Thursday, March 28, 2013

Marriage Licenses Are Unconstitutional. Here's Why.

Seth Mason Charleston SC blog 31
With everyone opining about marriage equality, few people are asking the more important question: What business does government have in the *religious* institution of marriage? Think about it: Every state in the union requires a license to marry. And what is a license? According to Webster, it's "a permission granted by competent authority to engage in a business or occupation or in an activity otherwise unlawful". So, one cannot enter into the religious institution of marriage without permission from the state. Here's why that's unconstitutional:

The Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religious covenants. Marriage is a religious covenant and can exist independently of government. In fact, marriage predates government by several thousands of years. Religious ceremonies uniting amorous couples existed as early as 20,000 B.C, eons before the institution of government. The concept of uniting amorous couples is uniquely religious in nature, and the legislation of marriage has only come about because of the spillover of religion into the political system.

The ubiquitous requirement of a state-issued license to marry is an unconstitutional impediment to the free exercise of the uniquely religious practice of uniting amorous people. Requiring a license, the state can deny one the ability to marry even if one's religion permits it. The Unitarian Church, for example, offers ceremonies for same-sex couples. However, the ceremonies are considered a formality only in states that only issue licenses to opposite-sex couples. In other words, government impedes the free exercise of the institution of marriage in the Unitarian Church because it prohibits full nuptial ceremonies from being conducted in most states.

Justice Ginsburg called weddings as a formality "skim milk marriages". The "dairy", the religious institution, can't offer "whole milk" without permission from the government. That requirement is clearly unconstitutional.

Seth Mason, Charleston SC

1 comment:

  1. Historically it has been a religious institution and the government has no place defining what it is exactly. I know its probably very difficult for you to accept that people may believe differently than you Chuck but you really have no right to use the violence of the state to force your beliefs upon others while ironically naming people are calling for freedom "Tyrants." Now I know you probably believe that if we allow this sort of thing god will get pissed and start chucking meteorites at us or some such thing but doesn't he judge each person individually? And so what if he does? I mean don't you wanna go to heaven anyway?


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.