The Mayans were Right.

Filed in National by on December 12, 2012

The world is going to end in 9 days. How do I know this? Well, because I agree with something Glenn Beck said, and what he said was actually understandable, logical, and reasonable.

“Let me take the pro-gay marriage people and the religious people — I believe that there is a connecting dot there that nobody is looking at, and that’s the Constitution… The question is not whether gay people should be married or not. The question is why is the government involved in our marriage? … What we need to do, I think, as people who believe in the Constitution, is to start looking for allies who believe in the Constitution and expand our own horizon. We would have the ultimate big tent,” – Glenn Beck.

I have always said that the government, any government, i.e. state or federal, should not be involved in marriage at all. Marriage was a religious institution and it should not have been interfered with at all. But centuries ago, governments did get involved with marriage, and they started issuing Marriage Licenses, and then started issuing rules and regulations as to who can get married or not, and then they even started performing marriage ceremonies. So the rubicon has been crossed.

My solution has been to get government out of marriage in one fell swoop, and give the “institution of marriage” back to the churches, and it sounds like Beck agrees with my thinking. Who should be more scared, me or Glenn Beck? Any way, the solution has been to have the local government issue Union Certificates to any two consenting non-related human adults, regardless of gender, race, or religion or any other criteria. So if a heterosexual couple wanted to get married, they get a Union Certificate. If a homosexual couple wanted to get married, they get a Union Certificate. If a couple wants to get married in a Church, they must find a church that wants to marry them according to the rules and traditions of their faith. If a couple wants to get married elsewhere, they can do so as well, and Judges and Justices of the Peace and other ministers can perform those ceremonies.

Or we Chief Justice Roberts and a majority of the Supreme Court can recognize a constitutional right to marry regardless of orientation and then we can be done with the whole business.

Further evidence of the coming Mayan apocalpyse was revealed when a Republican Governor of a very very very Republican state announced yesterday that he is going to implement Obamacare and build a health insurance exchange in his state.

[Idaho Gov. C.L. "Butch"] Otter made clear that the decision is not an endorsement of the law, arguing in a press release that the decision would mean Idaho would create the exchange rather than having the federal government do it for the state.

“This decision does not signal support for the law or how it is being implemented. However, it does reflect my continued determination for Idaho to be actively engaged in making the best possible choices – to the degree we are allowed – in the interest of more accessible and affordable health care for our citizens.”

And here is yet another Republican governor sounding a little bit sane:

“I believe that federalism is, first and foremost, a protection of liberty. And I would just hope that people who say they believe that would be consistent … Without endorsing what they [Colorado and Washington] did, I think they had, under our system, a right to do it … A lot of the worst problems we’ve got in this country, and some of the worst divisions we have, came when the right of citizens in community and in polities, like their state, had those rights usurped by the federal government. And having disagreed with it when it happened on other occasions, I sure wouldn’t call for it here,” – Mitch Daniels.

The end is near.

About the Author ()

Comments (9)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. puck says:

    The Constitution is silent on marriage as far as I know, which means it is up to the states. But I believe the Constitution also requires states and the Federal government to honor each other’s contracts, so it’s DOMA that is unconstitutional I think.

    Government has to be involved in marriage in order to have any meaningful contract law or legal protections. And since marriage has a place in contract law, the law must also provide a definition of marriage.

    Pension law recognizes marriage – for example, ERISA has a provision to prevent a pension-holder from naming somebody other than his own spouse (his mistress for example) as beneficiary without the spouse’s consent.

  2. Dave says:

    “Government has to be involved in marriage in order to have any meaningful contract law or legal protections. And since marriage has a place in contract law, the law must also provide a definition of marriage.”

    It really doesn’t need to. Just do a global search and replace (Cntrl F). Find “marriage” replace with “union certificate” and select replace all. Je suis fini.

    @DD “… any two consenting non-related human adults, regardless of gender, race, or religion or any other criteria.”

    Why non-related? How about cousins? How brother and sister? Remember this is contract law not bedroom law. Why discriminate against anyone because of the accident of birth? In some states (not Delaware) it is legal for first cousins to marry. So why non-related?

    Why just two? Where do we draw the line? How about unions that may involve multiple parties? I believe the line should be two, but I have no logical explanation unless I shift into the social sphere by saying that “two” is the natural order of things or that I don’t believe in polygamy, yadda, yadda. So while I agree with the limit of two, I can’t provide a rationale for that limit except my personal preference/beliefs.

  3. Delaware Dem says:

    Well Dave, there are obvious societal and health related reasons why first cousins and brothers and sisters are not allowed to marry. Incest is a crime, and so is bigamy.

    So either you are just playing Devil’s Advocate here or are you are trying to equate gay marriage and thus homosexuality to polygamy and incest, and if you are doing the latter, you know what you can go do with yourself.

  4. cassandra_m says:

    It really doesn’t need to.

    Actually it does. Marriage has sacramental meaning in some religions. Making clear the split — that the state’s interest is in the contract, while the sacrament is the business of the church is pretty much the entire point of the exercise. The basis of the “one man, one woman” rhetoric is entirely religious and separating the state’s interests from your religion’s interests is the path to some clarity.

  5. EllieMurasaki says:

    What if an atheist couple wants to get married? What happens to them if the only way to get married is with church approval? I mean, the Unitarian Universalists would have them, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that they would have the UUs.

  6. Dave says:

    @DD,

    Whoa!!!! I was referring to “union certificates.” Who said anything about marriage? Now please go back and reread my questions, which essentially said:

    Why (can only) non-related (obtain) (union certificates)?
    Why (only) just two (people) (can obtain) (union certificates)?

    Context is everything. I wish some of you would not be so free with the “you know what you can go do with yourself.” Either that or try and remember who some of the commenters are and how they typically comment.

    Further, if it is possible you can check the archives here and see that I had the exact same proposal probably more than a year ago and asked myself the exact same questions that I posed to you.

  7. Joe Cass says:

    Dave, throwing shit at a wall to see if it sticks is not how society functions. Laws, codes and moral standards exist for better or worse. If you want to make equality a gravity stricken turd, just say so.

  8. Dave says:

    What makes you think I was throwing anything at a wall? I was asking boundary questions that are legitimate and necessary. The question is where do you drawn a line. What are the moral standards? Who sets them? If standards exist for worse should we keep them? It’s easy to answer when they exist for better. Your comment actually doesn’t even make sense to me in context of the proposal.

  9. Joe Cass–

    “Dave, throwing shit at a wall to see if it sticks is not how society functions.”

    Actually, that’s exactly how societies function.

Switch to our mobile site