Reply #65: First off, let me thank you for stating the argument in the correct terms. [View All]

[RJ Connors]

Marriage is first and foremost a contract. Same as any other contract that one may enter into during the course of their lives. It has two separate parties to the contract, i.e. Maker and makee, although I supposed that could change dependant on who made the offer. It has offer and acceptance, It has consideration, although some states may not require such, and it has a definitive time frame, until death do us part. Along with some other contractual aspects but the point is it is a binding contract like any other contract. The only real difference with a marriage contract and other contracts is it, to a certain degree, has the state acting as a third party to the contract in that you have to obtain a license from the state to become legally married.

And for me, this is the crux of the matter, not, should gays be allowed to get married, but instead, why does anyone have to get permission from the state to get married. And that is what licenser is, getting permission from the owner of the property or right, to act with regards to the owners property or right. Why is it I can enter into about any other contract without getting the permission of the government, although said contract may be regulated by state or federal regulations, I generally don’t have to ask the government if I can enter into the contract. (This discussion does not cover marriage under the common law marriage states, of which as of about 5 years ago when I last checked numbered 9, but covers states which require a license, which I’m pretty sure is all but the 9 common law states).

Now many will say that getting a license from the state is just a formality one has to do. Some will even mention one has to do such because of the health concerns of spreading STD’s, which has some truth too it even though it is a lame argument. But such arguments are missing the main point which is that licenser is a property law right and if government has the right to grant one permission to get married, they by definition have the right to tell someone they cannot get married. And if government has the right to grant or not grant permission to whomever they please for the purpose of marriage, they conversely have the right to only grant permission if you marry the person that the state thinks you should marriage, (Did you read 1984) Having such laws is not indicative of a free society.

The other side of the argument is on the religious side that marriage is an institution sanctioned by G-d. And if one likes to look at it that way, that’s fine but it has no legal weight to it. If you think that is not correct, try getting married in a church without a marriage license and see what happens after you file your taxes as being married for a few years, when in fact you are not. (Assuming you did not get married in one of the common law states) You will be in for a rude awaking.

So yes, when the government starts saying that marriage is an institution sanctioned by G-d, and you have to get permission from the state to be legally married what you have is a state that is commingling itself with religion which of course as anyone with half a brain knows, is prohibited by our Federal Constitution. (The half a brain requirement would of course exclude our Christian fundamentalist citizens and friends).

I for one would love to see that gay marriage argument in the public forum turn away from it being a moral argument to a more substantial argument of law. I think this is the approach which needs to happen to settle this question once and for all.

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.