Marriage hasn’t meant M - F for the past 1000’s of years. Polygomy was and still is accepted as “marriage” in many places. It does sound nice as an argument though, doesn’t it?
Depends on the state.
In California, for example, the Constitution directs public officials to wait for a court ruling; it forbids the sort of unilateral enforcement described above.
I think that’s a good rule.
In Virginia, there is no such rule. The advice I’d give to a Governor is to act in defiance of the law only when it’s absolutely and completely clear that the state law is violative of federal law.
In other words, resting a determination of “unconstitutional” upon a novel theory, or even the application of established theory to novel circumstance, should be left to the judiciary. The executive’s job is to enforce the law, not experiment with it.
I can’t speak for kanicbird, who advanced the “thousands of years” argument. But a good touchstone for me is the language drawn from Supreme Court decisions in finding a “fundamental right:” if the right can be found to be deeply rooted in our nation’s history and tradition, that’s a good sign.
Whatever the popularity of polygamy in human history, it is most certainly NOT deeply rooted in our nation’s history and tradition.
- Rick
When my daughter was small, she voiced the opinion that there should be an engagement ring for men with perhaps a ceremony and party to celebrate the decision of committment. This seemed the most important aspect of marriage, more than the wedding ceremony, to her. I believe as my 7 year old believed.
The choice to be a husband or wife is the point.
And not every wedding is a publically celebrated event. I married a man of a different age, different ethnic group, different size and different socio-economic group than myself. No friends or family, excepting my two teenagers, stood up with us at the Cloud 9 chapel that evening we exchanged vows and if CA revokes my piece of paper saying Drachillix and I are married, then he is still my husband because he chooses to be.
As an aside, we only received 2 wedding gifts, cash from his paternal grandparents and a fondue pot from his best friend so we would really feel married.
Yes, because that’s essentially what *he’s * doing. Consider:
- The 1913 law had not been enforced *at all * since at least the SCOTUS decision banning antimiscegenation laws, underscoring that that was the reason for it. It was left on the books out of simple neglect, like many other obsolete laws that no one would consider trying to actually enforce today.
- The enforcement order from the Governor is of dubious validity, since it’s a state officer trying to order local officials.
- The order came only after SSM’s became legal in MA anyway.
- Only same-sex couples were being asked to provide proof of residency when applying for marriage licenses, not mixed couples, even though nothing in the law says it applies only to same-sex couples. That was changed only after the MA Constitution’s equal protection clause was brought to their attention.
- Even so, local officials aren’t being told, or arguably even asked, not to issue licenses just to same-sex couples, just to provide lists to the AG office.
- The state house has already voted to void the law, the Senate will follow when their recess is over, and margins in favor already far exceed veto override minima.
I’m sure you’d agree that the Governor has no right to select which laws he wants enforced, nor against whom they’ll be enforced (even if that weren’t the province of the AG, whom We the People choose, not the Governor).
Jeeves, you don’t need to move to Canada and deal with immigration paperwork (unless you want to). You and your husband can take a trip to Boston in the very near future and get a full US-style marriage with all the trimmings. Anyone who says you’re helping *undermine * the institution is full of shit, as your OP helps demonstrate. Good luck to you both.
Are there any suits in CA courts demanding that MA SSM’s be recognized there? Well, yes, there must be, but is there any news about how they’re progressing?
Not exactly, it held that the equal right to marry was there in the Constitution all along, but that the state had improperly suppressed it for part of the citizenry via administrative policy.
None of that has anything to do with choosing to ignore the law. While the reasons for the new-found interest in the law are obviously pretextual, that doesn’t change the fact that it’s a valid law.
Problem solved. I agree that applying this law against same-sex couples and not opposite-sex couples is wrong; the correct solution is to apply it to all couples.
This, I don’t understand.
What of it? When the law is, in fact, repealed, then I’ll certainly agree it should not be enforced. Until then, it may be.
Bricker, do you take the position that all laws that haven’t been directly overturned by courts and are still on the books should be enforced with full rigor, no matter what, regardless of their intent however obvious, even if they have been ignored as obsolete by everyone for no matter how long? That’s the extreme you have to go to in order to take the government’s discretion out of a definition of the law, as you seem to be arguing. I really don’t think you want to be in the business of supporting www.stupidlaws.com as prescriptive, do you? Ah, I see you said “it *may * be” enforced, necessarily with a creative interpretation of its intent - is there a situation in which you’d agree that it should *not * be enforced? Is there a way you’d approve of to decide which long-ignored laws should be reactivated? If there isn’t, then you’re not making a legal argument at all, just a statement of political preference in the guise of a legal argument.
The compilation by municipal clerks of a list of which licensed couples are same-sex or nonresidents, rather than forcing the issue, is certainly understandable if you acknowledge that this is a primarily political matter rather than a legal one - Romney wants to fight the tide but isn’t going to go any further away from his constituents’ wishes than is safe for his reelectability. It shows he doesn’t think his legal standing is strong enough to insulate himself politically, but he has the names of people whose marriages he thinks he can nullify if his legal standing to do so were ever affirmed.
I was mixing up Goodridge with the Canadian cases.
Your inability to distinguish between social contracts and physical elements shines all the light we need to dismiss your opinion as ignorant and uninformed. :wally
Actually, all of those terms have undergone significant changes to their definitions over the last 1000’s of years. (And frankly, those exact words have only been used for less than half that time, as modern English is a relatively recent invention.)
All things change. That is the only constant.
JOhn.