Respect for Marriage Act

 

Why Don’t We Do It in the Road

Why don't we do it in the road?
Why don't we do it in the road?
Why don't we do it in the road?
Why don't we do it in the road?
No one will be watching us
Why don't we do it in the road?

We don't because the road is a public space, and “it” is a private action.

In the song, we all know what “it” is, and  “it” is a private action. The rules for public spaces are there, regardless of whether someone is watching you or not. And just as private actions are allowed in private spaces, and public actions are allowed in public spaces, public control should not exist in private spaces, and private control should not exist in public spaces. When a public group tries to control private actions in private spaces, or a private group tries to control public actions in public spaces, there is a problem.

The government is the public. It grants certain rights for example, to those who are married. Marriage means that health care of spouses, inheritance, etc. are protected by the government. A marriage, like all government actions in one US State, has to be acknowledged in every other US State. Just as a Driver’s license in Massachusetts is valid in Texas, Texas does not have the right to say how Massachusetts issues that driver’s license, ....or marriage license. And if a transaction happens in the public marketplace, then no one should have the right to object based on private beliefs. The public can’t change what is in a private heart. But the public can control what are acceptable public actions, subject to the rights of individuals guaranteed in the constitution. You should have to show actual harm to ban a public action. Being offended is NOT justification to ban a public action. But the public also does not get to change what is in a private individual’s, or a group of private individuals', heart. If you want the public’s protection in economic transactions, then you also do NOT get to also decide in which economic transactions you will participate. 

It is also why Justice Thomas is showing his hypocrisy in saying Obergefell, Lawrence, and Griswold were improperly decided but Loving which would affect him, was omitted from his list. Render onto Caesar, the things that are Caesar’s, and to God, the things that are God’s. There seems to be some confusion  among the Justices of the Supreme Court as to which things are which.