Abolishing state-recognized marriage would actually separate family members in the eyes of the law. Getting rid of state recognition of marriage is also key to “removing the veil of privacy” that protects spouses and the family, according to Fineman, who has argued for doing just that in her book, “The Autonomy Myth.”
Libertarians have a lot more discernment to exercise before totally signing on to the idea that ending state recognition of marriage actually keeps the government at bay. Kuznicki’s article and Dalmia’s recent essay are all-too-rare examples of libertarian writing that considers the potential pitfalls of that idea.
So, I’d like to offer some questions to ponder.
1. How does lack of state recognition of marriage—replaced by a system of domestic partner contracts—actually shrink government involvement? Trading in the simple marriage license for a system of contracts seems akin to trading in a simple flat tax for today’s Internal Revenue Service tax code.
2. How would you deal with possible legislation to license all parents, including biological parents, once the state no longer recognizes any union, including that of biological parents, as marriage? As stated above, the loss of state recognition of their union as anything more than an ordinary contract will deprive biological parents of the presumption of custody.
3. How does privatizing marriage preserve spousal immunity? At present, the government cannot force you to testify against your spouse. That is currently the law in all 50 states. But once the state no longer recognizes you and your spouse as a family unit—only as partners in an ordinary business-style contract—the case for spousal immunity significantly weakens.
4. What do you make of the fact that Sunstein, the Obama administration’s regulator-in-chief from 2009 to 2012, argues for essentially the same plan? Sunstein is a long-time advocate of policies that grow government. He’s a big fan of nanny-state style “nudging” intended to modify everyone’s behavior.
5. How would abolishing state-recognized marriage promote freedom of association for all? The family serves as a buffer zone, or mediating institution, between the individual and the state. But logically, if the government does not have to recognize your marriage, it does not have to respect it. It does not have to recognize your family relationships at all, or your family as a unit. You are merely a separate party in an ordinary contract with someone else, as far as the state is concerned. Please explain how abolishing state-recognized marriage protects the family and helps insulate individuals from an increasingly Leviathan state.
Stella Morabito is a senior contributor to The Federalist.
Read more at The Federalist…
Politico is reporting that the so-called “Equality Act” will be introduced today in Congress. The bill is the brainchild of the Human Rights Campaign—an influential, sophisticated and lavishly funded LGBT activist organization.
The “Equality Act” is a misnomer. The bill does not protect equality before the law, but unnecessarily and unjustly violates freedom by creating special privileges based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
This proposed legislation would add “sexual orientation and gender identity” (SOGI) to more or less every federal law that protects on the basis of race. It goes well beyond the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)—which would have added SOGI only to employment law.
ENDA, which was first introduced in Congress in 1994, has been defeated each and every Congress. When it was first introduced, ENDA included only “sexual orientation,” but in 2007 “gender identity” was added to the bill. Thankfully, ENDA has never been made law. Continue reading
Last week, Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) introduced a bill that would remove the words “husband” and “wife” from the language used in federal law – a move that had drawn ire from faith leaders and family advocacy groups that see this legislation as expected fallout from the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in June that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.
“It is as if a collective madness has settled over our nation’s elite and they are trying hard to bring everyone under the same cloud of confusion,” Bishop E.W. Jackson, president of STAND (Staying True to America’s National Destiny), told CNSNews.com. “They can change 1,000 laws and 10,000 dictionaries.
“Marriage was, is and always will be only a union between one man and one woman,” Jackson said. “If the emperor has no clothes, it matters not that the whole world compliments him on his outfit.”
Capps wrote on her congressional website about sponsoring the bill – the Amend the Code for Marriage Equality Act of 2015, which was introduced on July 8 and has been referred to committee — that the legislation was inspired by the SCOTUS 5-4 ruling in favor of same-sex marriage. The bill has 23 co-sponsors.
Read more at CNSNews.com…
Nathan Collier said he was inspired by the recent Supreme Court decision that made marriage equal. He said he was particularly struck by the words of dissenting Chief Justice John Roberts who claimed giving gay couples the right to marry, might inspire polygamy.
And so this week, Mr Collier and his two wives, Victoria and Christine, entered a courthouse in Billings, Montana, and sought an application to legalise the trio’s polygamous union.
“Right now we’re waiting for an answer,” Mr Collier told The Independent. “I have two wives because I love two women and I want my second wife to have the same legal rights and protection as my first.”
He added: “Most people are not us. I am not trying to define what marriage means for anybody else – I am trying to define what marriage means for us.”
Read more at the London Independent…
Watch this video and find out exactly why the government must not and cannot redefine marriage. This is not just a biblical argument but also a social argument!
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) reintroduced legislation in their respective chambers on Wednesday that would prohibit the federal government from denying tax exemptions or other government benefits to individuals and institutions that promote traditional marriage.
“Protecting religious freedom from Government intrusion is a Government interest of the highest order,” the bill states.
If the U.S. Supreme Court rules in Obergefell v. Hodges that gay marriage is a constitutionally protected right, the First Amendment Defense Act (S. 1598, H.R. 2802) would prevent the Internal Revenue Service from denying tax-exempt status to churches that refuse to officiate at same-sex weddings or from disallowing tax deductions for charitable donations to them.
The bill would also “prevent any federal agency from denying a tax exemption, grant, contract, license, or certification to an individual, association, or business based on their belief that marriage is a union between a man and a woman,” according to a press release from Lee’s office.
Read more at CNSNews.com…
In this part, I look specifically at how the legal arguments over same-sex marriage require the law to devalue marriage, ignore reality, and insult Christians and other religious believers.
The decision to seek a decisive nationwide resolution in the courts on equality-based grounds has encouraged the most divisive possible method of implementing same-sex marriage, doing so not by demonstrating the benefits of liberty or enlisting the voters but by 1) delegitimizing all the aspects of marriage that are seen as obstacles to equalizing same-sex marriage with opposite-sex marriage and 2) demonizing anyone who opposes this process as the equivalent of Bull Connor.
Recall that the legal basis for challenges to laws restricting marriage to one man and one woman are based on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment…
But even if we assume for the sake of argument that the Equal Protection Clause means, not what the people agreed to put in the Constitution but rather what modern judicial gloss has revised it to mean, the Constitution has always been read to permit the government to treat different things differently, so long as there was some rational basis for the distinction in the first place. (This recognition is precisely why the law has always treated the real, biological category of sex differently from the irrational category of racial classification, and why proponents of same-sex marriage have expended so much effort on appealing to special, extra-constitutional rules of burden-shifting, e.g., Romer v Evans, that in practice apply only in LGBT cases).
Read the full article at The Federalist…