|
|
Post by Gingerbread Man on Sept 14, 2015 13:21:10 GMT
After some thought, I propose a question and give my analysis. Is marriage a contract or a religious right? If it's a contract than the federal govt has no business intervening. Here goes, the 9th and 10th amendments clearly say all rights not enumerated are held by the people and the state. Than the state and the people can define what is a marriage in their respective states. However, if it's a right than the state can not define it. You can not license a right, ever. Therefore the state can not bestow benefits on marriage people because it's a violation of the equal protection clause. If there is equal protection than you are infringing on the people who are not married. I do not believe marriage is a contract and if it's approached as such I'd have to say that the wrong way.
If it's a right than it clearly falls under the first amendment. Congress shall pass no laws infringing or establishing a religion. If the state defines what is a religious practice than the state and officials are clearly in violation. They can butt out, about now. Marriage licenses are clearly an attempt to define what is a marriage. Therefore, whomever defines marriage and licenses it is in gross violation of the 1st amend.
I firmly believe that marriage is a right under the first amendment. The govt can not define it, they can not give benefits because you are married or not. The govt can only view a individual citizen as a single individual. If two people need extra exceptions for other activities than a power of attorney is in order. |
|
|
|
Post by Browning35 on Sept 14, 2015 23:52:25 GMT
I'd say contract, but I'm pretty certain my views on the matter are in the minority out of the general population.
|
|
|
|
Post by red on Sept 15, 2015 0:18:43 GMT
It started as religion but as time went on, health care and other companies wanted certified documentation of it . That's where government though they can help by making a marriage licence. With a side of we can make money off this. Since then it has become blurred as to who can say what about things.
Me if ya in love and have a religion that supports a union of hearts cool. If not and ya want to do the " common law" thing cool. Then there is the live in sin route i tend to take.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gingerbread Man on Sept 15, 2015 0:47:59 GMT
Marriage licenses came about about 60-70 years ago to stop white women from marrying black men.
Like all progressive things it had a serious racial component.
|
|
|
|
Post by red on Sept 15, 2015 0:55:47 GMT
With that being true GBM does anyone know when agency's like health coverage through employers require a marriage licence for family coverage? That may be a bonus to the governments requirement for a marriage licence that came about later on?
|
|
|
|
Post by nxp on Sept 15, 2015 1:34:25 GMT
Hmmmmm - this is interesting because you could argue it a few different ways -
Unfortunately, marriage is big business - there's the tax incentives, healthcare and insurance benefits, etc, which has encouraged the concept of marriage as a contract. A legally binding agreement between the two parties in the event that marital assets/etc need to be accounted for (loans, property, etc). So to .GOV, it is a contract because at the end of the day, it hit's their bottom line.
Then you could look at it from the perspective of some cultures treating marriage as a contract and not a religious joining - if you want my daughter you need to fork over 3 cows, 4 sheep, a sizable chunk of cheese and a keg of beer. We'll hold the "ceremony" on Tues, if you dig. Those cultures are here in the US, they've migrated in along with everyone else. So yes, an arranged marriage is a form of contract.
Another angle to consider, think about a group of wacko's in TX/UT/where ever (I'm not profiling or anything) that abuse the guise of religious freedom as a means to farm polygamy through their cult, starting with girls that should be in middle school. Using your definition, GBM, the GOV/state has no right to tell the dirty old man with 40 wives under the age of 13 that don't know any better because they've been Stockholmed into believing that this is the way things are that he'll be enjoying some quality time in Club Concrete with free in room bars. He can proudly hide behind "MUH RELIGION" citing it's above any man made law.
So, your question - is marriage a right or a contract? I say it's both, using my values and religious choice; in either case, though, the GOV has nothing to do with it.
|
|
