State-Sponsored Marriage

An exchange. To be read from the bottom up.

Jacob Sullum: "Rather than imbuing the word 'marriage' with constitutional significance," Justice Martha Sosman, who dissented from the court's decision in Goodridge, wrote in a footnote, "there is much to be said for the argument that the secular legal institution, which has gradually come to mean something very different from its original religious counterpart, be given a name that distinguishes it from the religious sacrament of 'marriage.'...The legislature could, rationally and permissibly, decide that the time has come to jettison the term." Significantly, this solution seemed acceptable to the majority. Chief Justice Margaret Marshall said giving a new name—"civil union," say, or "household partnership"—to a legal arrangement available on an equal basis to homosexuals as well as heterosexuals "might well be rational and permissible."

Richard John Neuhaus: Since the Massachusetts high court, by a 4-3 vote, mandated same-sex marriage (Goodridge v. Department of Public Health), all the polling data indicate a growing rejection of the idea, plus rapidly increasing skepticism about “gay rights” more generally, especially when presented as a parallel to the civil rights movement of the last century. President Bush has declared that he supports marriage as an exclusive union between a man and a woman and has, albeit somewhat ambiguously, indicated his support for an amendment.

Matt: And I would say that the state most certainly does not have the right to determine that "that certain kinds of relationships are a benefit to society and should be encouraged."

Matt: Actually, that IS the job of the courts...judicial review. Courts must decide if a legislative action is in violation of the Constitution.

Tisco: But for a court to say that the state does not have the right to make this determination is ridiculous.

Tisco: I think the state is right to do this. If you disagree, then use the legislative process to abolish state-sponsored marriage.

Tisco: The state's purpose in granting benefits to marriage is that it has decided that certain kinds of relationships are a benefit to society and should be encouraged.

Tisco: Nobody's free association is being hampered. Relationships of all kinds are still happening, aren't they?

Tisco: We should probably have this conversation in a more permanent format, so that I don't miss something if I check too seldomly.

Matt: Shane- A marriage should concern only the two (or more?!?) people involved in the agreement. It's nobody else's business but theirs.

Shane: I suppose not, Jenny. And yet, it also seems important to limit the powers of government to handle only those actions which directly affect others.

JennySmith: Is it possible to do any action that does not affect anyone else?

Shane: When you marry, does that concern only yourself, or are others affected?

John Stuart Mill: ...the individual is not accountable to society for his actions, in so far as these concern the interests of no person but himself.

Matt: And in the words of John Stuart Mill:

Thomas Jefferson: The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.

Matt: For in the words of my hero Thomas Jefferson:

Matt: Whether it is moral or immoral is irrelevant.

Matt: Further, by denying them the right to marry whomever they wish, we are denying them the freedom of association as well as equal protection under the law.

Matt: The Constitution does not grant the Federal government the power to regulate marriage.

Matt: Who a person marries is none of my business, none of your business and it is cetainly none of George Bush's business.