If given the chance, I would like to see the Federal Government cut its number of laws by at least 1/3. I do believe that this is a "nation of laws", but ideally it should be a nation of "few yet firm laws". With fewer laws, I would expect to see a relief in the sense that with more laws there will be a greater strain on keeping tabs with each individual law and/or perpetrator. It's the same idea that is shown in the House of Representatives; each Representative is elected to represent a certain area of constituency to better voice the people to the Federal Government and for the Representative to, easily and better, respond to those whom they represent. Same as elementary school field trips, in which a small number of children are assigned to one adult. This is used to better the safety of the children and focus on their needs and to act on what is necessary. In other words, if the government were to pursue only one law that one law would be more efficient, enforced and successful than keeping track of a million laws. (Of course I am exaggerating to make a point.)
Just to clarify, this does not mean I advocate anarchism or eliminating law. Most of the laws that I am referring to should be in the hands of states. In fact, the Federal Government should look closer into laws that encourage freedom; instead of banning. I believe that America is "the land of the free", not "the land of freedom with limitations". With respect to Abraham Lincoln, who freed the slaves, John Kennedy, and Lyndon Johnson, who ensured rights to all Americans, all of whom did so without popular approval, I believe in freedom from personal judgment within the government; live and let live the libertarian way.
That being said, marriage should be entitled to all Americans, except in the religious sense. All religions should also have their right to choose who they wish to marry. Just as people cannot choose their ancestry or ethnicity, they also cannot choose the gender which they are born with, and arguably the gender that which they are attracted to. While strongly being an advocate for state's rights, I believe that this type of discrimination in any government is unconstitutional according to the fourteenth amendment. True, it may be the states that have the power to regulate marriage, but governments that claim to enforce true equality, or “blind government”, cannot allow such hypocrisy into law. The fourteenth amendment clearly states, “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.” States also have the power to regulate transportation, and a ban on homosexual driver’s license holders is irrational. Honestly, this issue should not even be on the table. Not only does it encourage homophobia, but it also ensures to the public that homosexuals disserve less social value and equality.
The constitution has a clear position on separation of church and state. If the state governments are going to hold any kind of marital status for citizens, it cannot be influenced by the views of any religion, and either be offered to all persons or no persons. If the government can deny its citizens their right to marriage simply because one of them is the wrong, involuntary, sex, how can you be certain that anyone else won't be denied any rights in the future for an involuntary feature as well?
“In Germany, they came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant;
And then . . . they came for me . . . and by that time there was no one left to speak up.”-Martin Niemoller
With respect to individual freedom, the “War on Drugs” has an absurdly unconstitutional purpose. The federal prohibition of alcohol was recognized as unconstitutional in its time, and the only way to get around that was to amend the constitution. So why is this campaign for the prohibition of drugs any different? Haven’t we learned that to limit the freedom of the individual leads to violence and a country less free? Of course, I don’t encourage the usage of drugs, but that is the choice of the individual. I do expect that these laws may differ from state to state. It is ideally the power of the state, not the federal government, to regulate the use of drugs. If the federal government is to have any say on this issue, it would be over drugs transported between states and national borders.
“The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.”- Ayn Rand
I agree with less laws: There used to be unwritten "common law" which caused much injustice in the middle ages because people were uninformed, couldn't read, and were taken advantage of. But when we have so many lines of law that it is impossible for anyone to know it all, the result it exactly the same. Merely two paths to the same result. Logically, if you were to align all the laws we have, and make a huge database for truth tables, there would be thousands of inconsistencies and fallacies. Basically, it comes down to the same thing: whoever has more money can hire and pay their way as to which interpretation and law to apply. Having too many laws can have the same results, chaos and injustice as anarchy/lawlessness.
As far as marriage, I really disagree. And not for the common reasons, or probably any reason you have ever heard. I am truthfully bisexual, although I never post this anywhere. Not because I am ashamed but only because I don't think it's a big deal. Where I come from, homosexuals/bisexuals are not discriminated against, in fact they are honored and praised.
But anyway, the fallacy in every argument I hear on marriage is not the logic applied by the understood definition of marriage. It is the faulty interpretation of the state-defined purpose and definition of marriage itself. The definition of marriage by religion is entirely different from the purpose or definition of marriage as defined by government. Religious marriage validates and honors the love one person has for another. To expand this definition to the government is, in my opinion, very foolish, as this was never the intended use of it. The government should have absolutely no laws or say in who anyone loves, as that would serve absolutely no practical purpose for any gay, bi or straight individual. Why anyone would want government to even make laws in who they love is beyond me. Believing that a government-issued document validates your love for someone is absolutely silly, and wanting it to do so, to me, seems crazy.
Law concerning "marriage" was created to encourage people who want to raise families, as it is in the governments best and most practical interest to encourage stable environments for raising children, and reward those who take the time and effort to do so with tax breaks and other conveniences. (Because raising children in stable environments theoretically creates individuals who are more productive and understanding citizens.) Once we establish an understanding for the practical reason we originally created law on marriage, it is obvious that adding love or sexual preferences into the equation when talking about government law-making is insane.
Now, given that the world is changing and becoming more connected, people lost sight of the purpose of marriage. They blurred the government-made purpose of marriage with religion, when they obviously should be completely separated. That being said, given that the way to have a family back in the day was to create one, because biologically speaking, that was the only known way (other than adoption, which was less common). Because that was the most practical way to do so, government-defined marriage was never even considered for homosexuals. However, now that we live in a more scientifically advanced and connected world, where adoption is more and more common, and artificial ways of creating human life are explored and utilized, perhaps we need to re-route our entire law on the issue. Forget marriage, and give tax breaks to any stable persons taking the money and time to raise children in order to keep our culture going. And do this based on how long they have been committed to each other.
I know my view probably sounds radical, but when you really sit down and evaluate why we even have marriage defined by government, PLEASE don't mention the whole love factor. Who people can or should love should never be defined in any way by any government, and the solution isn't to slap on more law to the issue: the solution should be to unbiasedly and practically clarify our law to serve it's original purpose.
...but it is unfortunately based on some of the same historical fallacies which the religious right uses to justify its anti-gay marriage position. Marriage did not develop historically as a religious institution, nor did it include love as a consideration until relatively modern times. Historically speaking, marriage developed as a secular institution that that took place wholly outside the church. The arrangement was a form of economic contract between two families. The couple actually had little to nothing to say about it.
Procreation was a factor in many of these historical arrangements, but not all. Many people are unaware of the fact that there is actually a rich history of same-sex marriages, recognized by various cultures and states. For example, from the African continent we know of the Yoruba, the Ibo, the Nuer, the Lovedu, the Zulu, the Sotho, the Kikuyu, the Nandi and the Azande peoples (just to name a few of the more well-known), all of whom have traditionally recognized same-sex marriages since ancient times. Closer to home, there are similar marriage arrangements that are historically associated with a number of Native American tribal groups, including the Mohave, the Lakota and the Zuni peoples. These Native American examples are particularly interesting, due to the wealth of sociological literature from the colonial era regarding the study of the "berdache." More examples include the Safavidi Dynasty (of the Middle-East), the Melaneians and Papua New Guineans (in the South Pacific), the people of the Song, Ming and Qing Dynasties (historical China), and the Samurai who practiced Shudo (in Japan). These cultures also demonstrated a wide-spread accepted same-sex marriages in their midst. And let's not forget the Ancient Greeks and Romans. The Spartans (for example) practiced same-sex military marriages, and the Emperor Nero publicly entered into a marriage arrangement with his male lover, Sporus (and many other similar relationships are well documented in the historical records of the Empire). The simple fact is that the idea of accepting same-sex couples is neither a recent nor a particularly unusual societal affectation.
Turning back to our modern society, there is nothing in our current marriage laws that supports the assertion that marriage is intended specifically or uniquely to promote the procreation of children. This is demonstrated by the fact that there are no fertility requirements for any marriage license issued in this country, and there are no laws defining the rights of the parent-child relationship which are tied to marital status of the child's parents, or vice versa. In fact, heterosexual couples who are completely incapable of producing offspring are regularly granted marriage licenses without issue or question.
The purpose of marriage throughout both history and in modern society is intended to promote stable family relationships by creating a legal connection between two people, and to a lesser extent to their extended families. There are a host of legal issues involved in joining (and in separating) two households, and the process of marriage helps to make that process both consistent and thus legally manageable. It also makes it more difficult to separate those households, which encourages people to stay together and to work out their problems rather than triggering the highly controversial and (usually) painful all around process of divorce.
From a historical perspective, religion has very little to offer in regards to the origins or construction of marriage as an institution, and its "Johnny-come-lately" claim of ownership of that institution is unfounded. Religion is (or should be) made even more irrelevant by the fact that marriage in the United States is a state-run institution, and our Constitution prohibits laws that are intended to respect any establishment of religion, thus rendering any religious objections to who does or does not get married completely MOOT.
Ultimately, there is no defensible argument--legal, historical, scientific or even logical--to prohibit gay couples from full access to the institution of marriage in the United States.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Patriotic Atheism
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
"Marriage did not develop historically as a religious institution, nor did it include love as a consideration until relatively modern times."
Perhaps you are right if you take the history of human civilization, but I am referring to the interpreted definition of it in America, and how it's purpose is blurred with "who people can/should love."
"Turning back to our modern society, there is nothing in our current marriage laws that supports the assertion that marriage is intended specifically or uniquely to promote the procreation of children. This is demonstrated by the fact that there are no fertility requirements for any marriage license issued in this country, and there are no laws defining the rights of the parent-child relationship which are tied to marital status of the child's parents, or vice versa. "'
I am fairly certain there actually were some tests for fertility purposes in some states, as my parents were one couple who were required to get blood work done concerning compatibility (at least that is what they always told me). Overall, however, I don't think science was advanced enough to make use of widespread fertility test when laws concerning marriage originally fell into place. Also, if more intricate tests were required, I am sure people would have objected to the privacy of the whole thing in the same way they object to collecting DNA on newborns, even though the reasons for doing so are valid.
When asking why there were never laws made requiring legal married couples to have children, two major things that had a huge impact on our society need to be considered: divorce (which was remarkably uncommon), and more advanced, reliable wide-spread methods of birth-control (which were not even known or in place). Because divorce was almost unheard of, along with widespread use of birth control, law requiring heterosexual couples to have children was unnecessary as never even considered. The average family back in the early 1900's, I believe, was 8 children and the divorce rate was almost zero.
Alongside religion, both divorce and birth control have also further aided in blurring the purpose of government-defined marriage which was/is raising children.
You are right when you say the purpose of marriage is to stabilize relationships among family...but mainly to create stable environments for raising children. Family cannot continue on if there are no children being brought to the picture, and government-defined marriage was meant to encourage and promote the creating or at least the upbringing of children, and not to define who people can or cannot love/have sex with.
This is the test, and reason that it used to be given. The gamma globulin shot is the treatment which made the premarital blood test obsolete.
"Rh incompatibility results when a pregnant mother with a negative blood type is carrying a child with a positive blood type. This can be a serious risk of health to the unborn child, since the mother’s body may react to the child’s blood type by producing antibodies against it. Rh incompatibility only occurs when the mother is negative blood type and the child positive. A woman with a positive blood type who has a baby with a negative blood type is not at risk for this condition.
In most cases, having a first child where incompatibility exists hazards no risk to the infant. It is usually the second child with the incompatibility that is at greatest risk. Normally, a woman is treated in her first pregnancy where Rh incompatibility exists, by immunizing her against developing positive blood type antibodies. Usually a woman receives one gamma globulin shot at the 28th week of pregnancy and another within three days after giving birth. This tends to prevent Rh incompatibility in future pregnancies."
"It is only by risking our persons from one hour to another that we live at all. And often enough our faith beforehand in an uncertified result is the only thing that makes the result come true."
- William James
...were derived from English Common Law, which was in turn derived from older historical sources. One cannot accurately view the historical context of an institution if one conveniently eliminates the parts of history which doesn't coincide with one's preconceptions.
As for the argument from definition, I think the Supreme Court of Massachusetts answered this one the best in Goodridge...
You are also incorrect about fertility tests. The procedures for such a test are cheap and easy to perform. Such tests are however NOT required by ANY state in the U.S. as a pre-requisite for marriage. Blood tests are used to determine Rh compatibility, as well as the presences of certain diseases and conditions, but they do not indicate the fertility of the subject. Also, only four states (plus the District of Columbia) actually require these kinds of tests anymore.
People tend to cling to the procreation argument, and it is ONE of the reasons for that institution, but it isn't the primary purpose of the institution, nor is it a "deal breaker" in deciding who does or does not qualify for marriage. When get down to the brass tacks, the "purpose" of marriage in the United States has been established by our Courts. The "essence" of the institution of marriage was first put forth in the California Supreme Court's decision of Perez v. Sharp, a case which continues to be quoted by our Supreme Court today...
The procreation canard fails on several points. 1) There is no practical evidence that suggests that marriage is exclusively designed to promote procreation. 2) In fact, people who are incapable of producing children are regularly granted marriage licenses. 3) There are LOTS of gay couples out there who DO have children.
The third point is particularly relevant. Our laws have thorough precedents for what is called "de facto parenting." Adoption, surrogate in vitro fertilization, care by relatives or even unrelated adults...these and other "unusual" situations which result in a child not being raised by its birth-parents are fully recognized in the law, and are afforded the same rights and privileges as a biologically related parents. And although it bothers some people, the fact is that gay people can and do fall into these categories more often than one might think. Also, many couples have their own children where at least one of the parents is biologically related. If the goal of the anti-gay marriage argument was really to encourage procreation and to create stability simply for the purpose of raising children, then it is irrational to deny the institution to couples who do in fact have children and who are currently disadvantaged in that regard by their exclusion from that institution.
Your argument also falls apart when we remember that same-sex marriages are really very common, historically speaking. You are also engaging in a fallacy of composition by limiting your historical considerations to only the very narrow slice of history that happens to agree with your position.
Ultimately, the question of "love" in marriage is a social affection which actually has very little to do with the legal institution. The State does not mandate that marriages be "loving." We couldn't regulate that even if we wanted to. The State leaves that connection up to the couple. No one can force you to love or prevent you from loving whomever you wish. The institution of marriage, legally speaking, is a contract designed to create new family units, which may or may not include children, from two otherwise unrelated individuals.
And finally, one must remember that citizens are not obligated to provide justification for why they wish to exercise their "basic civil rights." Rather, the burden in these cases lies with the government, who must provide a compelling and constitutionally justifiable interest in order to restrict a citizen from exercising his or her guaranteed freedoms. No legitimate governing purpose is served by categorically denying same-sex couples their "freedom to marry."
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Patriotic Atheism
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
That to pass a new law congress must repeal two laws.
This would slowly force legislators to eliminate complex and conflicting laws and replace them with fewer if not simpler ones. At first it would be absurdly easy as the books are over run with laws that are simply obsolete. After the obvious had been eliminated they would really have to start thinking.
It is a shame that most people in the world are actually more free than Americans. There isn't much left that you can do without a permit, and there is nowhere you can go without your papers.
"It is only by risking our persons from one hour to another that we live at all. And often enough our faith beforehand in an uncertified result is the only thing that makes the result come true."
- William James