Oregon county chooses not to discriminate, stops issuing marriage licenses to all

[Ryan]

Originally posted by xiannaix
Ryan, the case law is quite clear on the protection the constitution gives marriage.

The debate is over how marriage has been defined and whether or not that definition is a violation of the equal protection clause.

Also in the debate is the full faith and credit clause. Eg, must state B recognize a marriage of a same sex couple even though state B specifically prohibits them (the couple obviously married out of state).

I think the Constitution should be changed to force every American to get gay married.

[johnny861]

Originally posted by thefncrow
http://famulus.msnbc.com/famulusgen/...ts=32320041850

Nice move on their part. Instead of defying the law, and instead of discriminating by enforcing the law, Benton county in Oregon has stopped issuing marriage licenses to anyone.

Bet that wrecked some plans, huh?

Now, if every county in the nation would adopt this policy. Permanently. Just end government recognition of religious bonds, and reassign the legal and tax benefits to their proper conditions instead of using marriage as a catch-all.

The best decision I've heard in a long time!!

End government recognized marriage!

[johnny861]

Originally posted by xiannaix
As I noted elsewhere. Marriage is recognized as a fundamental right - it falls under the privacy protection.

So let it be privately conducted... don't let the government regulate this individualist freedom


Because it is protected so strongly the decision made by Benton County official are almost beyond doubt a violation of consitutional protections.


Common Law marriage, marriage by holy matrimony... there are other methods... The only thing I see where a compromise is needed, is civil unions for legal purposes

Originally posted by johnny861
So let it be privately conducted... don't let the government regulate this individualist freedom

That is entirely the point. As a fundamental right the government has almost no authority to regulate it at all.

What is at issue is the definition of marriage.

Originally posted by johnny861
Common Law marriage, marriage by holy matrimony... there are other methods... The only thing I see where a compromise is needed, is civil unions for legal purposes

Common law marriages are not recognized in many states and carry fewer protections from the state than a actual marriage. Holy matrimonmy is simply what some churches calls marriage and has no merit at law.

[johnny861]

Originally posted by xiannaix
That is entirely the point. As a fundamental right the government has almost no authority to regulate it at all.

What is at issue is the definition of marriage.

Marriage should not be acknowledged by the state, be it definition, nor regulation.

There should be no more definition of a union other than the union of two or more entities....



Common law marriages are not recognized in many states and carry fewer protections from the state than a actual marriage. Holy matrimonmy is simply what some churches calls marriage and has no merit at law.

exactly... my point exactly... get "married" all you want, but the state should not recognize it...

The state should only recognize the union of multiple entities..

Originally posted by johnny861
Marriage should not be acknowledged by the state, be it definition, nor regulation.

There should be no more definition of a union other than the union of two or more entities....

Thats an interesting idea but there are strong reasons to have the state officially recognize and legitimize a "union" of marriage.


Among the most simple is a body of law to govern the process of dividing the union in divorce. Who gets what, has to do what and pays whom. This is largely to protect children but also to protect a spouse disadvantaged by the divorce etc.

[johnny861]

Originally posted by xiannaix
Thats an interesting idea but there are strong reasons to have the state officially recognize and legitimize a "union" of marriage.


Among the most simple is a body of law to govern the process of dividing the union in divorce. Who gets what, has to do what and pays whom. This is largely to protect children but also to protect a spouse disadvantaged by the divorce etc.

I agree with you.... As I feel a civil union of multiple entities could be expanded to address legal issues such as these, that at present marriage accounts for.


It would be a big undertaking to redefine these legal needs under the context of civil unions and to fade marriage from law, but I think or society is showing us the tradition concept of marriage is growing too antiquated to handle the issues we face as a society today.

Originally posted by johnny861
I agree with you.... As I feel a civil union of multiple entities could be expanded to address legal issues such as these, that at present marriage accounts for.


It would be a big undertaking to redefine these legal needs under the context of civil unions and to fade marriage from law, but I think or society is showing us the tradition concept of marriage is growing too antiquated to handle the issues we face as a society today.

the suggestion of a legal tiered system for recognition of unions has also been suggest.

Some unions being defined by contract upon entering the union - which may be a union for a given period of time and for certain pruposes etc.

One of the problems with this is that you could make it a union for say 1 hour - and thus make protitution legal.

Another of the policy arguments for marriage and against using a contract concept is the relative bargaining power of the parties. In general this is a protection for women (although less so today).

As a concept I think a tiered approach is interesting but terribly flawed when it comes to application.

I don't think it is outdated. I think it is a very fundamental aspect of our culture and of most others' as well.

[Krash]

Sorry if I've missed it, where and how is marriage defined as a "fundamental" right?

As Alexander Cockburn said, I'm for anything that terrifies Democrats, outrages Republicans, and upsets the applecart. The gay marriage issue might be just the right ingredient for creating what we atheists wish for

Originally posted by Krash
Sorry if I've missed it, where and how is marriage defined as a "fundamental" right?

"Fundamental Right" is a term of art. It means a right so bound up in the traditions and practices of our society so as to be essentially unassailable. (They are assailable - only under some very strict circumstances)

It is not explicity stated anywhere in the constitution. Nor is the right to say, read or eat or have children et al ad nauseum.

The right of privacy has been "discovered" in the evolution of case law with authority from the 9th and 10th Amendments.

Marriage is an act that is deemed to be a fundamental right on its own and is also protected under the discovery of the right to privacy (which also includes the right to contraception etc)

Amendment IX:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of
certain rights, shall not be construed to
deny or disparage others retained by the
people.

Amendment X:

The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited
by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people.


There is no specific staute that declares any of this - that is part of the fundamental right part - just as no law authorizing Dick to read a book exists so too no law authorizing Jane to marry.

Originally posted by technoboy
As Alexander Cockburn said, I'm for anything that terrifies Democrats, outrages Republicans, and upsets the applecart. The gay marriage issue might be just the right ingredient for creating what we atheists wish for

Do you think that the only basis to oppose expanding the definition of marriage to include same sex couples must eminate from a religious basis?

[Krash]

OK, could there ever be a reason for that right to be revoked? Because, to me, something fundamental is, for example, the right to life - yet that is revoked in many countries around the world.

Is marriage the same?

[Dionysos]

Originally posted by Krash
OK, could there ever be a reason for that right to be revoked? Because, to me, something fundamental is, for example, the right to life - yet that is revoked in many countries around the world.

Is marriage the same?

I would think so if you include the ideas of interspecies marriage. No society (that I know of) allows that, but the idea of marriage overall is still considered a fundamental right.

[johnny861]

If it is a fundamental right of individual's to marry, what right does the government have for imposing licenses and regulations over marriage?

I understand the legal implications involved, such as divorce, however, the expansion of a civil union bill for multiple entities could address a lot of these concerns...

It's re-writing a lot of law books, but I find it may be necessary to push this nation ahead....