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.

This is a backward step...

I think its ridiculous you need either government or religion to sanctify your love.

Looking forward to free market systems replacing all of this too.
http://www.dailypaul.com/290648/consumer-protection-how-the-...

www.SuccessCouncil.com
Protect your assets and profit from the greatest wealth transfer in history.

Incentive Structure

It is very logical and to be expected that government did the wrong thing.

When a group of people are given a violent monopoly on law and justice, what is the incentive for them to do the right thing?

When theft is legalized for this special group, what is the incentive to do the right thing?

Focus on the criminality of government's very existence instead of all the wrong choices they make -- because with this incentive structure in place -- it makes perfect sense that they would do the wrong thing.

Bingo... now you should

Bingo... now you should venture into family law where the tyrannical government screws over more people than anywhere else. The constitution doesn't apply in family law and people are able to get away with more than just extortion of one another but kids suffer as well due to the system.

Pretty much all you should search on is Title IV Federal Funding and you'll see how the system is set up in a way that for ever dollar collect in child support a certain percentage goes to the states to fund the enforcement agency, judges, and politicians. In Texas in 2011 the CS agency collected $9 billion. They are very proud of this. Now go look up how much they spent on enforcing visitation rights? It's tiny. Why? Follow the money. The state gets no money for enforcing visitation rights.

Bottom line is the more the state collects the more it has to spend. We know what politicians like right? Spend spend spend. *mad*

Government does not have the

Government does not have the right to validate any marriage, or any other contract for that matter, BUT governments should recognize all contracts made freely by individuals, and marriage is one of them. There is a big difference there, and this is not about being a collectivist. When two individuals engage in a contract and one of them feel the contract is not being respected by the other part, he/she uses the government for repair of damages, in the case of a marriage contract, there should be a divorce settlement. But if both parts are OK with the agreements made for the divorce, there should be no government interference.

But I agree with everything else you said. Married couples or single individuals should be treated equally under the tax code. But not equally in every case. As a married man I have the right to not be used as a witness against my wife, something single people don't have. We are not an individual society, we are a family society. Even though I believe in individualism, I expect to work hard, even on my last days, to give my sons a better life. If we were individuals without family, the right of inheritance does not exist.

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." Ben Franklin

Interesting..

and well put.. .. bump

So long as "marriage" has government benefits...

absolutely every human adult couple deserves the same benefits. People think about marriage as an institutional thing without realizing it is also a functional entity to aid people in living their lives. Whether it's two men, two women or one of each, any loving couple deserves to have the same options available to them.

Some of you scoff at this, but "married" status conveys dozens, if not hundreds, of rights previously only available to straight couples.. down to hospital visitation rights. The tax elusion rights are the most salient example.

So many people utilize their own hatred, justified of course by the harsh mores the Old Testament's vicious, jealous, petty, and selfish warrior-god, to invalidate all that is good about Christianity. Why don't you want homosexuals to be happy? You've abandoned Christ's lessons of forgiveness and acceptance because someone makes your masculinity feel uncomfortable? Poor baby.

Happy?

Sure, let gays marry! Why should they be happier, richer, and more mobile than any of us that are married with children! I don't care what you call it. Homosexual contracts are still not the same as marriage. We should allow them any of the benefits of the contract between heterosexuals called "marriage"! It is up to God to judge them, not me. People in Christianity have become too judgmental, going against the very premises of the New Testament! "Judge not lest you be judged" (in the manner with which you use to judge and not the judgment tempered by God's mercy!) [paraphrased].

It is rather clear on this subject. Yet, since the Bible calls sleeping with the same sex, in the same manner as sleeping with the opposite sex, an abomination. It is, still, not mine to judge. I will not be judged according to your actions, either!

Then again, Cain was questioned by God when he asked "Am I my brother's keeper?" Apparently he answered in the affirmative. But, we have no right to nag homosexuals. They have been told. If they choose to live that way, it is no business of mine, then! God will judge me according to MY heart! The Bible warns against gossipers and busybodies, as well! Gossip is felt to be the same as murder! If a man's life is destroyed by gossip, that is untrue, I can see that!

Welp, that's your religion, good thing I'm not part of it

The United States never was a Christian country. Everyone else doesn't have to accept your biases.

"It's up to god to judge them." But your God IS you. Don't you find it a little funny that the creator of the universe shares all biases and beliefs with a single human being--you? Are you truly so arrogant as to insist the creator of the universe has all the beliefs of an angry human?

It's sad you focus on all this irrelevant old testament nonsense rather than Christ's endless love.

BTW, ever asked yourself why Yahweh needed to ask Cain a question when Yahweh is omniscient?

The answer

First, are you a participant in any religion?

The answer, to the your, last question is that he wanted Cain to confess, obviously. One could also ask why God asked Adam "What have you done?!" He already knew, then, too! I remember as a child, my mom asking the same question, as I did to MY CHILDREN! I guess God asked those questions, because that is what one does to his children! It's just natural!

I have to agree, and disagree with you. The original colonists, were Christians, who came here to escape religious persecution. That is well documented in the history since I was in first grade! When the founding fathers established the Amendments, they wanted to assure us the right to practice "religion" as we wish, short of polygamy. We are not a theocracy, thank God and the founding fathers!

Since, you brought up religion, here are my thoughts. Most religions have man made rules, instead of Biblical laws that guide them. Reading the Bible all of the way through, and studying it for ten years, does wonders about having a personal relationship with my Savior, Jesus and thus, with God. I am not God, but I followed another suggestion made in the Bible "study to show yourself approved". I picked up a lot of what it says. Imagine that! So, any "human bias" you picked up, I have to defer to my studies of the Bible. I am glad I picked them up so much that they are part of my personality. So much so, that you would assume the Biblical thoughts are MY, personal, biases. Would not Jesus be called an angry human when He threw the money changers out of the temple?! The scriptures say it is alright to be angry, but don't sin!

What about "Yeshua ha Maschia!"

Did you ignore the fact that "judge not"(lest you be judged in the same manner) was a New Testament scripture?! (also reveals God's endless love) That proves that statement, wrong, as well. I did NOT "focus" on the Old Testament! It is mine to take care of myself and all of my sins. I assure you, that keeps me busy enough! Gays can live as they wish and still be part of my family, as they are.

My other New Testament favorite is only one of the two commandments given to Christians by Jesus. "Love your neighbor as yourself". The meaning seems clear. That includes trying not to be abusive to anyone on earth. I cannot even get into fights because I am such a pacifist! Jesus went one step better and said Christians should love their enemies! Otherwise, you (we) are no different than any other people on the earth". We are, also called out, to stand in the world as a "shining example".

Since having sex out of marriage is a sin, it is no different than the sin of laying with another man as a woman. Only, that the latter is also referred to as an abomination. Both are forgivable. I just fear the behavior, like I do suicide. I, just, would not want to take the chance! You can bet "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". I have a right to my opinion and so do atheists! I do not condemn anyone. If you want to take it to the max, serial murderers, OJ, etc., might be with me in Heaven. God is merciful, unlike many humans' judgements!

Arrogance is making assumptions, about someone, you know nothing about. I would not assume I have all of the knowledge an omniscient God has. The more people that make it to Heaven, the merrier. I have read that one of Peter's books was left out of the Bible, because he spilled the secret. He wrote that we, all, are going to make it, after another of his visions!

You see why short comments are so useless to make the assumptions you made about me. I promise. I will, never, try to force my beliefs on others. I don't see it as my job.

Forgive me, brother, if I have sinned!

(Sorry about the long post, everybody!)

Just another group of tax parasites looking for a handout.

It's bad enough that any group gets benefit for their contractual agreements, especially a religious contract, that's unconstitutional.

Free includes debt-free!

This is why people (mostly democrats) fail so hard

they do not realize, all these issues of so called "equal opportunity" REINFORCE class systems, not broaden or remove them.

This issue on gay marriage shouldn't even be discussed, and has no place on a federal level, this was probably done now to remove the publics from the view of Snowden, or better yet, all the other wistleblowers who aren't even being brodcast.

What about immigration

How do you think marriage should effect immigration policy if it all?

In a Free Society,

The Governments ONLY JOB, is to protect the rights of every individual.

The PEOPLE are responsible for their OWN spiritual path!

The Government has NO PLACE there. I'm against Abortion in a huge way and struggle with our country aborting babies, but it's a symptom of our spiritual downfall.

Making things Legal, don't make them lawful.

Fascism is defined as the marrying of Big Business and the Government, what do you call it when the Church marry's the Government as well?

I call it Tyranny.

I call it

I call it Democracy
The oppression of the minority

The government no longer needs the bible thumpers to solidify a compliant majority, in fact does not want bible thumpers influencing the debate......

Nope!

It is a Republic that protects from the wolves in democracy, theoretically, anyway. I am not so sure who the wolves are now, with what is going on in our government!

Yup. There's no rational

Yup. There's no rational basis to treat married people any differently, unless we think that marriage is good for the fabric of society and want to encourage faithful monogamous couple and/or families. And if we want to encourage healthy families, then there is a rational basis for defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, the only combination that can have children. So I can arrive at either endpoint... special treatment for only man and woman, or no special treatment at all. The latter, I suppose, would be the more libertarian approach.

Good point

It is irrational to keep doing the same thing, expecting different results.

Family values is important to the fabric of society, especially the ones that can procreate. On this we agree. Exactly why it is rational for all to be "libertarian' on this issue.

Government has been meddling in family values, treating families like adolescence who need a helping hand. Ruined them
Dovorce is rampant, family value is on the run after decades of Statist intervention.

Appears the libertarian is also the rational thinker........HUM !

Well Said!!

Good bye DOMA.

One bad law down 999,999 to go.

Govts have no right to legislate morality, or to make offense from victimless crimes, nor does it have right to make ex-post facto law (retroactive law).

____

"Take hold of the future or the future will take hold of you." -- Patrick Dixon

No rights...

Yes, governments have no rights to do the things listed.

Does government have the right to give special privileges to married people they wont afford to non married people ?

Is it right the government grants default probate to those ordained by the government to be married while ignoring personal contracts of consenting adults who had no license for benefits granted by the overlords?

Governments have no rights at

Governments have no rights at all. Rights are reserved to the people. Governments have powers, which are granted to them by the people. Government exercise of powers that were not granted to them by the people are called usurpations. People cannot grant powers to government that they do not first possess as rights. Since no person has the right to tell another with whom or how to consensually associate, the power to do so cannot be granted to government.

Thanks

Thank you for pointing out that groups do not have rights; only individuals have rights.

Classic Libertarian

There are many ways to answer the "marriage rights" question and this is clearly the best. This "formula" can be used to clarify all the "rights" and "powers" questions. Copy and print copies of this paragraph and carry them in your shirt pocket. Distribute with a knowing smile.

16th...

Another good reason to eradicate the 16th.
The whole mess is grounded on who gets government benefits, mostly surrounding taxes.
Take away the 16th and you remove todays SCOTUS "interpretation"

In fact....

If we repeal the 16th we repeal the "interpretation" of King John Roberts on the "Afforadable" Healthcare Act AKA - ObamaCare

One could argue that the 16th is a moral hazard....