… you believe that government should stop at your door. Here’s what the Republican Liberty Caucus says:
The RLC supports a strict construction of the Bill of Rights as a defense against tyranny, the expansion of those rights to all voluntary consensual conduct under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and the requirements of equal protection and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The RLC resolution, adopted unanimously by the Board of Directors, opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment as clear violation of these principles.
“Marriage is a religious, social and personal matter,” says RLC Advisory Board Director Douglas Lorenz, “that should not be dictated, endorsed, subsidized or restricted by any government. The right to pursue individual happiness is a fundamental liberty that should be free of all state intervention. True love and genuine personal commitment do not need legal support or sanction.” (via Rick Sincere)
Technorati Tags: Marshall Newman Amendment, Virginia Marriage Amendment
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
A reason I can agree with!! (This is one reason I support the National Sales Tax as a replacement for the income tax. The federal government will not need to know whether one is married or not, or how many children one has, in which companies one has invested, and to which charities one has donated.)
However, there is the flip side to that as well. Just as you fear that companies will not be allowed to give domestic-partner benefits if this amendment passes, I suspect that companies in MA and NJ will now be REQUIRED to give such benefits to same-sex couples. This again violates the tenets of the RLC quoted above, and, in my opinion, violates their freedom of religion.
If marriage were completely outside the influence of government, as the RLC apparently desires (as do I), no-one would have considered this amendment necessary. In fact, no-one would oppose it, either, because the government would not recognize ANY marriage in the first place.
At the same time, having marriage completely outside the influence of government also allows for other forms of marriage, such as polygamy and polyandry. I do not know whether the RLC supports THAT.
That Lorenz quote is spot-on. Government should get out of the marriage business, and only recognize civil unions, which would be granted to any two people who asked for them. Religion should have nothing to do with it.
Jack, as usual, is completely off the reservation. What is it with this Republican obsession with polygamy?
Why should the government even recognize civil unions?
By “any two people” do you include siblings?
So based on what you said, Jack, I assume you will be voting NO? 😉 If you believe that marriage should be outside of the scope of government, how does enshrining into our constitution this amendment move us towards that goal?
As for the NJ decision – once again, you need to go back to the basis for that decision, which was the Domestic Partnership Act. (Have you bothered to even read the decision?) Why do you keep insisting that Domestic Partnerships are only for same-sex couples?
Vivian:
If government were not involved in marriage at all, I would vote NO.
Unfortunately, government IS involved in marriage. (But for some reason, my wive cannot renew the plates on my car, and if we register under BOTH names, BOTH of us have to sign the form to renew the plates. What a pain.) Since this is supposedly a government “of, by, and for the People,” the government’s position on marriage represents the people’s position on marriage. Being one of the people, I want the government to represent my position on marriage just as much as you want the government to represent yours.
I do wish the government were not in the marriage business, but we have to deal with the situation as it is.
BTW, I did not say that Domestic Partnerships were ONLY for same-sex couples, but that companies in NJ will now be required to provide benefits to same-sex partners. Just as Catholic Charities in Massachusetts had the choice of violating the law or their religious principles, so it will be with companies in MA and NJ. If the government weren’t in the marriage business, it would not be an issue.
Jack – how does voting YES move the pile forward toward getting the government out of the marriage business? Doesn’t that vote hinder any progress towards that goal?
As for the NJ – again, I have to go back to the already-existing DPA. Does that require employers to provide health insurance for any domestic partners?
I cannot comment on Catholic Charities as I am not familiar with that situation. My guess is that they could opt out of providing benefits at all. Wouldn’t that solve their religious dilemma?
Vivian — You are correct, it does not move the pile toward that goal. However, it does not hinder that progress either. Consider this: if all benefits and requirements of marriage (and of domestic partnerships, civil unions, and cohabitation) were removed from VA law, what effect would this amendment have? None, because the state would not recognize any marriages or civil unions whatsoever.
We will have to wait and see what happens in NJ. Currently, the Domestic Partner Law does not require private companies to provide benefits to the partners of their employees. I suspect that, with the recent decision by the NJSC, companies will be required to provide benefits to same-sex spouses.
As for Catholic Charities of MA, they did, in fact, get out of the adoption business, rather than violate the law or their religion.
I disagree- it does hinder that goal by making it leglislatively impossible to move in that direction. You can’t have it both ways, Jack. Passing the amendment and removing the laws still leaves intact the definition and prohibitions.
What you are saying about Catholic Charities does not match up with what they decided to do. We discussed benefits, not actions. Catholic Charities getting out of the adoption business has nothing to do with providing benefits to its employees.
Businesses decide to offer benefits is a financial decision. If companies are uncomfortable with offer benefits, they can just not offer them at all. Plain and simple. But, as with all employee benefits, they cannot be discriminatory – that is, if they want them to be deductible. Companies often make the financial decision to offer benefits to one group of employees that is not offered to all. Happens every day. The difference is that such payments are not deductible. So if a company wants to offer discriminatory benefits, they can. But they won’t – because they don’t want to lose the tax deduction.
By the way – many companies that DO offer domestic partner benefits right now deal with this issue by making the benefit taxable as additional compensation. That is the only way they could make the benefit deductible.
See Jack, there are choices.
OK, we disagree. If the state does not recognize marriages and civil unions at all, I cannot see how the amendment will make a difference.
Your argument about benefits is yet one more reason to scrap the income tax in favor of a National Sales Tax. The federal (feral) government is using tax law for social engineering, which is exactly what the RLC statement is against.
Why can’t you see that the state cannot pass a law that is in conflict with the constitution? Such a law, on its face, would not be enforceable and would be unconstitutional. The state cannot get out of the marriage business as long as the constitution keeps it firmly in it.
Come on, Jack.You know that is the case.
Let’s take a simple example — 4.1-408. Transfer of business. Removing “spouse” from the definition in subsection “B” would in no way violate this amendment.
Another example: 4.1-200. Exemptions from licensure. Removing “spouse” from section 7 would not violate this amendment, either.
16.1-69.48. Fees and fines. Changing this law to remove “spouse” would also not violate this amendment.
The Virginia Code is all available online (http://legis.state.va.us/Laws/CodeofVa.htm). Find me just one law that, if the word “spouse” were removed, would violate this amendment.
Jack – you are mixing apples and oranges again, just like you did in your Catholic Charities argument. We were not discussing references to spouses – we were discussing recognition of marriages and civil unions.
You have not acknowleged that a law cannot be passed in violation of the constitution. Find all the obscure references to spouse that you want to – it doesn’t change this fact.
It seems like to me you are working awfully hard to try to justify passing the amendment when you are supportive of government not being in the marriage business. You can’t reconcile it, Jack. Because it just doesn’t compute.
Just as you fear that companies will not be allowed to give domestic-partner benefits if this amendment passes, I suspect that companies in MA and NJ will now be REQUIRED to give such benefits to same-sex couples.
Jack’s question deserves an answer, if he cares to listen:
Under the Massachusetts ruling, private companies are not necessarily required to offer benefits to same-sex couples as such. But if they offer benefits to married opposite-sex couples, they’ll probably have to offer married same-sex couples the same benefits under the same conditions. (The NJ ruling is not so well-defined, and since the state government may give same-sex couples a separate status, it is possible that a few private companies may choose not to recognize said couples as “married.”)
Of course, most major companies already offer benefits, such as health insurance, to same-sex partners. The only difference the Massachusetts ruling made is that now these companies can require Massachusetts employees in same-sex relationships to get married before receiving benefits.
Naturally, none of this has any bearing whatsoever on Ballot Question #1. And by the way, we don’t live in a “dictatorship of the proletariat,” where the will of the people reigns supreme. We live in a republic, where the rights of the individual frequently trump the majority. That’s a good thing, Jack, and if you’re a praying man, you ought to thank whichever god you believe for it. Right now.
Tim – thanks for jumping in. Living in Virginia, I’m not up to speed on what MA offers or doesn’t offer. NJ I know a bit more, but not completely, as I have clients there.
Vivan — we are talking about the ideal, as espoused in the RLC statement you posted. In that ideal, NO MARRIAGES would be recognized by the state, nor would the state impose any restrictions on marriage. There would be no “rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.” Therefore, the amendment would have no effect whatsoever.