I will only briefly touch on my moral feelings as I want to maintain the focus of this blog post mainly on the legal ramifications. But I do share below to be transparent and simply help understand where I am coming from. So even if you support the supreme court ruling that occurred today. Please at least hear me out on the legal precedents as well as the case law I share to hopefully help illustrate why I have concerns with further invasion into our marriage(s) by our government and the judicial system...
I will start by sharing, as a newly engaged and then newly married young lady, my mother in law would attempt to explain to me the legal implications of a marriage license so I would take that into consideration. It would be years later that I finally began to understand the concepts she was referring to as I began to take a deeper look. Implications of a marriage license that she herself would learn about while studying in paralegal classes at LSU.
Do you realize that a marriage license is a legally binding contract not only between you and your spouse, but the state as an equal partner? Yes, the STATE being an equal partner. Do you think the government has the right or privilege to be that involved into your every day lives? to that degree??? Despite the fact they(the state) did nothing to contribute to the quality and sacredness of your marital union?? The Government doesn't even necessarily share the same religious values you do (no matter what religion you are!). Yet here we are today with that reality, and people celebrating marriage licenses expanded to homosexuals in all 50 states. Do you know that once you have children, the state also considers your children their property according to case law, as they(the state) are equal contract holders in your marriage? I bet the majority of you may not realize that...
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
― Samuel Adams
That is why even some homosexuals themselves (yes they are in the minority) have even at times spoken out against the government defining marriage or the family. *Editing this to add, that even Pro-Homosexual marriage & Libertarian John Stossel has recently said "Look, I’m for gay marriage, but I think this movement has moved from tolerance to totalitarianism — it’s the totalitarianism of the left"
I have no business into your home or your bedroom that is between you and God; if you believe in him or not, and it's certainly not the business of the Government. How can we celebrate further enslavement? Because I hate to break it to you, that is exactly what it is. The second we have to ask the Government for permission to our rights, we have already lost them; let alone allowing them to make religious definitions of marriage for us.
Why can't we have Respect for all religions, like our Constitution sought to give? Respect for those who peacefully & morally object in addition to those who morally accept? Instead we have Religious freedom of the Status Quo only. I don't personally hate homosexuals, but I don't morally agree with it either because of the faith my family adheres to. But! I would never disrespect a homosexual, I was taught to love people as human beings and treat them on an individual basis... I refuse to teach my children to hate, but they will be taught the morality of our faith and can chose as adults to discern what is right and wrong.
Religious freedom of the Status quo alone is NOT true equality. I think there needs to be some middle ground or how about like our Constitution gurantees, the Freedom of Religion for all? My faith also teaches we have a free will and not be ashamed and let our lights shine. I am not trying to shove my faith down anyone's throat either. But asking me to accept and have "tolerance" when there is no tolerance for my own faith? But again I am veering off the subject, so I will leave my personal feelings at that, I would be lying to say I don't have a moral objection. It's not my job or let alone the governments job to issue marriage licenses however!
Let's look deeper and more closely into the consequences of expanding marriage licenses. We all have our own moral feelings, but legally take a look at what this really means... You may not be rejoicing nearly as much when realizing the legal implications...
For the record, had I been given the choice I would not have gotten a marriage license in hindsight and I would have gotten a Covenant marriage instead, which = zero government involvement and the state is not included as an equal partner contractually on the certificate. Only the two individuals that enter into a legal covenant are the parties legally bound to one another in other words, but it is only legally accepted in some states.
Below I will share sources and case law to help explain more thoroughly what a marriage license really is. These are not words of my own.
Courts do not offer “judgment”, only “opinion”. The justices (not judges) of the “Supreme Court” as well offer nothing but opinion, which then becomes what the BAR association considers to be “Public Policy” or public opinion. The BAR copyrights these opinions then misleadingly calls it the “law”.
The side effect of being a consenting citizen of the United States (corporation) is that these copyrighted codes are applied to you with what the U.S.CODE itself calls Prima Facie law (law which derives its authority from presumed consent). Therefore, all branches of government technically operate under presumed law, meaning that the consent of the governed is automatically assumed in all legal matters and decisions based on court opinion.Now Digest that Case law above and really thoroughly think about the implications of a Marriage License. This may not be "close to home" yet for you, but it very well could be one day. Look at the mandatory vaccination laws now set forth in California? If you don't adhere to them, the State has not only a legal interest as a vested member of your marriage contract, but also recently has the State law on their side to force medical procedures that aren't with out risk.
This, unfortunately, applies to all contracts made with or on behalf of the state…
And one of those contracts is called a “Marriage License“.
Yours and your spouses signature on that state-sanctioned and federally registered document signifies a consent-based contract between all three parties – you, your spouse, and the “State“.
But don’t take my word for it… Let’s see what the court system offers in their opinion about this subject?
First, lets visit an Illinois Appellate Court judgment from 1997:
Appellate Court of Illinois, NO. 5-97-0108:“Marriage is a civil contract to which there are three parties-the husband, the wife and the state.“Van Koten v. Van Koten. 154 N.E. 146.Continued…“…When two people decide to get married, they are required to first procure a license from the State. If they have children of this marriage, they are required by the State to submit their children to certain things, such as school attendance and vaccinations. Furthermore, if at some time in the future the couple decides the marriage is not working, they must petition the State for a divorce. Marriage is a three-party contract between the man, the woman, and the State“Linneman v. Linneman, 1 Ill. App. 2d 48, 50, 116 N.E.2d 182, 183 (1953), citing Van Koten v. Van Koten, 323 Ill. 323, 326, 154 N.E. 146 (1926).“The State represents the public interest in the institution of marriage.“Linneman, 1 Ill. App. 2d at 50, 116 N.E.2d at 183 (1953).Continued…“This public interest is what allows the State to intervene in certain situations to protect the interests of members of the family. The State is like a silent partner in the family who is not active in the everyday running of the family but becomes active and exercises its power and authority only when necessary to protect some important interest of family life. Taking all of this into consideration, the question no longer is whether the State has an interest or place in disputes such as the one at bar, but it becomes a question of timing and necessity.“Also, this case law states…“The state has a wide range of power for limiting parental freedom and authority in things affecting the child’s welfare… In fact, the entire familial relationship involves the State.”Prince, 321 U.S. at 167, 64 S.Ct. at 442, 88 L.Ed. 645.(SOURCE: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/il-court-of-appeals/1486817.html)
Information above provided by:
As we further erode our State Constitution and we further destroy our health care, our education as well as the parental and family rights that go along with all of those issues. We disrespect life! Not to mention let our government single-handedly destroy the Free Market! What will we do as a society when the chains that we have placed upon us are more strictly enforced? To the point we are all forced to think of one mindset alone aka the status quo that completely forgets our individual liberty? our individual religious beliefs?
Whether you are rejoicing or not today and even disagree with my faith (yes you still have the right to that in America, for now...) please understand how further involving the government will not save you, but will only further enslave you.