Big Brother in the Bedroom

Note that I am neither a lawyer, nor have I read the Justice opinions on today's supreme court ruling about the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which states:

Section 1. Short title

This Act may be cited as the "Defense of Marriage Act".

Section 2. Powers reserved to the states

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Section 3. Definition of marriage (ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court)

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

As an anarchist, I have no trouble with Section 1. Congress can call their silly Acts by whatever name they please. But I would like to point out that politicians have a nasty habit of commandeering terms and contorting them to mean the opposite of common usage. For example, the "Patriot Act" enables the government to infringe on the privacy of American citizens, undermining civil liberties in a flagrantly unpatriotic manner. So I counsel all my friends to never let a politician define the terms of the debate.

Section 2 is nearly unparsable and took me quite some time to decipher. If I'm reading it correctly, it basically says that states are not obligated to recognize the marriages issued by other states. This point is so obvious, I wonder why it was even written down. If sovereignty means anything at all, it means the right to leave the herd and go your own way, to make your own decisions on an independent basis. But then I remember that I'm reading the words of statists, who probably assume that any powers not explicitly reserved for the people default to state control. So yeah, with this kind of thinking no wonder the Tenth Amendment is eroding.

Finally, I and the supreme court both have issue with Section 3, which defines marriage, but for different reasons. The court decided that Section 3 violates the Fifth Amendment.

 "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. "By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment." Supreme Court DOMA Decision Rules Federal Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

Clearly, they want to prevent the federal government from infringing on the marriage privileges bestowed to couples by any of the states.

I see the issue differently. And it really comes down to one question. Why would you want to let any government define marriage? If you and your partner want to live together, go ahead. You want to have a consensual harem, fine! You don't need my, or anyone else's approval, to (make) love (to) each other. To even bother asking, includes me in the relationship, and I'm doing just fine by myself, thank you very much. Do you really want the National Spy Agency with you in the bedroom?

The statist mindset runs deep in this country. Even as the gay's celebrate the "victory" that they think they've won, I bemoan the implicit loss of freedom. How do the congress-critters and senate-snakes usurp the power to craft such legislation? And why does everyone else go along with it?

Fighting the legislation through the system, by using the courts, further entrenches this problem. Should I now credit these 9 old stodgy robed figures (actually only 5 of them) for the kindhearted permission to do what I should be free to do anyway? They don't even know me! Why should they make the decisions that affect my life?!

Giving the government the power to define marriage, in any way, whether through tax codes (Arg! It's a TAX!) or civil benefits like visitation rights, insurance, and inheritance, bounds the marriage to a geographical area. These government bureaucrats must think I'm going to suddenly stop loving my spouse when we move to Burma! Marriage isn't bound in space, and shouldn't belong to any government's bailiwick!