Marriage - Where Republicans/Conservatives get it wrong.

Conservatives that are predominately Republicans are confusing the social/religious institution of marriage with the legal institution of marriage. This is reflected by a very confusing and self-contradictory pledge that they've been signing which was most recently highlighted by Michelle Bachmann.

http://www.thefamilyleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/themarriagevow.final_.7.7.111.pdf

This was highlighted by a racist comment that implied that African-American children were better off being born as slaves as opposed to being born as free citizens today but that is not the issue of this discussion. The offending statement has been removed (although still shown in my link) and I would focus instead upon the social/religious institution of marriage as compared to the legal institution.

In the United States we have a three Constitutional conditions related to the marriage laws. The 1st Amendment prohibits the government from establishing religion or intervening in the excercise thereof by the People. The 14th Amendment requires that all People receive equal protection of the law. The 9th Amendment protects the unenumerated Rights of the Individual. Each of these are important considerations whenever we address staturory laws related to marriage. None of these relate to the social/religious institution of marriage.

The 1st Amendment would specifically prohibit the government from infringing upon the religious institution of marriage except as might be required to protect the Rights of those involved.

So we need to address the origins of the legal institution of marriage. In virtually all cases statutory law is created to clarify common law. Common law is based upon "sui juris" (of one's laws) which is the foundation for all laws. No country expresses the foundation of government as being the government of the People better than the United States did with our Declaration of Independence.

There can be no greater Right of the People than that of association (guarenteed by the 1st Amendment) and at the most fundamental level this is the Right to associate with another consenting adult in private relationships. The fundamental Right to Marry for the Individual was clearly established in the Supreme Court decision in Loving v Virginia. It is the Right of every Individual to marry so let me address the conditions of Common Law marriage that I have found.

1 Common law marriages are not licensed by the government. They are the free acts of individuals based upon the Right of Association between individuals. They maybe subsequently documented in the public records but do not require government sanctioning.

2 Common-law marriages are not solemnized before witnesses in a wedding ceremony. There is no need for witnesses related to the personal commitments established between consenting adults. The individuals have the Right to establish the marriage based solely upon their personal commitment.

3 Cohabitation alone does not establish common law marriage as the following conditions must be met.

3.1 The parties must mutually consent to the establishment of the marriage.

3.2 Both parties must be of the age of consent or have the consent of their parents or guardians.

3.3 Both parties must demonstate that they are involved in the personal relationships as partners in the marriage. For example, a joint checking account or the purchase of property together would demonstrate that the marriage exists.

4. The common law marriage may not infringe upon the unalienable Rights of either the parties to the marriage or to the Right of Others to marry.

5. Once established the dissolution can only be accomplished by a legal authority such as a civil or family court. This is a relatively new condition related to the history of mankind as common law marriages were the predominate form of marriage prior to the creation of the religious institution of marriage under the law which is prohibited by the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution as it would establish religion under the law.

Of note common law marriage was the predominate form of marriage in America at the time of the American Revolution and is still recognized by several of the States.

Also of significance is the fact that who the individuals are and who they choose to establish the common law marriage with is exclusively left to the Individual as it is the Right of the Individual to marry and that Right cannot be infringed upon except to protect the Rights of the Individuals involved. The Right of Association and the unenumerated Rights of the Individual are expressly protected by the US Constitution. The foundation for common law marriage based upon sui juris could not be better exemplified. The individuals involved have every Right to define the institution of marriage so long as their actions do not infringe upon the Rights of others.

The statutory laws related to marriage must comply with the criteria of common law marriage and should be exclusively about documentation of the marriage as opposed to imposing religious beliefs or social engineering by the government upon the Individuals involved. The government is expressly prohibited from imposing the dogma of religion upon the People, the Individual has Right of Association, the Individual has the Right to Marry, and the Individual has the Right to Equal Protection under the Constitution. Statutory laws cannot infringe upon these Constitutional Rights.

No one condemns the social and/or religious institutions of marriage and those that believe in the social and/or religious institution of marriage can freely marry based upon their social or religious beliefs. Their Rights are not infringed upon because others may choose to marry based upon their own social and/or religious beliefs. What they are prohibited from doing under the US Constitution and which would violate the ideals established by the Declaration of Independence upon which America was founded is to impose their social and/or religious beliefs related to marriage upon others.

 

Since I'm a conservative, a Republican, an atheist, and have an absolute belief that our Constitution demands every citizen has equal righ6ts in dealing with the government.

So, I didn't bother reading your lengthy post.

 

marriage is a state issue, no more complicated than that.

 

This can be a federal issue, as ongress has the power to protect all it's citizens.

 

no its not a federal issue, as marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution. however, the states will work it out.

 

One of Congress's powers is to protect all the US citizens. Therefore, it has the power to create a marriage law. It would be a civil union, not religious.

 

Congress can not even protect the friggin borders and you think they should protect us from marriage, what is there to protect?

 

When the Founding Fathers wrote our Consuiton, they knew it wasn't perfect, but they still hoisted a few when it's over.

And why would they need to? 40 states have signed some sort of immigration reform.

 

This wouldn't even be an issue if the federal government had not become so onerous and intrusive. It's not a federal issue, but neither is education, welfare, employment issues, abortion, etc.

Marriage is a religious institution. Anything secular is something other.

 

No, its not. Its a legal contract. Secular people are married everyday.

 

Except when it's not.

 

You're refering to civil unions.

 

Marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman, and God.

Everything else is something other. Certainly a pair of queers in front of a judge is "something other".

 

You seem to be under the impression that marriage didn't exist before Christianity.

 

This refers to the religious (social) institution of marriage and is only specific to those that hold certain religious beliefs.

From a legal institution perspective its about the establishment of a family unit predominately related to merged financial resources and liabilities.

As we know from dissolutions in divorse courts the courts only address issues of property including the awarding of custody and financial obligations related to children. From a legal standpoint "marriage" is almost exclusively about Property Rights and the marriage contract.

 

Congress does not have the power to "create" a marriage law, except thru the amending of the constitution which requires the aquiescence of a supermajority of the state legislatures.

 

Don't tell Congress that. Remember Congress passed DOMA and never cared about the fact that they didn't have any Constitutional authority to do so.

 

"To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces"

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

It wouldn't be a marriage law, it would be for civil unions.

 

I don't see the connection between marriage and armed forces regulations.

 

The first part...

 

The first part of what? This enumerated power is exclusively related to the US military and defense of the nation.

A more encompasing clause in Article I Section 8 would be:

The only problem is that marriage is not mentioned in the "foregoing Powers" and the federal government has been delegated no roles or responsibilities related to marriage.

It is a State issue but the States must meet the provisions of the 14th Amendment in all laws and marriage laws cannot deny any individual equal protection under the law. This is where laws prohibiting same-sex marriage fail to meet the requirements of the US Constitution and discrimination has been established by evidence presented in court which denies individuals involved in same-sex relationships equal protection under the law.

 

I agree with u i am a 14 yerold moderate libritarian and i believe that everybody has the right to marry even gays.

 

The younger generations overwhelmingly support equality in the marriage laws for gays and lesbians.

 

This can also be worded as, "The younger generations overwhelmingly watch a lot of television, have their world view fed to them through their entertainment, and are actively discouraged from free thought and questioning the politically correct."

From a young age, they are bombarded with specific stimuli intended to mold them and shape the way they think. And it's clearly working. You must be so proud. They are simply a product of their environment. Nothing more.

 

There are plenty of sources for a plethora of views, thanks to the internet. It's not "brainwashing." It's ironic that disagreeing with you constitutes a lack of free thought, yes?