Winner of the Advocates for Self-Government Lights of Liberty Award!                           

 

                    The Freedom Files

"Laissez-faire, laissez-passer, le monde va de lui-meme."

DIY since 2001…

Hello Freedomphiles!  You know, every time the Democrats and Republicans get together, it's as if the storm clouds have parted, the flowers are blooming, a bird is serenading sweetly perched atop Snow White's delicate finger, and a Viennese nanny is spinning in the grandiose splendor of the Swiss Alps.  You see Tom Daschle and Trent Lott right next to each other, smiling.  You see Bush and Kennedy arm-in-arm.  You see Tom DeLay and Dick Gephardt shaking hands, and as Cyrus from The Warriors said so eloquently, the truly amazing thing is, "nobody's...wasting...nobody."

 

No, they smile with bipartisan benevolence, congratulate each other for putting America first, and make all of our lives much worse.

 

Whatever happened to gridlock?  When Jim Jeffords jumped ship, I thought good--maybe they won't be able to get anything done, and if they can't get anything done, they can't do anything bad.

 

But, no.  They had to get all touchy-feely, bipartisan.  I don't know if there's a more vile word in all of politics.  Everyone is pushing and shoving like it's a Mr.. Olympia pose-down, their most-muscular pose being the pose of a "moderate," the bigger person who can reach across party lines and come back unscathed to help Americans in their struggle to be less free and more dependent.

 

It is this moderate middle--this doe-eyed bipartisan innocence--that has brought us the USA Patriot Act, which struck the deadliest blow to civil liberties in my lifetime; the Campaign Finance Reform law, a direct assault on the first and fifth amendments; the education bill, which put even more power in the hands of the same stupid headmaster that ruined education in the first place; and now the Federal Marriage Amendment.

 

Sponsored by Reps. Ronnie Shows (D-Miss.), Dave Phelps (D-Ill.), Ralph Hall (D-Texas), Sue Myrick (R-N.C.), Jo Ann Davis (R-Va.), and Chris Cannon (R-Utah), the Federal Marriage Amendment states "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.  Neither the Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

 

According to the article in Newsmax.com, Shows said, "The Federal Marriage Amendment is a reasonable and measured response to an ongoing and accelerating abuse of power by the American courts."  In a way, he's right--the federal courts have been abusing their power for quite some time now.  The broad and incorrect interpretation the Supreme Court has given to the commerce clause and the general welfare clause of the Constitution has given the federal legislature powers they were never intended to have and broad authority to do things they were never supposed to be able to do.  It's actually a little refreshing to see Congress doing something--no matter how abhorrently repellant--the right way. 

 

The real problem here is lack of vision.  Throughout the history of this country--particularly the last century--people have become less and less aware of The Declaration of Independence and its message.  It was a statement of our entire political theory, the principles upon which our nation was founded: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..." 

 

What this means is that we have the right to self-determination, that we are sovereign individuals, free to steer the course of our own destinies, free from the abuse of government power, and that governments are to be put into place only to keep other people from violating these rights, namely by protecting us from violence, theft, fraud, and by enforcing contracts. Which brings us to marriage.  In religious terms, marriage is a covenant between you, your spouse, and God.  In legal terms, marriage is a contract between you and your spouse, enforced by the state.  A contract is a contract, limited only by the legality of promised actions and the informed consent of the signers. 

 

To tell two men, two women, or a group of men and women that they cannot enter into a consensual contract is a disgusting and arbitrary abuse of power, and antithetical to the principles of our Constitution.  It is like telling a Jew and a Catholic they cannot start a business, or a telling a black person they can't apply for a bank loan.  When a government attempts to protect the sanctity of marriage, it crosses a line, robbing individuals of their liberty and blurring the lines between church and state. 

 

It is the job of each of the various religions and each of the various individuals to set their own standard for the sanctity of marriage.  There are some religions that allow for polygamy and homosexual marriage, and for the state to step in and rob a person of their right to freely practice their religion is the worst kind of oppression.

 

The way it should work is that a marriage contract should be drawn up by an attorney and signed by all the participants, and then the state enforces that contract and all its provisions.  If people want a ceremony where they vow to uphold that contract--but in a sappy, sentimental way--so be it.  And if they feel, as I do, that it is a covenant between them, their spouse, and God, they can make those vows in a church in front of God.

 

Churches would have their own contracts as well--probably a standard one for most--that they would register with the state for enforcement after the ceremony.  And the church could choose to marry or not marry anyone at their own discretion.  That promise under those conditions will be subject only to that particular faith's interpretation of the will of God, but the specifics of the actual contract will be enforced by the state.  Just the same, the church can choose to dissolve a union or not if it wants to, but legally, the members may do it at any time.

 

If a gay couple, a straight couple, or any mixture thereof are refused marriage by their church, they can go to a different church, remain unwed, or get married civilly.  The only state stipulation should be that every member of the union has to give their informed consent.

 

Not only is this the right way to do it, it is the only way to stay consistent with our Constitutional principles, because, as philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand put it, "A private individual may do anything except that which is legally forbidden; a government official may do nothing except that which is legally permitted."  And our government is not permitted to tell us who we can and cannot marry.  As Libertarian spokesman George Getz said in the article, "isn't listening to Capitol Hill politicians lecture us about the sanctity of marriage a bit like listening to Mike Tyson praise the virtue of chivalry?  These people aren't exactly moral paragons."

 

Indeed.

 

Until next time, make every day a good one!

 

Rick

 

If you liked what you read, please forward this to a friend.  If you've been forwarded this and would like to be on the list, have comments good or bad, would like more information about Libertarianism, or have received this in error and would like to be removed from my list of freedom lovers, e-mail me at:

[email protected]

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws