- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
She has been arguing that, as a Christian, she should not have to follow state rules about judicial impartiality.
A Texas judge is asking a federal court to overturn marriage equality in the U.S., arguing in a lawsuit filed on Friday that marriage for same-sex couples is unconstitutional because it was legalized in a decision that “subordinat[ed] state law to the policy preferences of unelected judges.”
The case involves Judge Dianne Hensley of Waco, Texas, who has been involved in years of legal proceedings to try to win the right to not perform marriages for same-sex couples while still performing them for opposite-sex couples. She claims that, as a Christian, she should not have to follow state judicial ethics rules about impartiality.
Governments don’t manage marriages in the religious sense, they manage them in the legal sense. That is, and has always been, the fight wrt same sex marriages.
And as marriage is the primary way by which two people from different families join together into a new legal family - with a host of legal consequences following that joining of households - you absolutely need marriage overseen by the state, for the same reason you have a host of other legal institutions overseen by the state.
They shouldn’t though. The only thing they should care about are contracts. You want to get married? Go ahead no one cares. The government shouldn’t care. You want to have a method to divide up property allocate for child support, you get a contract. There is a difference.
Government should encourage people to enter into a legally binding contract for obvious reasons, but they should not care what religion or what sex the people are. Citizen a forms a contract with b. That is all there should be to it.
A marriage is a contract.
As soon as its time to pay taxes, the government cares. When you’re declaring ownership/sale of property, the government needs to determine if the re-titling is legal and has to care. Household accumulation and collection of private debts means the government has to care. Knowing legal residency as a result of marriage is a requirement. Knowing the legal parents/guardians of children is under government purview, as is knowing which school district the children are eligible to attend.
There’s so many downstream consequences of marriage, I could hardly list them all.
Theocratic governments are naturally going to care about the religious inclinations of their residents and the violation of taboos. And Americans need to recognize that we are absolutely living in a theocracy, at least under certain Christian Dominionist state and national bureaucratic leaders.
“Well, but we should/shouldn’t…” is ultimately a decision left to the voters, and one that can change with every new election cycle. It isn’t a moral imperative that overrides legal authority.
It is not a contract. It is simply an agreed thing between people. Only much later did it become a legal thing, and that still isn’t everywhere. Overall, governments have tried to fuck around with transnational, inter racial, same sex, same sect, same community, regionalism, forced, age, arranged etc.
A broken government is one that interferes with marriage. Next thing you know they are going to start picking and arranging for genetics and other bullshit.
No. The government should not be involved at that level. A citizen may enter into a contract with the government if they wish. Thats it. I can get married today, and there is no legal bond unless I want one.
Taxes, ownership of property are all other scenarios, and can be assigned in a freely entered contract.
Legal residency does not matter and should not matter.
Perhaps if they have a contract, then they can establish sponsorships. Again, my main point here is citizen a can get a marriage contract as can citizen b. Do not discriminate based on any of the things I mentioned before.
What school district a child attends is relative to where they live of course, married parents or not.
I am saying all of this to point out that governments need to treat any citizen the same if they form a contractual union. That is the point Obama trying to get across.
I can legally marry people. For some of them they involve the government, others don’t care.
A failed government is one that allows some citizens into legally binding contracts but not others based on arbitrary reasons.
Maybe that helps you see what I am trying to say.
Brother, I’ve got some news for you…
I can marry people, some went and got the government contract some didn’t.
So marriage is sometimes a contract, but not always.
It really is a personal and sometimes spiritual thing.
It is cultural as well.
The contract part that some governments provide, well that is the point I am making, there should be no discrimination as to who enters it.
When one of the people you married is in a coma in the hospital and the spouse wants to make conscientious medical decisions on the partner’s behalf, the hospital will refuse to grant these wishes because these people are not recognized as married by any actual institution that matters.
You keep focusing on the least interesting part.
Focus on the fact that two people could be married, and the government STILL doesn’t give a shit about your life partner. A contractual marriage must allow ANY consenting adults. Focus on the point that matters! Because the part you are focusing on is NOT the marriage part at all.
By the way, your personal bias is showing. There are lots of places in the world and many situations where what you said is not true.