I would argue that it is more a state-system than the state itself. The question of “What is the state?” is a very big question indeed. And sociologists, philosophers, political scientists, and historians have poured a lot of ink over it. While it would certainly be interesting to have this conversation here, I would caution that it can quickly hijack this thread. Just sayin’.
As I stated before:
Not true at all. The reason gay activism has had as much success is precisely because of federalism. Changing the tax code at the federal level totally by-passes the federalist process and goes directly to Congress. It is almost impossible to make such a drastic change to the tax code. Hence, why the state route was endorsed and DOMA was challenged on the basis of equal protection under the law. DOMA would not have fallen if civil unions were granted tax exempted status at the federal level. But as I have said before, reforming the tax code is almost impossible.
The United States Tax code is changed almost daily. That is why it has grown from 300 pages in 1912 to 73954 today.
Many jurisdictions around the world have amended tax and other laws so the provisions that apply to married people also applied to civil unions. That fact did not see a reduction in demand for SSM, but rather saw the basis of that demand shift entirely away from such matters. Same Sex couples, fundamentally, want their arrangement accepted as a normal and natural state, with the same endorsement by the State / community as Marriage. They needed “marriage” to apply to them.
Amendments and corporate loopholes are added almost daily. But going through the entire code and rewriting the language is a different matter entirely.
Has it ever occurred to you that civil unions aren’t granted this sort of tax exempt status in the federal tax code precisely because the “civil union” route was pro-gay to begin with? And in all honestly, I don’t care if they want their lifestyle accepted as normal. You nor I have to accept that. But blocking the path for their equal treatment under the law is abhorrent. The state has never advocated “marriage” as some sort of metaphysical sacrament. The US law has always regarded it as a contract. There is already a disconnect between Catholic or religious “natural law theory” and what the law deems. Therefore, changing marriage in the law to include homosexual couples does not change anything on your end of the deal.
It would not take a rewrite of the entire tax code. A simple amendment would do.
At present, no one, including social scientists, philosophers, and historians, can predict with any certainty what the long-term ramifications of widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage will be. And judges are certainly not equipped to make such an assessment.
And calling gay sexual relationdhips Marriage is abhorrent too. You are at risk of burying the “reality” of marriage beneath the legal framework. Is the latter all you can see now?
Actually it would require much more than a simple amendment. You’re right, ultimate sovereignty rests with the people. And since it is so, we should not deny the right of association to homosexuals, nor equal treatment under the law.
What reality are you speaking of? Again, you are saying your view of marriage is real, when in fact the whole idea is simply a social construction. You can argue that it is real in a metaphysical sense, but metaphysics not something that can be empirically tested at all. All we have to work with is the cultural construction, not the metaphysics.
I’m open to the idea you suggest, but there are important social protections that the State ought to afford, most commonly when children are involved. Some framework is required.
Of course we should not deny rights to people who those rights apply. That is why the Supreme Court did not rule on the equal protection clause in DOMA.
It is not that. I fear judges legalizing things they know nothing about.
If it is so important that 2 men can marry, why are all the wonderful tax benefits you are fighting over restricted to people in sexual relationships?
You need to follow the conversation a little more closely before posting.You do realize that this is Catholic Answers forum, Don’t you?
What about the due process clause which says that states may not “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law”? That was the basis of Loving vs Virginia in which the Supreme Court decision stated that “the freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” To “deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as racial classifications” was “directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment…Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.”
Homosexuality is not a “lifestyle” any more than heterosexuality is a “lifestyle.” The same harmful activities which many conservatives often associate with homosexuality could just as easily be engaged in by heterosexual couples which indeed they are by some heterosexual couples. So the thing to do would be to encourage both same-sex and opposite-sex couples to have life-long monogamous relationships.
Do you wonder why Loving vs Virginia was NOT cited in U.S. vs Windsor (DOMA).?