Response to Mike C: For state purposes - yes. Just like if I move to or visit California, my Georgia carry permit is invalid even though bearing arms is a constitutional right. Or if I am an independent trucker in Georgia, I can't contract with a transport firm in California.
But only certain marriages are dissolved. Just the gay ones. Be like saying, although you have a constitutional right to bear arms and have a valid permit in Montana; this is Georgia and you're black so your permit is invalidated.
That argument is so good that I could almost accept it. However, the states and the feds have a number of laws which serve only one purpose - to promote societal norms. For instance, both state and federal laws treat polygamy as a felony. It's good for me since I've been married to the same woman for more than 60 years, but some people may feel deprived and overly restricted by those puritanical laws.
With respect to your valid point, maybe it's time to remove marriage from the legal framework in the USA. Marriage is a theological construct that is sacred only for true believers who consider a family to be the ultimate earthly experience. At one time, the capability of men and women to successfully provide for a family was nowhere near being equal. That is no longer the case - at least legally. I do not believe that because there is no substitute for mothers who bear children and care for them.
Maybe the laws should be revised to define the responsibilities of each party in a relationship to provide for the offspring, either through adoption or natural birth, of that relationship. Remove the marriage implications for tax purposes and Social Security and Medicare and spousal benefits in the insurance laws. Every person for himself or herself or itself as the case may be. Unravelling a thousand years of tradition-based laws can get complicated.
There is a positive societal argument for marriage and family and it’s not rooted in sacredness. The family is a whole economic unit. It produces children and raises them up to be adults who then replicate the family model. It is far more efficient than the government because of emotional attachment and sacrifice. It projects the values of the parents into the future as kids grow up. The death of marriage leads to lower birth rates, poorer mental health, and economic inefficiencies, as we see today. Now keeping marriage monogamous, or at least serially polygamous, helps with the balance of men and women: there are ever so slightly more women (how does nature *do* that?). If there were less women then men, polygamy would be required never mind preferred. In any case, it is in the state’s interest to promote the best cultural norm of marriage as it tends to self optimize.
I did not place a limit on the ratio of either sex involved. I tend to think that more men than women would devolve to violence. Men and women can be possessive, but men are more likely to become physically aggressive.
As I said. To promote societal norms. Maybe I should have included "desirable" as a modifier. But we mostly agree. For sure we agree on natural selection being more efficient than the government.
Why should it be a state matter? If a couple is married in California, and move to say Texas or some other state whose legislature decides to ban gay marriage, does that mean their marriage should be dissolved?
Individuals have been protected by SCOTUS precedent, thus far.
If anything, religious groups should use the term "holy union" and leave marriage to be the civil legal term as it has been used for civil legal purposes since at least 2000BC. One can ostensibly enter a religious union without completing the civil legal procedures, either by choice or due to lack of recognition by the state (or absence of a state entirely).
Just pleased that we have legislators actually legislating on this topic as opposed to kicking the can to an executive agency or the courts.
Response to Mike C: For state purposes - yes. Just like if I move to or visit California, my Georgia carry permit is invalid even though bearing arms is a constitutional right. Or if I am an independent trucker in Georgia, I can't contract with a transport firm in California.
But only certain marriages are dissolved. Just the gay ones. Be like saying, although you have a constitutional right to bear arms and have a valid permit in Montana; this is Georgia and you're black so your permit is invalidated.
That argument is so good that I could almost accept it. However, the states and the feds have a number of laws which serve only one purpose - to promote societal norms. For instance, both state and federal laws treat polygamy as a felony. It's good for me since I've been married to the same woman for more than 60 years, but some people may feel deprived and overly restricted by those puritanical laws.
With respect to your valid point, maybe it's time to remove marriage from the legal framework in the USA. Marriage is a theological construct that is sacred only for true believers who consider a family to be the ultimate earthly experience. At one time, the capability of men and women to successfully provide for a family was nowhere near being equal. That is no longer the case - at least legally. I do not believe that because there is no substitute for mothers who bear children and care for them.
Maybe the laws should be revised to define the responsibilities of each party in a relationship to provide for the offspring, either through adoption or natural birth, of that relationship. Remove the marriage implications for tax purposes and Social Security and Medicare and spousal benefits in the insurance laws. Every person for himself or herself or itself as the case may be. Unravelling a thousand years of tradition-based laws can get complicated.
There is a positive societal argument for marriage and family and it’s not rooted in sacredness. The family is a whole economic unit. It produces children and raises them up to be adults who then replicate the family model. It is far more efficient than the government because of emotional attachment and sacrifice. It projects the values of the parents into the future as kids grow up. The death of marriage leads to lower birth rates, poorer mental health, and economic inefficiencies, as we see today. Now keeping marriage monogamous, or at least serially polygamous, helps with the balance of men and women: there are ever so slightly more women (how does nature *do* that?). If there were less women then men, polygamy would be required never mind preferred. In any case, it is in the state’s interest to promote the best cultural norm of marriage as it tends to self optimize.
I mean polygamy in the sense of two men to one woman. Like in Heinlein’s “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.”
I did not place a limit on the ratio of either sex involved. I tend to think that more men than women would devolve to violence. Men and women can be possessive, but men are more likely to become physically aggressive.
As I said. To promote societal norms. Maybe I should have included "desirable" as a modifier. But we mostly agree. For sure we agree on natural selection being more efficient than the government.
.
Marriage has a long history as a legal and social construct: it is ahistorical to state that it sprang from religion.
Thanks. Made me look.
https://theweek.com/articles/528746/origins-marriage#:~:text=The%20first%20recorded%20evidence%20of%20marriage%20ceremonies%20uniting,little%20to%20do%20with%20love%20or%20with%20religion.
Once again, the Feds meddle in what should be state matters.
Why should it be a state matter? If a couple is married in California, and move to say Texas or some other state whose legislature decides to ban gay marriage, does that mean their marriage should be dissolved?
See my response.
Religious orgs are protected in plain text of the bill's language, see https://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/status/1597359953072853003 for highlighted image.
Individuals have been protected by SCOTUS precedent, thus far.
If anything, religious groups should use the term "holy union" and leave marriage to be the civil legal term as it has been used for civil legal purposes since at least 2000BC. One can ostensibly enter a religious union without completing the civil legal procedures, either by choice or due to lack of recognition by the state (or absence of a state entirely).