For Family, Home, and Freedom: Abolish State Licensing of Marriage and all Federal Welfare Conditions Mandating State Domestic Relations Law

I have been saying the same thing about Britney Spears for several years, and you could say the same thing about several dozen other Hollywood Celebrities.  It remains true that nothing is more offensive to the sanctity of marriage (and to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment) than the requirement of a State Marriage License and the existence of State Family and “Domestic Relations” Courts.  

         However, the degree to which the mainstream media permits these extremely high priced hookers to serve as an inspiration to the rest of the world’s population has just got to be evidence that the media is participating in the plan to abolish the family, private property, and the “Bourgeois State.”  Together, the Family Courts and the Media do indeed make a mockery out of marriage, and these are literally the “models” for how everyone else thinks it’s “Normal” to behave. 
        In my opinion, then, the subject of marriage is one in which strict construction of the constitution leads to a victory for the conservative religious right as well as the socially liberal left:
          Conservatives can have their traditional marriages entirely governed by their Churches, with no state interference.  Liberals likewise can have their non-traditional marriages governed according to contract without any hint of Sacramental “marriage” or any involuntary imposition of anyone else’s religious standards on them.  The Courts of the State will be available to adjudicate disputes arising under partnership contracts without discrimination or religious establishment (or moral judgment) of any kind (except with regard to fundamental notions of equity).
         All sections of the United States “Public Health & Welfare Code” (Title 42) which mandate or place conditions upon Welfare based on State conformity with Federal Law be repealed and/or declared unconstitutional, and that almost every provision of every State Family Code or Domestic Relations Code likewise be declared unconstitutional as a direct infringement on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as integrated to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.
               In short, I also propose that no court could ever again be involved in a family dispute except to construe a written marital or “domestic partnership” contract, will, or trust.   I not only do not believe that Gay Couples should not be allowed Marriage Licenses by the State, I do not believe that anyone should be allowed Marriage Licenses by the State: gay, straight, or hermaphrodite/transsexual.  The State must be BANNED from the bedrooms (and living and dining and breakfast rooms) of the people all together (we’ll leave the propriety of state regulation of attics, rec-rooms, garages and laundry rooms for another discussion).  
          Only Churches should be allowed to perform marriages and/or to judge their validity.   Traditional Roman Catholics can choose to be bound by Papal laws concerning marriage and divorce.  Traditional Anglicans can choose to be bound by the Book of Common Prayer adopted by Parliament in the time of Elizabeth I in the Four Hundred Year Old Language (whose quatuor-centennial is being celebrated this very year and month) of the Bible as published in 1611 under King James I.  But Unitarians and Universalists, as well as Pagans and Wiccans, will be free to celebrate gay marriages if they wish.   The Mormons may reestablish Polygamy if they wish (so long as no one is ever coerced into it without legal consent, and the state will still preserve the right to establish uniform ages and other tests of mental competence of contractual capacity, including the capacity to agree to sex and marriage).
          The Civil Courts will continue to adjudicate marriage and/or civil partnership agreements as they would ANY OTHER CONTRACT.  The Statute of Frauds adopted under Charles II will continue to apply to marriage and all other contracts affecting real estate or duties to be performed over more than one year in time, but this is merely and really a secular standard for the enforcement of any contract. Any couple (of any orientation) without the literacy or common sense to create a written contract will simply be left “on their own” to deal with “partnership breakup” problems.  
                This is how marriage always was historically, since the most ancient times, and it is how marriage ought to be now: a contract to which the “loving couple” and their families are parties, with friends as witnesses.  If these people cannot work out an agreement that’s fair and reasonable under the circumstances, the state should not impose “contracts of adhesion” on them.
If you would like to help the fight for “corny old values” like Truth, Justice, and the American Way, for Family, Home, and Freedom, and to add one Senator for the Bill of Rights and against Indefinite Detention, against the PATRIOT ACT, and against the use of United States Troops in this Country against its own citizens, please support Charles Edward Lincoln, III, for U.S. Senator from California.  We are fighting one of the most entrenched establishment seats in Congress—Dianne Feinstein who tried to make cosmetic changes in the “indefinite detention” provisions of Senate Bill 1867 to hide the grim and oppressive reality—and we ask you to send your check or money order to Lincoln-for-Senate 2012 to Charles Edward Lincoln, III, 952 Gayley Avenue, #143, Los Angeles, California 90024.  Call 310-773-6023 for more information.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s