- DOMA is meant to protect states who don't want to recognize neutered marriage licenses from having to do so.
- DOMA further makes clear that the federal government doesn't and won't recognized neutered marriage licenses.
The first question gets into a haystack of federalism, which for my purposes can be defined as a way of preserving local sovereignty in the presence of a unifying authority. The second point is strategically just tipping the hand of the federal government to let people know it favors marriage as an institution explicitly rooted in a relationship which is reproductive. Legislatively, it fully protects the unifying authority, yet for the states it does little more than show that card.
So when Playful asks if that is enough, or no longer useful, it is not to say those points are at all bad. I read Playful to say that there needs to be more movement now from that starting point. And I'll agree with that.
We all know the direction we are heading. The goal is simply to improve and increase the responsibility that people take in having children. The improvement we'd like to see is that the father fully engages in that responsibility with the mother he chose to engage in the behavior with that creates children, that they share an equal and full interest in fulfilling their potential for influence for good as the two people who the child most naturally identifies with. When that happens, when the child sees the interest and devotion of each other, they get the most precious gift two parents can offer, they get a full sense of their own self-worth.
I've never seen anyone argue against that goal. The question is, how do we get there? Or in the case of Playful Walrus's questions, how can the government most influence that to happen? Was DOMA enough? Was it a good move at the time, can we or should we do more now?
As far as the federal government is concerned, what is the best next step?
I'd argue that the best next step is to initiate the Federal Marriage Amendment, for some very obvious reasons and some very ulterior reasons.
The obvious reasons are pretty clear. When the government recognizes responsible procreation, that gives the strongest message to the public to be responsible parents. While there are many families banding together to do the best they can, the first solution should always be for the people who potentially become parents together to do so as responsibly as they can. That is the fountain of all human life on our planet, and that fountain needs to be tended.
But my ulterior motives are to encourage more education and consideration on this issue. By issuing a constitutional convention over the course of years, the heat will be off the President, and off of Congress, and onto the people. The spotlight of political interest money, as well as lay advocacy like ours are Opine, produce an ability to educate and debate on the topic. And believe me, there is a lot of education that needs to happen in this debate.
Whatever end happens from the FMA debate, the immediate benefits for the White House, Congress, the states and the public at large are potentially huge on this issue. And while it may not lead to passage, the product of the debate will lend a much clearer way to move forward.
When I consider what a FMA should entail, I ask myself if the states who have neutered marriage licensing, especially legislatively, should be "allowed" to keep things that way? That is my federalism at work. I think states who have neutered their marriage licensing have made a huge mistake, but I tend to think it is theirs to make (not morally, but Constitutionally. Perhaps the FMA could be written in a way to make it clear that the judiciary can't find a "right" to a neutered marriage license?
ReplyDeleteWhich takes me to other things I tend to think about when considering a FMA. It is kind of irritating, actually, because it shouldn't be needed in the first place. But the issue touches on things like the role of judiciary, the natural rights of children, and the authority of natural parents.
I think children have a natural right to a mother and father, but obviously that doesn't stop incarceration of parents or obligate government replacement of a deceased parent. I think it means things like there is no right for an unmarried person, or a same-sex partnered person, to adopt (certainly not on the same level as a married couple), use third party reproduction or IVF, etc. Definitely, taxpayer dollars should not support those things. But I lean towards the idea that law should prevent transactions, especially business ones, that do such a thing... that condemn a child to a motherless or fatherless childhood.
So I start drifting towards a "Natural Family Rights Amendment" or something like that, which protects children, protects biological parents from losing custody when the other biological parent takes off with a same-sex partner, protects bride+groom couples from being demoted, etc.
It's all stuff that shouldn't be needed in the first place, sadly. It should be obvious that bride+groom coupling should be set aside as ideal and special, that children are generally best raised in such a situation, and that this natural family should have internal authority and protection from undue intrusion by government.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteSorry John, remember you are on our Guest Front Page post policy. Meaning you cannot hijack threads, but you are welcome to post it in the comments with a note "Please put this on the main page".
ReplyDeleteI'll delete the comment and put it in a front page guest post.