59 votes

Government has no right to validate or invalidate any marriage

Marriage should not be recognized or privileged on any level. People should be treated as individuals regardless of any union they are engaged in with other individuals. To give privilege otherwise is collectivist. Why should a married individual pay a different tax rate than an unmarried individual?

I thought there was suppose to be equal protection under the law. All collectivism should be refuted.




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
jeffjeffjeff's picture

Separation of Marriage and State

This was basically my argument as I made clear back in 2008 after Republican's lost that election at Ideas.RebuildTheParty.com.

Couldn't have said it better myself

But as a side note:

I'm all for a flat tax...

0%

For everybody. K.I.S.S.

Just wanted to drop you a line of encouragement...

I totally agree, and I like how succinctly you put this.

I hope you don't mind me using your way of phrasing this, it's much better put than my comments to the conservatives at the political toastmaster's meeting on Wednesday night.

By the way, almost all of them said that they wanted to get government out of marriage, even when all the legal ramifications were brought up. That gave me some hope for sanity, at least among the circle of Republicans I know here.

True equality means no one gets a special tax rate based on what kind of relationship they're in.

And government has no right to the fruits of our labor, either

at least that was Thomas Jefferson's view of the matter......nor should the Government use the SSN for Identification purposes, on tax forms or anywhere else. But we all know it happens anyway. So now government will interfere in a new way....

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

i do support civil unions

i do support civil unions between any consenting people but i agree with those who point out that marriage has always had a specific definition. it has always, in whatever form it took, related to the issue of children, inheritance, etc.

homosexuality has always been present and in the ancient world was more or less acceptable and open, not in the 'closet.'

but the thought never occurred to anyone as far as i am aware in all these centuries that a man could marry a man or a woman a woman. and hopefully once it is legalized, the issue will fall out of the popular dialogue since it is inherently ridiculous and only a tiny teeny fraction of homosexuals would even want to get married if it wasn't something they were being excluded from. i

f it takes universal legal gay marriages to never have to hear about this goofy fad again, i totally support it. it is a distraction, an embarrassment, and the greatest act of trolling in history (by the gay community).

20 years ago the whole feminist and homo chic idea was that marriage was oppressive/patriarchal slavery, and when no one paid attention they decided well F it let's dress up in tuxes and try to demean marriage to rub it in hetero normal society's face as long as we are excluded.

also... marriage was already re defined as a kind of social status symbol to demonstrate mutual affection and bonds and ceased being focused mainly on the legal status of children and property long ago, so this doesn't really reflect any fundamental moral shift any religious person needs to fret over. that horse already left the barn.

what i would support for giggles would be a massive counter trolling by lawsuits on the same precedent to permit polygamy and relative marriage by consenting adults, to just make people uncomfortable. the principle will go out the window when groups without special rights try to use it.

my two cents anyway.

so how do you suppose a man's

so how do you suppose a man's property is to be inherited at his death if the government does not acknowledge or recognize a marriage as valid, if he doesn't have a written will. is a dead man's property just up for grabs by any and all comers? cousins, friends, neighbors, children and wife battle it out or the property just becomes ownerless and whoever 'calls' it first has dibs?

for that matter, how can a will even have validity and the force of law if the government does not acknowledge and enforce the legal provisions written in a will? should the dead man also hire private enforces to distribute his property after his death. palbearers/will efnrocement thugs?

marriage establishes a legal family relationship between two unrelated persons. this new relationship has ramifications for the ownership and transfer of property, it determines who is the next of kin, grants legal rights to make decisions in the event of the incapacity of one of the two parties, grants custody of the children to either party upon the others death, incapacity or disappearance.

prior to the development of DNA testing, marriage was the only basis for establishing fatherhood; marriage and acknowledgement, establishing legal relationships between a father and children, and all the legal and property rights and duties that are established by said relationship.

or do you suppose in the absence of government recognized marriage, every chucky cheese can marry a person to any other person, any number of times, and person A can then have 17 or 1700 next of kin...

good job NOT thinking it through, dwalters!

Simple

Private Contract

Pretty simple, simpler than government licenses.

Recognizing a contract and granting privileges are two

separate issues.

*Edit - My first sentence is misleading. Although it is not clear, I intended that marriage should not be recognized as a special contract that only certain individuals may enter into. My second sentence clarifies the intention.

Contract law can sufficiently address all of your concerns.

nice attempted dodge lol

nice attempted dodge lol

That is the answer. He didn't

That is the answer. He didn't dodge anything. Marriage is just a kind of contract, that is all it has ever been. Contracts should not grant special privileges because to grant someone a privilege someone else must pay the cost. That is unjust.

its most certainly not the

its most certainly not the answer.

even aside from the fact that the OP said govt should not recognize marriage in ANY way, the response still fails to answer the other points i raised.

if every chucky cheese can perform a valid marriage and the govt has to recognize them all, a man can have 1700 wives. who is next of kin? who gets custody? who pulls the plug when the spouse is a vegetable? marriage isn't just a contract its a very special kind of contract. if marriage become a null institution and it fell to contracts in the free market, it would take years of contract case law and court precedent to sort out the mess that would result from conflicting contracts regarding property inheritance, custody, etc. whole institutions regulating precedence in multiple marriage cases would have to develop. property would have to be held in escrow for years while multiple wives and husbands battle it out, with dna tests on the poor kids involved to determine actual parentage.

on a deeper level, if every contract is valid and should be enforced by the government, than we enter the dark area of questions about whether individuals should be allowed to sell themselves into slavery, sell their organs for money to buy crack, submit to marriage conditions similar to slavery when in the emotional grip of infatuation to a man or woman, submit to loan or debt contracts that allow physical abuse or taking possession of the borrower's person as collateral, and 101 other fun possible contracts that could happen in an entirely free contract market.

should the govt enforce them all simply because the parties agreed to them?

Every contract is not valid

Every contract is not valid and no contract should ever be enforced by government. That's not the point of contracts.

And most certainly people should be able to sell their organs. You prefer the organ market fully socialistic as it is today? Some bureaucrat deciding who lives and dies? FFS.

And you can't legitimately sell yourself into slavery because you cannot sell your right to seek freedom. It's an unalienable right to act to seek freedom. You would need a state to enforce slavery, as slavery has always been a creation of the state.

You cannot sell your moral authority to act for your liberty because you do not own that authority. It came from your creator. It is unalienable, whether you believe in self ownership or a deity owns you, no other [i]man[/i] can ever own your moral right to act.

You say that not every

You say that not every contract entered and signed voluntarily should be considered valid, but do not state why not.

You say that government should not enforce contracts, but do not say how they should be enforced. What meaning does contract have if not agreements entered into and bound by the law, each party being able to seek redress in the courts for violation of the terms agreed upon...?

You voiced your support for no restriction on the sale of organs. But you focused in narrowly on this one example, at the expense of the broader principle. If a man can enter into a contract voluntarily selling parts of his body, he can likewise sell his whole body, or a life term of service. If he owns it, he can sell it or turn it over as a term of the contract. At least, you have not demonstrated why, according to these principles, he should be prohibited from doing so.

Toward the end of your comments you invoked the Deity, without elaborating on where or when this deity revealed his opinions to you.

You also claimed that no other man can own your moral right to act. You introduced the morality of the issue into a discussion that had previously referred only to legality and legal capacity to enter contracts. None of the other examples had any reference to whether the contracts entered into were moral or not.

Why does the government have

Why does the government have to enforce any of them? Only a false marriage needs to be "enforced".

contracts that can't be

contracts that can't be brought to court for enforcement are meaningless. anyone could just break their contract with no repercussions. what makes a contract a contract is that it can be enforced without either party having to engage or employ his own enforcers.

You missed the point. Why

You missed the point.

Why does the government have to enforce a marriage contract? Think about it. If a court has to enforce a contract based on marriage, then that isn't a very good marriage. People should be free to leave and go, the properties and children do not require the parents to be married in order to seek arbitration.

whether the contract should

whether the contract should be dis solvable at will (like most jobs) is not related to the need for the state to recognize the marriage in order for it to accord rights to the next of kin (the spouse) or to impose duties on the parent, etc. separate issues. you can say dna test, but dna tests didn't exist til very recently... and legitimacy used to be a very important concept, because both parties to the marriage brought property into the marriage and wanted inheritance to go to legit offspring. institutions exist/existed for reasons. if we want to use the state to re define marriage as any union between any people, that's a choice we can make. it doesn't rewrite the history and meaning of an institution, though.

Absolutely Correct Dwalters. Wonderful Post. My thoughts...

Marriage should be only between those getting married and whoever else they choose to be involved BUT NOT THE GOVERNMENT.

Estate and property issues are legal subjects which the government has no business in either.

What happened this week is exactly what happens when the government uses tax code to influence social behavior. Other groups come along looking for the hand-outs too.

There never SHOULD be any tax advantage to getting married and having babies. Obviously the government does it to encourage people to breed more taxpayers.

But now, anyone screaming about the homosexual-marrieds getting the same federal benefits as the heterosexual-marrieds get, should realize how it came to this in the first place.

Those who have been all in favor of federal benefits for hetero-marrieds all this time, are screaming bloody murder now that the homo-marrieds can get the same benefits as the hetero-marrieds.

But what do you expect when you let government get involved in attempting to influence social behavior?

Lost in this whole issue is that government in a free society has no business giving ANYONE any benefits for their lifestyle choices.

Because once you allow that, eventually people will make their way into government and change laws to allow THEIR particular interest group to use government benefits too.

Also lost in all this, is that there never should have been an income tax in the first place, so that rat-bastards like John McCain and Lyndsey Graham and central bankers and military contractors can use the money to go to war after war after war and kill as many Arabs as they possibly can.

Or so that politicians can give it away by the billions each year in foreign aid.

Without an income tax, there would be no way for the government to use tax code to give money to any one group.

The point is, once you let the government influence social behavior with monetary advantages, don't be surprised when OTHER groups (even some who you may disagree with) come around asking the government for the SAME benefits.

We have become a nation of tribes - all standing in line at the government trough to get advantages for "their" particular group.

BUT WHAT HAPPENED TO THE INDIVIDUAL??? THE SMALLEST MINORITY IN THE WORLD IS THE INDIVIDUAL.

THAT is how this nation was set up - But that's not how it is anymore.

Once the idea of individual liberty is pushed aside (as has been aided and abetted by the rotted U.S. Department of Education), we are no longer free persons - we exist under a tyranny.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

Shameless plug ;) Since I

Shameless plug ;)

Since I made a video about exactly this a few months ago as a gay libertarian myself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6rTtkAyxT0&feature=c4-overvi...

If the government really supported tolerance and diversity

It seems to me that certain decisions should not be determined at the Federal level because they are too devisive. For example, Roe v. Wade or now the decision on gay marriage. These legal decisions are in conflict with some religious faiths.

It seems to me that the most equitable manner to handle such devisive issues is to put these decisions back to the state level. If the state passes a law I can't live with, I can choose to move to another state. Currently, religious faiths are forced to conform to one supreme, all knowing, infalliable Federal decision by 9 politically appointed judges. How can this be interpreted as religious freedom, separation of church and state or even just and democratic? Under these expansive Federal decisions, the Supreme Court forces everyone in the entire country to abide by their moral belief system rather than by an individuals choosen religious moral code. Doesn't this seem tyrannical?

If the government really supported tolerance and diversity, the Government would put these decisions back to the state level and let individuals live with liberty and choice.

Marriage has a definition

Gay marriage does not exist. The evidense of a marriage is procreation. Let evil men have their way, it will be only for a short time. Governments agreeing with evil men--that never happens, right?

When a government mandate is from the people

When the government is no longer by the people for the people, it no longer has a mandate. At best I only recongnize government dictates as suggestions. MOst of these puppets are mouthing agendas of the zionist banker, false national debt creator Rothschild and company.

Marriage is non of any governments dam business, nor is birth.

Old saying, when gov gets into your biz, its time to get out of biz. So its time to stop thinking you need a permission, certificate for a gov to be with the one you intend to partner with. When you go to the government they always will require acts of slave submission, thats the power/control/greed that attracts sold out slimmy puppets to atend to the Rotshschild zionsit agenda.

sovereign

Why don't most people get this simple fact?

When we give the government the power to define marriage we all lose. Your personal preference of mate is not something I personally care about. I do care if the government decides to poke their nose in my personal business and tell me whether or not my relationship is valid or not. Its kind of a no-brainer for me.

+1 Bump - 100% agree

+1 Bump - 100% agree

"Great Men Do Not Seek Power, They Have Great Power Thrust Upon Them"
www.campaignforliberty.com
www.downsizedc.org
www.whatreallyhappened.com
http://scarecro.users.sonic.net/blog/

Agreed

And well put. Besides the idea that you need a government permit being a dumb idea, the path you mentioned would ensure that nobody felt their freedom of religion on the one hand and freedom of expression on the other, are violated. It is actually the simple yet most pragmatic path to take.

YES! I agree 100% The very

YES! I agree 100% The very idea that if I love someone, I have to go get a permit (Permission) from the government to codify that they are my partner makes me a slave.

Fuck that...

We all share this eternally evolving present moment- The past and future only exist as inconsequential mental fabrications.

bumping in agreement--

.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Braveheart..

I agree with this post.. government should have no say.. and you shouldn't have to get permission from the government..

Simply put, marriage is a promise or vow to another person and to God forsaking all others..

If you have seen the movie Braveheart, you may remember that under the law the soldiers could have their way with a new bride on the wedding night . So, to avoid this, they sneaked off and have a secret and illegal wedding. But yet they vow to each other to become one, so is there marriage valid? Only if they keep there promise.

So we wouldn't be having this argument about gay marriage if government got out of the way. People would be free to make whatever promises they wanted to whoever they wanted, and you would be free to feel however you wanted about anyones unions..

alternative view

From a guy commenting on Red State:

First of all, the basis for laws in the US is natural law, not the Constitution. Note the role of "the laws of nature and nature's God" in Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. The aim of the US Constitution was to confine government within natural law; it is an attempt to create an instance of a nation that conforms to natural law.

Since natural law is God's law, the two are perfectly aligned. Anything the government does that violates God's law, then, it does illegitimately.

The definition of marriage, like human liberty, arises from natural law. The "gay marriage" movement is an attempt to write laws that make a cat into a dog, or a house into a carriage. Pass all the laws you like, you cannot remake humanity into something that it is not, and government has no right to try.

There can be no liberty while Progressives are manipulating law to remake the universe according to their delusional vision.

"There can be no liberty

"There can be no liberty while Progressives are manipulating law to remake the universe according to their delusional vision."

But... the suggestion from the original poster was that there should be -no- laws when it comes to marriage, just as there are no laws when it comes to prayer.

"Since natural law is God's law, the two are perfectly aligned. Anything the government does that violates God's law, then, it does illegitimately."

It is fair enough to say that government should work within the confines of natural law... but that doesn't mean government should act as God and claim dominion over subjects that fall outside of its limited role. So what is the role of government? The non-aggression principle would suggest that government should only exist to protect individual liberty. Consenting individuals who enter into contracts together may or may not be violating God's law, but they are most certainly not a threat to any individual's liberty. With that in mind, it is God, not government, who has jurisdiction over the issue.

A government that stays within its bounds and does not legislate the definition of marriage -at all- is not "violating" God's law. It is leaving the authority over it where it belongs.