs kidnapped innocent children, then later wanted to legalize it?

Why do right wing idiots like you think adoption is kidnapping?

 

[Syriusly]

The entire gay marriage debate occurred because conservatives chose, from the beginning, to fight even the legal rights and protections afforded civil unions. Gay people did not deserve the right to inherit, adopt children they have raised, visit their dying partners in the hospital, be included in insurance plans or anything that included having compassion for homosexuals in committed relationships. You seem to be a decent person but so many on the "christian" side of the debate were not decent and were not interested in anything that even looked like compromise. They brought hatred and narrow morality to a legal argument and actually seemed surprised they lost.

Another far left drone that does not understand that the Marriage license was all about racism..

Another right wing drone that does not understand that we all have the right to legal marriage.

 

[emilynghiem]

The qu33r marriage thing is kind of cute, but it is so ridiculous. It definitely makes a family tree confusing at ancestry dot com.

Gay people did not deserve the right to inherit

But qu33r ideology does not support inheritance does it? Don't they want it taxed?

adopt children they have raised

So the qu33rs kidnapped innocent children, then later wanted to legalize it?

visit their dying partners in the hospital

If they are dying, don't they just enroll with a hospice for home care?

be included in insurance plans...

Since qu33r relationships do not produce children, why should they get coverage for pregnancies?

Dear Snouter yes if prolife people who believe in spiritual healing to cure diseases and conditions otherwise deemed incurable, why not require separate funding especially where they don't believe in funding or endorsing abortion euthanasia or transgender transition. If other people don't believe in spiritual healing either, then they won't have to be under that which the others who do can use to cut costs and save lives and resources to help more people.

 

[emilynghiem]

The entire gay marriage debate occurred because conservatives chose, from the beginning, to fight even the legal rights and protections afforded civil unions. Gay people did not deserve the right to inherit, adopt children they have raised, visit their dying partners in the hospital, be included in insurance plans or anything that included having compassion for homosexuals in committed relationships. You seem to be a decent person but so many on the "christian" side of the debate were not decent and were not interested in anything that even looked like compromise. They brought hatred and narrow morality to a legal argument and actually seemed surprised they lost.

Well occupied given the choice of either marriage for all or civil unions for all,
which do you think is going to settle these issues?

We have marriage for all.

It is settled.

Set up your own system and let others set up theirs. By my system it was already a right under religious freedom so no court ruling was needed, that freedom already exists and has always existed. Syriusly