The Left Vs. God-Given Rights

[GBFan]

There is no express provision in the Constitution granting a person the right of marriage; not that the framers thought marriage unimportant, but rather it is a right retained by the people under the Ninth Amendment, and power reserved to the several states or to the people under the Tenth Amendment. Marriage is strictly a matter of state (not federal) law. Each state has the sovereign power to enact laws governing marriage.

Marriage is a three-party contract between two natural persons of legal capacity (that would exclude minors and incompetents, but not necessarily persons of the same sex) and the state, which acknowledges its consent to the marriage contract through the issuance of a license. Few persons realize that the state is a party to their marriage until they want to get divorced, which they consider a great inconvenience, not to mention the legal expense. However, the state has a legitimate, even compelling, interest in the incidents of the marriage, i.e., marital property rights, custody and care of minor children (whether born of the union or adopted), and obligations of support; which issues are subject to the jurisdiction of the several states based upon the parties’ residence or domicile. See Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287, 298 (1942) ("Each state as a sovereign has a rightful and legitimate concern in the marital status of persons domiciled within its borders").

See? This is what I'm talking about ...

Marriage is a religious act ... not a civil act. There were not permissions required of the state to be married when the Constitution was written. Therefore, it is only logical that there would be no ".. express provision ..".

In fact, let's look at this whole 'government being involved in marriage' idea. In truth, the marriage license was first developed as a legal tool to prevent interracial marriage. It wasn't until 1967 that all miscegenation laws were determined to be unconstitutional and summarily repealed. It wasn't until 1923 that the government passed the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act, which, among other things, decreed that marriages in one state would be recognized in all states. In fact, it wasn't until 1935 that all states, except Maryland, required a state-issued marriage license.

You mention the Tenth Amendment - written in the 1780s - which, as we know, says that any powers not specifically delegated to the Federal government are retained by the states, or by the people. Since the Constitution is silent on the issue, doesn't it seem logical that right is reserved to the States?

When I was married - oh, so many years ago - we actually had two forms to sign. One, issued by the Catholic Church, recognized our marriage in the eyes of God. The other was a registration of marriage with the state. (You will note that I didn't say it was a license - it was a registration).

It's simple - you're looking at it backward. The laws of marriage registration were established - theoretically - in accordance with the Constitution, not because of it. The fact that it wasn't mentioned specifically in the Constitution is the very REASON it had to be spelled out in law. That law had to comply with the Constitution or be overridden. You will notice that, in accordance with the Tenth Amendment, the federal government is silent on marriage (although, there are some that would say that tax breaks for married couples, as well as numerous other federal regulations dependent on marriage status, is a violation of that silence).

 

[GBFan]

Slavish answers for slavish yanks, I guess.

Rule 14. When lacking an intelligent or cogent response, attack the poster.

 

[Iolo2]

Rule 14. When lacking an intelligent or cogent response, attack the poster.

Why should I attack the poster when the facts are so obvious? Poor brainwashed nutters!

 

[GBFan]

Why should I attack the poster when the facts are so obvious? Poor brainwashed nutters!

Rule 14. When lacking an intelligent or cogent response, attack the poster.

 

[Iolo2]

When lacking anything sensible to say, repeat nonsense.

 

[Richard Savage]

No, that assumption is invalid; it is a logical fallacy. To say that one has a right to be married retained under the Ninth Amendment, petitio principia,
begs the question that such right exists by law; which sovereign power resides in the several states under the Tenth Amendment. The right of marriage exists as allowed by applicable state law; and provided that such laws do not infringe the rights and protections of the Fourteenth Amendment they are valid and enforceable. See Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)

 

[GBFan]

No, that assumption is invalid; it is a logical fallacy. To say that one has a right to be married retained under the Ninth Amendment, petitio principia,
begs the question that such right exists by law; which sovereign power resides in the several states under the Tenth Amendment. The right of marriage exists as allowed by applicable state law; and provided that such laws do not infringe the rights and protections of the Fourteenth Amendment they are valid and enforceable. See Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)

The right to marry exists by social and religious contract. The state requires registration of that union and, for a time, attempted to interfere in the determination of that contract - first, racially diverse marriage and, much more recently, gay marriages. The courts determine that the laws do not infringe. In the case of gay marriages (and mixed marriages before that), the courts have ruled that the state does NOT have the authority to define who gets married.

However, we are chasing down a rabbit hole - the point of the discussion was that the right to marry is a fundamental right, not a granted right. The government does NOT have the authority to define that marriage - that right is between God and the people being married. Some churches will not perform gay marriages - some will. Law, as defined by man, does not apply. You will not see the government attempt to dictate to churches who shall be married in their church. Why? Because the laws of man are subservient to the laws of God.

 

[Richard Savage]

No, that is not correct. The right to be married - like all rights - exist only as allowed by law. There is the distinction between marriage as a religious "rite" and marriage as a legal "right". Only the latter is "enforceable" under the Constitution; the former is not as a principle of separation of church and state under the First Amendment.

 

[GBFan]

No, that is not correct. The right to be married - like all rights - exist only as allowed by law. There is the distinction between marriage as a religious "rite" and marriage as a legal "right". Only the latter is "enforceable" under the Constitution; the former is not as a principle of separation of church and state under the First Amendment.

Then, perhaps you can explain all the marriages prior to the existence of the law. If the law is the only thing that authorizes marriages, does that mean there were no marriages before the law? You know, those 5000 years of 'couplings'?

 

[Richard Savage]

All marriage is by law - and the law alone. Woo betide one that contracts a marriage in contravention of the law. See Williams v. North Carolina, 325 U.S. 226 (1945)

 

[GenSeneca]

There are no inherent rights; there are no unalienable rights; there are only legal rights.

Such laws must be written by individuals... If those individuals have no inherent or unalienable rights, then by what "right" do they exercise the authority to create such laws?

 

[GBFan]

All marriage is by law - and the law alone. Woo betide one that contracts a marriage in contravention of the law. See Williams v. North Carolina, 325 U.S. 226 (1945)

Perversion of our rights does not constitute authority for the government ... it serves as an irritant to those who detest government over-reach ... eventually, just like the pea in the mattress, it becomes unbearable. Quoting a faulty law as proof that the law is supreme hardly makes good sense.

 

[Richard Savage]

"Rights are the fruits of the law and the law alone . . . ." The Works of Jeremy Bentham, published under the Superintendence of his Executor, John Bowring, Vol. III, p. 221 (Edinburgh: William Tait, 1843). Under the Constitution, the law is not "created" by individuals, but by elected representatives to Congress and to state and municipal legislative bodies pursuant to the constitutional guarantee of a Republican form of government. U.S. Const., Art. IV, sec. 4. It is the law that defines our rights; and it is the law that protects and preserves them.

All rights exist only by law, for without the law we have no rights. Without law, there is anarchy, which is antithetical to the very existence of rights. Rights can only exist within the structure of organized society subject to the rule of law. In this, it must be admitted that there can be no society without the law; it is the very fabric of social structure. It is, like the air we breathe, pervasive and essential, affecting every aspect of human relationships and endeavors. Beyond this lies only the uncertainty of uncivilized life where there is no society, where every man is a law unto himself and "kraft macht recht" (might makes right); and life, as Hobbes put it, is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (1651). Such rights are nothing more than a scrambling possession that would be unlikely to last beyond the first to challenge the claim by force. The law is the only means by which real rights may be secured.

 

[GBFan]

"Rights are the fruits of the law and the law alone . . . ." The Works of Jeremy Bentham, published under the Superintendence of his Executor, John Bowring, Vol. III, p. 221 (Edinburgh: William Tait, 1843). Under the Constitution, the law is not "created" by individuals, but by elected representatives to Congress and to state and municipal legislative bodies pursuant to the constitutional guarantee of a Republican form of government. U.S. Const., Art. IV, sec. 4. It is the law that defines our rights; and it is the law that protects and preserves them.

All rights exist only by law, for without the law we have no rights. Without law, there is anarchy, which is antithetical to the very existence of rights. Rights can only exist within the structure of organized society subject to the rule of law. In this, it must be admitted that there can be no society without the law; it is the very fabric of social structure. It is, like the air we breathe, pervasive and essential, affecting every aspect of human relationships and endeavors. Beyond this lies only the uncertainty of uncivilized life where there is no society, where every man is a law unto himself and "kraft macht recht" (might makes right); and life, as Hobbes put it, is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (1651). Such rights are nothing more than a scrambling possession that would be unlikely to last beyond the first to challenge the claim by force. The law is the only means by which real rights may be secured.

.... and, by extension, the only ones who control your life are those who deign to 'grant' you rights by manipulating the law.

I can think of only one word .... balderdash!

 

[cashmcall]

There are no God-given rights. All rights exist only by law.

I must have missed this post
Your trying to claim that your ideal is actually how our country was always supposed to look. Defying all proof to the contrary, you say that this is what our Founders were trying to establish. You claim that the First Amendment fundamentally protects us from being exposed to religion, and that it forbids any “official” mention or recognition of God. You say that the First Amendment, from the start, was meant to ban things like manger scenes outside of town halls and Ten Commandment posters in public school hallways.

Please, let’s just be honest with one another. Like the Pope say’s conflict resolution must begin with honesty.
See, I don’t mind arguing against your Atheistic Ideal.

You think the country would be better served if God and religion were contained solely in our churches and our homes? Fine. I don’t agree, but that’s a fine point of view. It’s a point of view we could discuss.
But, instead,
These claims are erroneous.
Indeed, they are lies – and you know it.
The country was founded on a belief in a creator God and has OFFICIALLY endorsed the concept from the very beginning. That is the reality. It is not really up for debate. You may wish to turn America into something else, but do not pretend that you are turning it into what it was always designed to be. Have the courage of your convictions. Make your case for an Atheist America, but do not stand there and try to tell us that America has always been atheist.
The evidence against you is staggering:
-Five mentions of God in The Declaration of Independence.
-In God we trust – the motto found in the National Anthem and on coins dating as far back as 1860.
-The Continental Congress issuing the first national proclamation of thanksgiving to God.
-The Continental Congress calling for national repentance of sins.
-Church services being held inside the Capitol Building during the time of the Founders.
-The President swearing in on a Bible. (This is not required, but it’s a custom many have followed. George Washington kissed a Bible after swearing his oath.)
-Swearing on a Bible in court, “so help you God.”
-Federal Oaths that require federal officials to say “so help me God.”
-The Chaplain of the United States Senate.
-Every Senate session beginning with a prayer.
-“It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.” – George Washington.
-“You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do every thing they can to assist you in this wise intention…” – George Washington’s speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs.
-“The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity.” – John Adams
The list goes on and on.
Two can play at the “Founding Fathers religion quotes” game, I realize. I’m sure a few of you will be busily Googling “Thomas Jefferson anti-religion quotes” as we speak. It’s true that some of the Founders were skeptical of “organized religion” (as opposed to disorganized religion, I guess?) but none of them were atheists.
Jefferson was a Deist; a fact that only enhances the case for him being very accepting of God in the public square. Deists believe that the truth of a Divine Creator can be ascertained through observation and reason. In other words, they viewed God as an Absolute Reality (same as any other theist) but disagreed on the application of the reality.
Would Jefferson the Deist think that the governors of men should be required to ignore the Absolute Reality of God?
I doubt it. And the Declaration of Independence seems to indicate otherwise.
After all, we don’t need to cherry pick random statements from dead men, or even analyze the religiosity that is undeniably ingrained in our official laws and customs. We need only think about the philosophy that serves as the foundation of our country. It is a philosophy of Natural Rights. Our Natural Rights come from Natural Law. Natural Law, has been understood as a set of foundational moral laws that are inherent in human beings.
Natural Law, and thus Natural Rights, either come from nature itself, or they come from the Creator of Nature. If they come from nature itself, then all democratic notions are in stark defiance of Natural Law. In nature, the strong survive and the weak are preyed upon. That is the law of the jungle; the law of beasts. We, however, subscribe to the transcendent notion that all humans possess a certain dignity which entitles them to certain liberties.
The dignity exists. It is real. It means something. It comes from somewhere.
That “somewhere” must be God. Just my opinion
Without God, your rights are a perversion of the only True Natural Law — the Law of Mother Nature – and they are conditionally granted to you by bureaucrats and politicians, who can revoke them at any time and for any reason.
The Declaration of Independence might not be a legal document, but it is a philosophical document. It explains that we have rights which are endowed on us by a Creator God. Every good thing about America has grown from this basic starting point.
But… the Separation of Church and State, you guy's always shout.
Should I insult your intelligence by reminding you that no such phrase exists in the Constitution? In fact, the First Amendment makes no mention of “separation,” “church,” or “state,” in any order or combination. The First Amendment puts no limit on religion at all. Instead, it limits the governments ability to interfere in religion, and permanently gives us our right to the “free exercise thereof.”
When Thomas Jefferson used the notorious phrase “Separation of Church and State” in his letter to the Danbury Baptists, he was describing a one-sided wall where the corruption of the Government could not infiltrate and infect the operations of the Church. He only chose those particular words because he was speaking to Baptists. He thought it might resonate with that crowd, considering the founder of the Baptist Church in America, Roger Williams, had written 150 years earlier about the need for a “wall of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the World.”
So when the Supreme Court later used this letter to justify its legal opinion in Everson vs. Board of Education, it was really deciding case law based on part of a sentence written by a 17th century Baptist preacher.
Stellar work there, Your Honors.
Remember, the settlers were escaping a country that persecuted Catholics after King Henry VIII threw a hissy fit when the Pope wouldn’t change Canon Law to suit the king’s habit of divorcing and/or murdering his wives. The Crown was declared the “only supreme head of the Church in England,” and guys like Thomas More were summarily beheaded and chopped into pieces for refusing to recognize the king’s spiritual authority.
In other words, they were leaving a country where government had intruded on religion — not the other way around.
(**NOTE: I’m not saying that most of the North American settlers were Catholics fleeing Henry VIII. I’m only using this as an example of the sort of persecution religious people suffered under British rule.)
But, my atheist friends, I think you know all of this. Or at least some of it.
This country was built by God fearing men and women who intended to protect the very rights that could only come from God Himself. God has always been central to America, both officially and unofficially, publicly and personally. This is the truth. It is a historical reality, and not one that can be reasonably debated.
If you would like to change America into something else, you are free to try. But have the guts to admit what you are doing. Be honest.
Amen?