Supreme Court, "Gay" marriage ruling

<p>Recently there has been a huge uproar about the Supreme Courts decision on the issue of marriage, and same sex marriage in particular. That ruling is can be found here: <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf">Supreme Court Case</a>

<p>Now, there have been numerous discussions about the validity of this ruling. After reading the actually ruling myself I have come to understand that the court actually made the right ruling based on what they used to come to their conclusions. The court decided that Due Process and Equal Protections both apply, and aren't mutually exclusive or inclusive either. Meaning, since the states and federal government have laws and rules that affect marriage in the first place that Equal Protections under the law(the 14th amendment) marriage could not legally be denied to same-sex couples. And that without Due Process under the law there was no legal right for restricting this right, such as would be the case with say guardianship of one of the people looking to get married. Whether they were homosexual or heterosexual.</p>

<p>After reading this conclusion and finding it eminently reasonable, I found myself faced with another issue that struck me as a bit problematic. That issue was the courts insistence that marriage was a social institution that should be within the governments jurisdiction. As i understand American law and the intentions of the founders on freedom in this country as it was founded and taught to me in school, social structures are not the purview of governments and state laws. Governments, without Due Process, cannot mandate nor use government force to control social behaviors unless those behaviors violate someone elses rights to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. And the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are not valid reasons to violate someone elses right to them either. Such as the Liberty of free association.</p>

<p>Unfortunately as I understand the courts ruling however, the idea of marriage is considered a societal imperative and institution that has "evolved" over the years since this countries(America's) founding, despite it not actually doing so socially and but with secular laws regarding marriage having changed. Laws such as coverture, and asking the father's permission were religious social practices, not encoded laws in America. Because America practices a separation between religion or Church(social practices) and the State or Government(government laws) it seems rather inconceivable to me that it is the governments role to approve of marriages between people. The reasons for such laws at the time are irrelevant to the purpose of this writing, so I will not bother to get into that here.</p>

<p>The more I thought about this ruling however, about marriage licenses, and secular, religious, and societal laws and standards I began to realize that marriages should never have become a licensed institution by the States and now Federal authorities. Now, I consider myself a Conservative person if not a Republican per say. But as I thought about the way marriage was handled in America, such as the courts reasoning for coming to their conclusion, I started looking into the origins of government approved marriage more. In particular marriage licenses and why they were needed in the first place. What I found was astonishing to me, to say the least. First, I realized that a marriage license means the government is giving you its documented approval marry and that means without it, it would be considered illegal to have it occur. Even if it was not enforced per say, as such. Much like a driver's license is permission from the government to drive a car, which to do without it. How did I come to this conclusion? Well, it all started with the origin on the marriage license in the first place...</p>

<p>In the mid to late 19th century and early 20th century anti-miscegenation(or anti-interracial) laws made marriage, cohabitation, procreation, or even just sexual relations in general illegal and punishable under the law as a felony. It wasn't until the 1967 that these laws became declared unconstitutional in fact. In the 1900's marriage licenses were used as a means to prevent mixed marriages(usually former slaves and whites, and then blacks in general prior to 1967) because mixed couples had to have one in order to marry even though white couples didn't. Then, later on, in order to garner money for the state form the people, the issuance of said licenses became the norm for everyone once the state realized they could get money from everyone who wanted to marry and not just deny interracial couples marriage under such laws. In other words, a license allowed interracial couples to engage in state recognized and approved marriages for a fee that would be a felony, and thus illegal, without it. A marriage license is a symbol of <b>racism</b> and <b>bigotry</b> in America, since the sole purpose of a marriage license was originally to prevent mixed or interracial couples from getting married.</p>

<p>After reading this, and the subsequent Supreme Court rulings in 1967(interracial marriage) and in 2015(same-sex marriage), I realized that despite it being declared unconstitutional in both cases the fact remained that these court rulings would never have been needed had State and Federal authority not been used to make the government a third party in every marriage. Making it necessary to acquire the government's, local and/or national, authorization and approval to declare ones love for each other. So not only are marriage licenses rooted in racism, but they are also rooted in shifting social standards from religious and non-religious social authority alike, to a system that required mandatory government acceptance.</p>

<p>Marriage is only a "right" if it offers governmental benefits, such as tax exemptions and incentives. As marriage was before the early 1900's, you didn't even need a priest to officiate your marriage if you weren't religious. The only requirement was to declare publicly 5-15 days before the wedding itself occurred, whether secular or religious. These marriages were usually termed common law marriages, and were eventually abandoned in later centuries. Given these facts, I began to wonder why we have allowed government to continue to interfere in what has been traditionally a societal/social contractual arrangement not requiring government intervention or approval. Had this been the case all along and licenses for marriage been all together abandoned after the civil rights movement for the racist and bigoted documents they were, same-sex couples would have long ago attained the "right" to marry just as interracial couples did as society began to become more accepting of the fact that they love one another just as much as heterosexual couples do.</p>

<p>Marriages should not be licensed by the State or Federal government at all, since I marriage isn't like things such as driving that are illegal if you marry without it. Because who I or anyone else marries is not the governments business beyond the legal issues of a contractual agreement. Marriage should require a certificate however, in much the same way that births require a certificate, so that it is publicly known. You see a marriage license as it is now says "I have the states permission and approval to express my love and commitment to the person I choose" and creates a three party(government) involved in the marriage that is in the Governments favor, since it gives them jurisdiction over the by products of that marriage. Such as children and owned property. A certificate of marriage on the other hand says "I am willingly entering into an agreement with a person I love to commit to them, and them alone, and making this public knowledge." A marriage certificate would still offer the same legal protections as a marriage license, but would remove the need for state approval from the equation.</p>