Do you want to know more about the guy who's on the other side of your screen, saying all this stuff?

Then come right in...


These are my Mission Statements.


These are my longer "deep-dive" articles on specific subjects so they don't get lost.


The fun stuff that doesn't fit elsewhere.

User Rating: 0 / 5

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

This is about the SCOTUS decision on Obergefell v. Hodges.

I ask that you read this entire post, as I am looking at this issue from several disparate angles. If you miss one point, you will miss what I am trying to say by a wide margin.

First, I have friends and acquaintences who are straight, bisexual, gay and lesbian. I do not qualify my friends and acquaintences by their skin color, religion (or lack thereof), sexual orientation or any demographic quantification. If we enjoy each others company and respect each others beliefs and opinions, that's all I'm looking for.

Second, who my friends and acquaintences feel strongly about, and what they do with, to and about those they feel strongly about is quite frankly none of my damn business.

So, with this decision being about marriage, let's look at the history of marriage and what was it invented for.

Way back when, at the dawn of human history, a man protected what he considered his by force. If he had (or wanted) an animal carcass, a cave/hut or a woman, he would have to defend it or take it away from another by force. There was no 911 or police back then to help the defender. If the attacker beat off the defender, the attacker got to eat, have a safe place to sleep and sex.

Both sexes are hard-wired to preserve their genetic line. Men express this by wanting to impregnate as many women as possible, thus insuring his genetic line by sheer numbers. Women express this through quality, by partnering with a male they believe will successfully provide for and protect her and the offspring, thus greatly improving the chances of her offspring reaching the age they can have their own children. While each society handles this differently, over the thousands of years of human development this has narrowed down in most societies to the male, agreeing to provide for and protect the woman and children in exchange for exclusive procreation with the woman and official claimage of the children. Thus, one man, one woman.

This partnership and desire for "legitimate lineage" gave rise to what we now call family names. In many societies, this genetic lineage was traced from the male. The male children kept the family name, the woman took the husband's family name upon marriage. Again, societies developed differently. For example, in Jewish culture, lineage is traced through the woman, rather than the man. In the West, if you are known as "John Smith," in Asian culture the family comes first, so you would be called "Smith John."

With the rise of societies, religion and government, this pairing became codified in many religions and many governmental laws. And with approval of the "one man one woman" came the condemnation of those unions that could not produce offspring (same-sex), a high chance of deformed children (as in mating between close blood relatives), or a clear lineage. Thus it has been for a couple thousand years.

In the past 500 years or so, the State has become more and more interested and regulatory in the aspects of "breeding pairs." Government began encouraging this behavior, by offering incentives to those "legalized breeding couples," in the past century this has devolved into the "marriage and dependant tax credit." Today, the Church has been religated to an optional minor role in the marriage, basically certifying the union. The licensing to approve and legitimize the union is handled by the State, as well as the divorce process when the union is no longer viable.

What does the (interim) bottom line mean? It means the State has, for all intents and purposes, assumed the burden of administering the process of interpersonal partnerships. Due to that power, if the State decides that the only criteria for marriage is a person loves and deeply cares for whom they want to marry, without regard to procreation, they can do just that. I do not need to document the numerous offenses where the government has gone against the will of the people. The consequences of that decision will go far beyond what anybody intended. Get ready for marriage between people and animals, people and their possessions, blood relatives and so on. Maybe not tomorrow, but soon.

And I am perfectly fine with this. Because it's none of my damn business what they do in private. I am going to neither condone nor condemn if a person wants to marry their iPhone and get their jollies with its vibrate feature. I'll just wait for the fireworks when it's time to upgrade or they change providers.

Now, this case was decided on the basis of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was drafted and ratified right after the Civil War. The clauses of this Amendment covered various things, like overturning the "three-fifths" apportionment of Slaves, prevented those who were active in the rebellion from holding federal office and sticking whomever financed the Confedracy with an empty bag and unable to collect on those debts.

The clause that Obergefell v. Hodges hung its hat on was the first Clause, which binds the States to the same obligations as the federal government.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privlidges or immunities of citizens of the United States, ... [N]or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law."

While they did succeed, this was a bad hook to hang their hat on. It would have been much clearer if they had gone for Article Four, Section 1:

"Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records and judicial proceedins of every other State. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

Which boils down to "What's legal in California has to be recognized in Kentucky and vice versa." If you and your spouse get married in Ohio, move to Oregon, get divorced and individually move back to Ohio, you're still divorced. Oregon had to honor the Ohio marriage certificate and Ohio has to honor the Oregon divorce decree.

Here is where I have a problem with this decision: This reciprocity is not consistently applied. If I have a drivers license, that document is accepted as proof of my identity and qualification of my ability to operate a motor vehicle in all fifty States and the Territorities as well. A marriage certificate legally obtained in one State should be likewise recognized. This decision now enforces a definition of marriage from the federal government on the States. All States must now adhere to this new definition. It is one thing for Kansas to have to recognize a same-sex marriage certificate issued by New York. I think forcing Kansas to issue same-sex marriage licenses without the Kansas State government nor the citizens of Kansas having a say in the matter is totally different and very wrong.

Now I have to ask, why is this standard not equally held for concealed weapons licenses? Everything I can say about the prior examples are valid for this one, with the additional argument of the Second Amendement. So, I would look for a forced reciprocity of CCW licenses throught the US in the near future.

What has me upset is each State is supposed to be an individual entity, which gives some of their powers to the federal government in exchange for the common defense and other advantages. That means each State should have the power to regulate the affairs that occur within the borders of the State without the interference of other States or the federal government. This decision, along with its predecessors such as Roe v. Wade has destroyed that ability of local government.

The Civil War changed us as a people. In our antebellum age, we considered ourselves as citizens of the States first, America second. Postbellum, we became Americans, a citizen of the country first, a state citizen second.

I fear very, very soon the States will no longer be independent States, with their own culture and identity. They are rapidly passing into being provinces, totally subservient entities to the federal government.