As many are no doubt aware, the Supreme Court this week is reviewing separate cases involving state and federal involvement in the issue of marriage, specifically considering prohibitions on statuses of legal recognition of marriage between homosexual individuals.
Referencing the federal Defense of Marriage Act as it practicably exists today, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted that
They’re not — they’re not a question of additional benefits. I mean, they touch every aspect of life. Your partner is sick. Social Security. I mean, it’s pervasive. It’s not as though, well, there’s this little federal sphere and it’s only a tax question. It’s — it’s — as Justice Kennedy said, 1,100 statutes [related to marriage alone], and it affects every area of life (emphasis added).
I maintain – despite my personal feelings on the broader issues involved – that the State has no constitutional or otherwise legitimately wielded authority to even be involved in the issue of marriage at all given that it is a voluntary institution of reciprocal devotion and a compact between individuals that far predates government. But I additionally posit that Justice Ginsburg’s remarks analogously characterize just how unjustly invasive and behaviorally questionable the government’s presence in our lives has grown. Justice Ginsburg’s remarks could and should be just as easily applied to “nanny” statism, economic protectionism and interventionism, the growing surveillance/police state, political egalitarianism, and the like.
If one supports the notion that the government should mind its own (very limited) business where, say, peaceful firearms ownership is concerned then one must necessarily support the notion that the government has no business in the peaceful domestic affairs of consenting adults, and vice-versa. To deny this simple axiom is to implicitly support perpetuation of the ever growing special interest sectioning that is effectively eroding individual liberty and prosperity far more efficiently than any foreign enemy ever could.