Marriage anarchy
Pre-2015, politicians would go around saying marriage—the union between a man and a woman—isn't in the U.S. Constitution. For many, this was a convenient skirt around the question: should we redefine marriage? Although none but the farthest fringe of America wanted a radical-Marxist social upheaval, and large majorities voted to protect marriage, the political class decided to not defend the bedrock institution of all institutions.
Republicans disguised their apathy with these words: "Let the states decide."
Decoded: "I will do nothing."
By and large, the deception worked. Pro-family votes fell like rain. The fakers' spell was cast over a well-meaning electorate, who became convinced that not only should the states decide, but they must, because marriage is not a federal matter.
Justice Antonin Scalia absorbed this view as his final legacy. Before his death, his dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges did little but sigh that the majority opinion tread upon "democracy," of all things. This, from the same jurist who ruled against a California law designed to protect minors from explicit video games (Brown v. EMA, 2010). Scalia didn't care for the will of the people in that case. What really made Scalia tick was laissez-faire libertarianism, which he at times wed to democracy until that failed his purpose.
In Obergefell, Scalia took up the "do whatever you want" banner: "The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me," Scalia began. "[I]t is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage." Because he offered no defense of natural marriage, Scalia's ambivalence was destined arrive at the majority opinion, just by a different route.
Scalia continued: "The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes," presumably because of his view of the Tenth Amendment. Thus, "It would be surprising to find a prescription regarding marriage in the Federal Constitution."
But the Tenth Amendment doesn't bestow anarchy upon the people. Quite the opposite. It recognizes powers. These powers must be legitimate, and not anarchistic. States have no power to redefine words on a whim—for example, a state cannot decide that "liberty" means "slavery," or "adult" means "child," or "girl" means "boy." States are bound by the rules of reality: words mean things. Words must be bound to a universal meaning, an a priori knowledge, an inherent sense, or there can be no law.
Scalia erred in reading into the Tenth Amendment a libertine's manifesto. He misconstrued "powers" as including anarchy—by mental gymnastics that included severing the Amendment from its stated purpose: "We the People of the United States, in order to . . ."
Like a legally-married couple obligated to one another, the states are themselves in a legal union, bound by the purposes declared in the U.S. Constitution.
And one of those stated purposes is to "insure domestic tranquility."
We cannot have domestic tranquility without protection of the domicile. Nor can we have contractual agreements (such as marriage) in the states if marriage has no interstate safeguard. The natural reality of marriage is implicitly one of the core bases for the full faith and credit clause in the Constitution. You can't have marriage contracts voided just because you left the state: so the states must be united in one legal definition, established by the need for its defense and not by anarchy.
To be protected by the states, one definition must be recognized, and a public record must be maintained for each marriage. That is the reason for the government's role. Domestic tranquility is only possible when states are united in defending the natural family.
Republicans disguised their apathy with these words: "Let the states decide."
Decoded: "I will do nothing."
By and large, the deception worked. Pro-family votes fell like rain. The fakers' spell was cast over a well-meaning electorate, who became convinced that not only should the states decide, but they must, because marriage is not a federal matter.
Justice Antonin Scalia absorbed this view as his final legacy. Before his death, his dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges did little but sigh that the majority opinion tread upon "democracy," of all things. This, from the same jurist who ruled against a California law designed to protect minors from explicit video games (Brown v. EMA, 2010). Scalia didn't care for the will of the people in that case. What really made Scalia tick was laissez-faire libertarianism, which he at times wed to democracy until that failed his purpose.
In Obergefell, Scalia took up the "do whatever you want" banner: "The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me," Scalia began. "[I]t is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage." Because he offered no defense of natural marriage, Scalia's ambivalence was destined arrive at the majority opinion, just by a different route.
Scalia continued: "The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes," presumably because of his view of the Tenth Amendment. Thus, "It would be surprising to find a prescription regarding marriage in the Federal Constitution."
But the Tenth Amendment doesn't bestow anarchy upon the people. Quite the opposite. It recognizes powers. These powers must be legitimate, and not anarchistic. States have no power to redefine words on a whim—for example, a state cannot decide that "liberty" means "slavery," or "adult" means "child," or "girl" means "boy." States are bound by the rules of reality: words mean things. Words must be bound to a universal meaning, an a priori knowledge, an inherent sense, or there can be no law.
Scalia erred in reading into the Tenth Amendment a libertine's manifesto. He misconstrued "powers" as including anarchy—by mental gymnastics that included severing the Amendment from its stated purpose: "We the People of the United States, in order to . . ."
Like a legally-married couple obligated to one another, the states are themselves in a legal union, bound by the purposes declared in the U.S. Constitution.
And one of those stated purposes is to "insure domestic tranquility."
We cannot have domestic tranquility without protection of the domicile. Nor can we have contractual agreements (such as marriage) in the states if marriage has no interstate safeguard. The natural reality of marriage is implicitly one of the core bases for the full faith and credit clause in the Constitution. You can't have marriage contracts voided just because you left the state: so the states must be united in one legal definition, established by the need for its defense and not by anarchy.
To be protected by the states, one definition must be recognized, and a public record must be maintained for each marriage. That is the reason for the government's role. Domestic tranquility is only possible when states are united in defending the natural family.