Nov 16 2008
California Prop 8 Ignores Civil Contract Law
California Prop 8 Ignores Civil Contract Law
Marriage is a civil contract, sanctioned by the State, recognized by other States, and by other nations of the World.
Couples do not enter into a contract with God; they enter into a contract with each other. God doesn’t “join” any persons together. Priests and ministers are allowed to “officiate” in the United States because of traditions developed hundreds of years ago, when churches and synagogues ruled the daily affairs of the masses.
The various States of the United States issue marriage “licenses” to couples who are entering into a “contract” by which they agree to accept responsibilities and debts of the other party, agree to share assets and liabilities, acknowledge rights of each party to inherit and act in the other party’s interest.
The contract is executed upon the marriage license document by affixing of signatures by the contracting parties and witnesses who attest to the identities of the signatories. In some States, the equivalent of a notary public is required, e.g, a judge or elected official. In some States, a minister, by statute or constitution, is authorized to officiate. Even then, witnesses are required to attest to the identity of the parties. In some States, the parties to the marriage contract merely have to sign the license in front of a witness, who can be anybody. The marriage contract is legalized by the signatures of the parties involved. There need be no judge, minister or any other “officiating” person or ceremony. That is how the Montana Constitution reads. (Montana Codes Annotated 40-1-301 “if no individual acting alone solemnized the marriage, a party to the marriage shall complete the marriage certificate form and forward it to the clerk of the district court. “)
The marriage contract is a civil right. There should be no rights of religious groups or beliefs that override the rights of individuals to enter into a marriage contract. For voters to impose their own religious beliefs upon the civil rights of any individual citizen of the United States should be illegal and therefore the results of Proposition 8 should be promptly overturned by the California Court System.
The United States seems to be divided into two strong factions.
On the one hand are those who refer to themselves as “progressive,” and their political opinions frequently mimic their social opinions as well. This faction endorses interracial marriages and equal rights for all, regardless of race, national origin, gender, or sexual orientation.
The other faction uses religious and faith-based values to determine their political and social stances, and also seeks to impose those values or beliefs on the “progressive” faction.
Now tell me, does not the religious right, the ultra-conservative Christian and Jewish factions, use the same arguments as the Islamic mullahs who would impose “Sharia*” upon their populations? Why do the most conservative of the Christian and Jewish faiths not see that they have much in common with the Islamic mullahs? Why do they not see that what they seek to impose on others is a violation of the tenets of our Constitutional guarantees of “separation of church and state”?
*Sharia law is the instrument by which Political Islam seeks to control the Muslim world. The Sharia should be opposed for its imposition of theocracy over democracy, its abuse of human rights, its institutionalized discrimination, its denial of human dignity and individual autonomy, its punishment of alternative lifestyle choices, and for the severity of its punishments.
Our own freedom to practice what we believe is limited to the point at which they impair the exercise of that same freedom by others. I am so disappointed in the otherwise progressive voters of California.
I loved your second-to-last sentence, that is so true. People’s religious beliefs and freedoms should not be able to block the rights of others.
Gay people are free to live together and do what they want. They enjoy all the same rights as everyone else and can have commitment ceremonies if they choose. They cannot legally marry because marriage is between a man and a woman. What is so hard to understand about that? I wish everyone love in their lives. But if gay people make the argument that they are different and straight people need to accept those differences, then it seems gay people should accept that their differences mean they cannot get married the way straight men and women do. I fear that it’s all part of a political agenda.
Hudson,
Gay couples don’t enjoy the same rights as everyone else. The argument from the gay community is not that they’re different, it’s that they’re the same, and should be treated as such.
You’re closing sentence says more about you than you realize.
It is a sad state when all people can not do to the same things and he same rights as everyone else.
You’re barking up the wrong tree here. Under your rationale, any consenting adults have an absolute right to enter into a marriage. That line of reasoning suggests that prohibitions against incest and bigamy violate that “right” as well.
Here’s the problem — marriage is a privilege and who can and can’t be married is determined by the various states. For example, you can establish a common law marriage and marry your first cousin in some states and not others.
The test for whether the prohibitions against homosexual marriage should stand, then, has to do with the 14th Amendment. Are homosexuals a protected class deserving of extra Constitutional protections? Is it a violation of the 14th Amendment for a state to allow men and women to marry while excluding homosexuals? Should homosexuals be granted that “protected class” status that has knocked down laws that excluded minorities from voting, marrying white folks and etc., then there’s an argument that will be a winner.
Attacking Proposition 8 along those lines or claiming that the legislature — not the voters — in California seem to be the proper ways to argue against Proposition 8. Why am I reading so much these days about phantom rights, the separation of church and state and contracts?
allowing same sex marriage will definitely shush up those who are for it. but what about those 2nd and 3rd degree relatives or (heaven forbid) brothers and sisters who want to marry each other too? what about those who wish (or who are now) practicing polygamy? they too deserve the same civil rights that homosexuals are claiming. are homosexuals a special class that needs special treatment? special laws?
If the issue is resolved on property alone, then anyone should be able to marry. The arguments against, which are indicated in previous comments, such as polygamous and incestuous relationships are already recognized by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who goes so far as to say that it’s a slippery slope that would make bestiality legal. Of course, man can’t marry a dog. Dogs are not human beings and therefore do not enjoy the same rights–such as the right to enter into a contract….although I’m sure there are some in the US today who believe dogs are people and should enjoy the same rights you and I do.
Ultimately, each state is reserved the right to decide appropriate marriage criteria. I think ultimately the inequality of different state approaches will ultimately force the federal courts to act and legalize gay marriage. Proposition 8 is just the beginning of the serious public campaign. It’s not the end. Please see our current In-depth feature on this issue on Inside Government: Beyond Proposition 8–The US Gay Marriage Ban Amendment.
Cheers!