Social media, email and forum threads are still going crazy two weeks after SCOTUS ruled that states cannot ban gay couples from getting married and alluding to the fact that a certain Kentucky county clerk might have to (gulp) sign a marriage license or two. Talk about a touchy subject! Because KyFreePress strives to hold a constitutional bias, I asked five liberty friends to share their views, and they did:
Liberty4Ever: The SCOTUS induced homosexual marriage distraction seemed designed to cause acrimony and civil unrest, in much the same manner that the Confederate battle flag controversy seems designed to increase racial tensions and civil unrest. Meanwhile, the TPA was passed in great part due to McConnell’s treachery, Obama signed it, and now the Trans Pacific… [Read More]
David Adams blogs at KyProgress.com and is suing Gov. Beshear over his Obamacare wreckage. David wrote this awhile back which beautifully addresses today’s issues:
Don’t demand gun rights while asking government to restrict marriage
Frank Harris: My personal Libertarian perspective on the federal government “legalizing” gay / lesbian marriages. Before I say what I think should be “the law of the land”, I want to be clear that I am 100% in favor of “legalized marriage for everyone”. That means any sexual orientation or gender, and also any NUMBER of people. “To each his or her own” as long as it’s mutually… [Read More]
Ken Moellman: Some county clerks in KY are refusing to issue any marriage licenses at all in the wake of the SCOTUS decision, because their religion prevents them from endorsing such an arrangement. But I think the clerks misunderstand their role in the marriage process. Those clerks are not endorsing anyone’s marriage. The marriage is endorsed by the officiant of the… [Read More]
Chad Brooks: There are three reasons why the recent Supreme Court decision on gay marriage was wrong (and no, not because of gay marriage itself): Marbury vs Madison, 10th Amendment, and the 14th Amendment. What does Marbury vs Madison have to do with this? The case itself doesn’t, but the ruling has everything to do with this. The ruling of this case resulted in the… [Read More]
Contributors’ Full Articles
The SCOTUS induced homosexual marriage distraction seemed designed to cause acrimony and civil unrest, in much the same manner that the Confederate battle flag controversy seems designed to increase racial tensions and civil unrest. Meanwhile, the TPA was passed in great part due to McConnell’s treachery, Obama signed it, and now the Trans Pacific Partnership trade agreement will be fast tracked by Obama because Congress has once again abdicated their responsibility in order to prevent US citizens from seeing a public debate in the legislature and making their representatives responsible. The TPP is anti-liberty in a multitude of simultaneous directions, but our nation was paying too much attention to the divisive hot-button social issues of gay marriage and Confederate flags to see that we have been abused yet again by those who would be our masters.
SCOTUS had no authority to rule on the definition of marriage, and no legitimate authority to dictate marriage laws to the states. They claimed that they were complying with the 14th amendment to extend Bill of Rights protections to all Americans, but the Bill of Rights is completely silent on the issue of marriage because marriage is not an issue that should ever be under the purview of the federal government. The Bill of Rights says that our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but I doubt the five SCOTUS justices who pushed their version of federally sanctioned marriage on the states will be invoking the 14th amendment to force states that are blatantly infringing the right to keep and bear arms to comply with the second amendment in our Bill of Rights. Obvious hypocrisy is obvious. But what should we expect from federal judges, appointed and confirmed by federal politicians, drawing a federal pay check?
Like the recent SCOTUS decision that once again protected Obamacare from itself by deliberately misinterpreting the obvious wording of the law to mean the exact opposite of what it clearly means, we once again see SCOTUS acting in a perversely unconstitutional manner to support an all-powerful federal government that forces their meaning of marriage on everyone… and our Constitution be damned. To those paying even the slightest attention, it’s now obvious that we live in a lawless society.
Alabama was leaning toward passing a state law to get Alabama out of the marriage business entirely. They were going to issue civil union certificates to everyone, and everyone would be treated equally regardless of their sexual orientation. Anyone wanting to be married could say they were married, or they could have a marriage ceremony at any church willing to marry them. This would have been a big step in the liberty direction. It wouldn’t do away with the various perks granted to married people by the government which discriminate against those who aren’t married, but it would at least prevent the government from saying that some people are married and others aren’t and it would have treated all adults equally. Had this bill passed in Alabama, I think it would have become the law in many more states as it was a genuine solution that solved a lot of the growing problems related to marriage equality. It seems that the looming Alabama state legislation might have prompted the SCOTUS to take action. The federal government (and their masters) couldn’t have states solving problems on their own and reducing civil unrest. That’s not in their best interest. After the SCOTUS ruling, Alabama was forced to abandon their civil-unions-for-everyone bill. The SCOTUS put Alabama back in the marriage business, as a proxy for the federal government.
The proper solution would be for all branches of government to be out of the marriage business. We’re told that #LoveWins and gays now have the right to marry. To anyone who understands the first thing about liberty, this is utter nonsense. Our rights are not granted to us by government. If you need to ask government for permission and pay a fee to the government if they grant your application, it’s not a right. It’s a government granted privilege. If it’s a right, you don’t need to ask, and you don’t need to pay. Or, as Michael Badnarik would often query, when you get a marriage license, what do you have a license to do that you couldn’t do before?
Liberty people celebrating the unconstitutional SCOTUS marriage decision remind me a bit of Thomas Massie voting for that big pork filled Ag spending bill in 2014 because it had a tiny concession to maybe start the process of allowing some Americans to possibly once again grow hemp. We know liberty people who have fought hard for the restoration of this lost right. Some of them have been fighting for decades. Thomas knew several of these people and thus couldn’t vote against the deficit funded Ag spending bill that greatly increased the already burgeoning US Department of Agriculture food stamp program, along with tons of other pork. The entire DC political system is corrupt, and as Ron Paul often lamented, they make it as difficult as possible to vote on the side of liberty. Many of the bills that pass are 100% tyranny or close to it. The best you can hope for in this corrupt system is 51% liberty if you’re very lucky. There are dozens of big losses for every little hard fought win. On balance, it’s a losing game.
American homosexuals are now required to petition government and purchase a license to marry and get their government granted perks. They’re co-opted into the big government control system, and they begged for the privilege. Love wins? Liberty wins? I don’t see it.
But on the lighter side….
Liberty4Ever is a frequent contributor to KyFreePress. Find his other articles here.
My personal Libertarian perspective on the federal government “legalizing” gay / lesbian marriages.
Before I say what I think should be “the law of the land”, I want to be clear that I am 100% in favor of “legalized marriage for everyone”. That means any sexual orientation or gender, and also any NUMBER of people. “To each his or her own” as long as it’s mutually consented to by all parties involved, and as long as all parties are adults (let’s not open up the can of worms about the legal age of consent – let’s just stay with 18 for now.)
What should be “legal” is the question, right? First, “legal” implies the permission of the Powers That Be. “Marriage” as it stood until just recently was “a legal partnership between one man and one woman” and implied all kinds of things about property rights, insurance, inheritance, power of attorney, visitation rights at hospitals, and tax status, among other things. The federal, state, and probably even the local governments have put a LOT of baggage onto the institution of marriage. The ceremony had to be by a justice of the peace, a magistrate, or some legally recognized minister, priest, rabbi, etc. More legalese. Also, the couple had to have a license. Licenses are to “grant permission”. What are they giving you permission to do? Live together? Have sex? Have kids? No, not really – you could do all of those things without a license. No, basically, it was to allow you the “protection” of your property rights as a spouse, and other rights to the above mentioned “privileges” of marriage. These things could all be done just as well through contracts and then applying basic contract law.
Often employers would grant health insurance married couples, but not people living together, or gay, etc. What about kids of unmarried couples? What do single parents do? But whose fault is that? Is that the government’s fault, or the insurance companies’ fault? Government has more or less coerced many employers into providing healthcare for their employees – that, to me, is wrong and should be a separate issue. Salaries could go up if the employer wasn’t forced into providing healthcare. No one should be penalized, or rewarded, for being married, or NOT being married. Shouldn’t it be a simple matter to go to an insurance company and get a “package” rate for any number of individuals?
So, what about inheritance? Well, if you’d quit penalizing people with taxation on stuff that has already been taxed, that would help. Why tax ANYTHING of someone who dies? If I know that I am going to die tomorrow and don’t tell anyone…. I could legally give everything away tax free (within certain ranges). After I die, well…. inheritance tax kicks in. Government interference has CREATED this problem, just as with health insurance.
Divorce – property settlements. Again, with a decent pre-nup, that could be settled with a simple contract and within contract law. Got a dispute? Take it to court. You don’t have to be “married” to do that.
I could go on…. but the gist of this is: the government doesn’t need to be involved in either the marriage ceremony or issuing licenses. However, as with ANY public service, since they DO issue marriage licenses, an individual clerk does not have the right to decide who gets one and who doesn’t based on his or her personal beliefs. Public services should be administered to everyone as these services are paid for with tax dollars. The issue of private companies being forced to provide services is a completely separate issue which I hope to address later.
Frank Harris, Libertarian
July 2, 2015
Some county clerks in KY are refusing to issue any marriage licenses at all in the wake of the SCOTUS decision, because their religion prevents them from endorsing such an arrangement.
But I think the clerks misunderstand their role in the marriage process. Those clerks are not endorsing anyone’s marriage. The marriage is endorsed by the officiant of the wedding. The clerks just sign-off that the paperwork was properly filed.
In fact, County clerks also have a very similar role in filing the paperwork for small business DBAs. Are they going to refuse to file any of those if someone engaged in a same-sex marriage wants one?
Look, I get it — you don’t like it. Fine. There are plenty of things that I find morally offensive that get forced on me. I have a very strong moral opposition to property taxes. Paying taxes on the same vehicle every single year until I sell the vehicle or I die essentially makes me a caretaker and not an owner.
Does that mean I can just ignore your office and not pay those taxes? Yeah, I didn’t think so.
There are three reasons why the recent Supreme Court decision on gay marriage was wrong (and no, not because of gay marriage itself): Marbury vs Madison, 10th Amendment, and the 14th Amendment.
What does Marbury vs Madison have to do with this? The case itself doesn’t, but the ruling has everything to do with this. The ruling of this case resulted in the Supreme Court granted itself the Power of Judicial Review. Such power is not listed in the U.S. Constitution. Like all of the branches of federal government, the powers of each are specifically listed in the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court’s powers are specifically listed in Article III Section I. The self-granted power of Judicial Review gives the Court the liberty to literally alter the U.S. Constitution. Keep in mind that the U.S. Constitution is law. Now imagine driving down the road going 65 mph on a 30. An officer procedes to pull you over. Would telling the officer that you didn’t interpret such a law in the way that you were doing anything wrong, work? Of course not. So why would it work for anyone else? Law is law. Word for word. Judicial Review is an unlawful powergrab. Which means that the Supreme Court is limited to specific cases and is not at liberty to interpret the U.S. Constitution in any other way than how it was written. Which means that this case should have been dismissed. Any ruling one way or the other would have been unconstitutional.
The 10th Amendment is relevant because it states that anything not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution is left to the States and the people. This is applied to all three branches. It means that whatever power or responsibility isn’t stated for that branch in the U.S. Constitution, they don’t mess with it. Gay marriage isn’t something explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution. So all branches are to outright ignore the issue. If the Legislature, the Executive, and/or the Judicial branch makes any law, ruling, or action on gay marriage EITHER WAY, then they are out of order and the action is unconstitutional. Any action taken upon any branch of the federal government that is not sanctioned by the U.S. Constitution, is unlawful. No law is above the U.S. Constitution.
The 14th Amendment is important because it was quoted as the basis for the ruling. That amendment was ratified in 1866. The Civil War just ended. Enslaved persons were not counted as citizens, nor were they when freed. The 14th Amendment corrected that. It was regarding slaves and their rights to life, liberty, and property.
I discovered that after the ruling, civil servants began refusing to perform their jobs. Is it a noble notion to reject performing any action that you find morally questionable? Sure. If you don’t wish to do your job, you don’t have to slavery is illegal. You also don’t have a right to collect money for not performing your job. Therefore, if you disagree with the responsibilities of your job, quit. If you feel entitled to collect income from the taxed population for no reason, then you should be disposed of as the thieves that you are.
Where are you, dear readers, on the SCOTUS ruling, gay marriage, county clerks? Please share in the comments below.