Brain Teaser 1.... A young couple misses closing time at the County Clerk's office on a Friday afternoon to sign and pick up their marriage license, but go ahead with the religious ceremony, complete with exchange of vows, and a big reception Saturday night. The groom gets very, very drunk, wanders into the parking lot and is struck and killed by the caterer's truck. Is the bride a widow? But more importantly, does she collect his life insurance and his Social Security death benefits?
I've followed the discussion about California's Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage, and it is obvious that the major problem is a lack of understanding about what some of the words mean on the part of its opponents.
The Massachusetts SJC decision was not really about civil rights, unlike California. The MA decision was based on Contract Law. The MA Constitution explicitly grants every citizen equal right to enter into a contract, unless the State has a compelling interest in denying that right to any group of citizens, primarily convicted felons. So, the question was, does the State have a compelling interest in denying the right to enter into a contract based upon sexual orientation? The SJC found that the answer was NO the State cannot deny a citizen the right to enter into a contract based on sexual orientation. Pretty clear, and actually quite simple when you think about it.
Re: Marriage Licenses - "License" is a misnomer. The form provided by the State is actually a contract which when correctly filled out, signed by both parties of their own free will, and validated by certain individuals given this authority by the State, validates and recognizes the parties as "Married". That marriage provides many significant benefits to the signing parties should be obvious to everyone.
Re: Marriage ceremonies - The State authorizes many members of the clergy to validate these contracts. But the State is not required to do so, and in many countries, only civil officials can complete the contract. So, how do religions take part in this process? Simply put, the contracting parties "choose" to have a celebratory event directed by a religious figure, and during the ceremony calls upon some unknowable "spirit" to sanction what the State has recognized. These religious figures participate by choice, and have complete and unencumbered right to deny to participate, and to deny the parties the use of their facilities. (BTW, this right has never been questioned). Should the religious figure choose not to participate, the parties are free to seek out another religious figure, or an authorized civil official, to sign their contract.
Nowhere in this process is anyone coerced into doing anything they don't want to do by any other party to the transaction. This is a requirement for all valid contracts.
So, what's the problem? Actually, there are two - confusion and bigotry. The confusion stems from the misunderstanding that the contract must be validated by a religious authority. This is untrue. All marriages recognized by the State are in reality civil unions, no matter what they are called by the parties involved. Bigotry is simply the unwillingness to understand the process which is taking place and apply the term marriage to all valid, signed contracts.
When marriage is understood for what it is under the MA Constitution nearly all of the other objections (bestiality, incest, polygamy) are rendered irrelevant because the State does have a compelling interest in denying the authority to enter into a marriage contract. The requirement of two qualified persons is not satisfied. Thus, "tradition" is the last refuge of the bigot. But no tradition lasts forever.
Finally, there is the issue of the ballot initiative, and here we should recognize the intent of the original writers. John Adams wrote the Massachusetts Constitution. Adams wanted, and created, a structure which could expand the rights of all citizens as society developed. All his writings indicate that.
Now, with California, I believe the intent was to create a mechanism which could overrule a legislature which was unwilling to address many issues which the citizens felt needed to be addressed.
Now we have a situation where a certain portion of the population wishes to use the referendum process to incorporate discrimination into that Constitution. But the entire purpose of the government we created 200+ years ago, was to protect the rights of minorities from the excesses of the majority. The Founders would have correctly identified what is taking place regarding same-sex marriage as "mob rule". It should be resisted by everyone who supports the US Constitution, the Federalist Papers and the Bill of Rights.
I don't dispute the right of the voters of California to use a referendum process to amend their state Constitution. But using the process to invalidate a basic principle of Contract Law would not stand scrutiny by the SCOTUS, even with its current members.
Doesn't our Pledge of Allegiance finish with the phrase, "... with Liberty and Justice for All"? I can't find any exceptions based on sexual orientation or religious belief, can you anywhere in the pledge, can you?
Brain Teaser 2...... Another young couple has signed their Marriage License and had it stamped by a County Clerk. The next day, as the groom stands at the altar, and her father escorts her down the aisle, the bride slips, falls, hits her head on the edge of a pew, breaks her neck and dies. Is the young man a widower? Does he have the right to determine where this woman should be buried? Who gets the 4 carat engagement ring of the young lady's finger?
Hint: The answers to both Brain Teasers are completely unaffected by the religion of either bride or groom or the desires or opinions of any of the religious figures involved.
Body