Marriage licenses are RECOGNIZED by the state. When you create your first child you are de facto married. States that permit divorce (a loophole for remarriage) do not recognize marriage. Currently, no state recognizes marriage.

States that do not recognize marriage do not recognize human rights. You do not have the right to create a baby in Mexico then flee north to create another baby. States that permit polygamy are b*tches. The USA is Mexico's b*tch.

This is the second time

Submitted by e_goldstein on Sat, 02/21/2009 - 20:35. Permalink

that I have had to clean up the language in one of your posts.

I suggest that you review the posting guidelines before making anymore statements.

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/78343
__________

—

--------------------------------
"the only thing that keeps the banking system from failing is general ignorance about how the banking system works."
----------------------------

Ok. I think I know who you are now. You're a character from

Submitted by Anisha on Sat, 02/21/2009 - 16:08. Permalink

one of those Monty Python series that escaped the film, right!

Oh, and, thank you for keeping my post bumped. I appreciate it.

Someone left the keys to your padded room in your sight again!

Submitted by RPALLTHEWAY2012 on Sat, 02/21/2009 - 02:36. Permalink

We really must find out who is responsible for allowing you out in public and deal with them severely.

- -
Get your own "Ron Paul for Treasury Secretary" bumper sticker at
http://www.cafepress.com/thirdparty08

—

RP2012!

Tough being at the rock! So many rules!

Submitted by D4L on Sat, 02/21/2009 - 20:05. Permalink

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtsvsLFYYSg
;-)

In need of an argument? Visit room 12!

Freedom is only for those with the guts to defend it!

—

What are you fightin' for?
Caught in the middle?
Freedom is only for those with the guts to defend it!

License Doesn't Lead To Liberty

Submitted by LibBerte on Thu, 02/19/2009 - 20:17. Permalink

... Nor should the state be permitted to insinuate into sacrament ( for those who subscribe to sanctity) ... Your religious liberty is at stake. Remember the expediency which guided Henry VIII's Church/State collaborations in matrimony.

Why would you want the State party to your relationships, nor privy to your contracts ( it's not very cuddly, and rarely keeps its promises) ?... I'll leave the double entendres at that.

But here is an on-topic perspective on this issue that will resound with some on this thread:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1UiXzXlk-I

Also, let's institute a Dating License, an Engagement License,

Submitted by RPALLTHEWAY2012 on Thu, 02/19/2009 - 19:36. Permalink

and a Child-bearing License.

The government ought to be involved in every aspect of our intimate relationships, no?

- -
Get your own "Ron Paul for Treasury Secretary" bumper sticker at
http://www.cafepress.com/thirdparty08

—

RP2012!

PDA license

Submitted by TomJefferson on Sat, 02/21/2009 - 20:48. Permalink

Some public displays of affection should be fined, lol!

—

R3VOLution

A hand-holding license might be nice.

Submitted by Cliff Treadway on Sat, 02/21/2009 - 13:37. Permalink

—Cliff, Sioux City, Iowa
February’s song: “Carly’s Song” by David Sanborn
Throw-away tools of war.

—

On Facebook:
♦ Personal Profile
♦ Political Group
♦ Political Page

Yeah, can't stand seeing THAT in public without the government

Submitted by D4L on Sat, 02/21/2009 - 15:00. Permalink

saying it's ok! Eeeewww!!

In need of an argument? Visit room 12!

Freedom is only for those with the guts to defend it!

—

What are you fightin' for?
Caught in the middle?
Freedom is only for those with the guts to defend it!

Groooss!

Submitted by Cliff Treadway on Sat, 02/21/2009 - 20:55. Permalink

Nonlegal handholding is so disgusting!!! Complying with the state is so much fun. Don’t you think lovers and admirers would clamor for the added “security” of state blessing in every area of their lives?

I’m creeping myself out. One can definitely go too far in pursuit of humor, kind of like these knuckleheads.

—Cliff, Sioux City, Iowa
February’s song: “Carly’s Song” by David Sanborn
Throw-away tools of war.

—

On Facebook:
♦ Personal Profile
♦ Political Group
♦ Political Page

Yeah! Just look at the driving tests you'll get without the

Submitted by D4L on Sat, 02/21/2009 - 21:08. Permalink

government's approval! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zyb-Kwb_Qag&feature=related

In need of an argument? Visit room 12!

Freedom is only for those with the guts to defend it!

—

What are you fightin' for?
Caught in the middle?
Freedom is only for those with the guts to defend it!

Barney Fife is so wise. He’s my hero.

Submitted by Cliff Treadway on Sat, 02/21/2009 - 21:16. Permalink

Actually, I love that show.

—Cliff, Sioux City, Iowa
February’s song: “Carly’s Song” by David Sanborn
Throw-away tools of war.

—

On Facebook:
♦ Personal Profile
♦ Political Group
♦ Political Page

Oh, absolutely! I don't think I could live without getting a

Submitted by D4L on Thu, 02/19/2009 - 20:25. Permalink

license for everything! LOL Good to see you and sorry that I have to go out now! Dang it!

In need of an argument? Visit room 12!

Freedom is only for those with the guts to defend it!

—

What are you fightin' for?
Caught in the middle?
Freedom is only for those with the guts to defend it!

have you heard of IMBRA?

Submitted by jeffwhite (not verified) on Thu, 02/19/2009 - 19:59. Permalink

this is really nasty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Marriage_Broker_R...

seems they're doing everything they can to keep american men enslaved.

Yeo, But I think this gender biased peice of.......is worse.

Submitted by loyaltothecrazyuncle on Thu, 02/19/2009 - 20:43. Permalink

he Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) is a United States federal law. It was passed as Title IV, sec. 40001-40703 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 HR 3355 and signed as Public Law 103-322 by President Bill Clinton on September 13, 1994. It provided $1.6 billion to enhance investigation and prosecution of the violent crime perpetrated against women, increased pre-trial detention of the accused, imposed automatic and mandatory restitution on those convicted, and allowed civil redress in cases prosecutors chose to leave unprosecuted.

VAWA was drafted by Senator Joe Biden's office with support from a number of advocacy organizations including Legal Momentum and The National Organization for Women, which described the bill as "the greatest breakthrough in civil rights for women in nearly two decades."

VAWA was reauthorized by Congress in 2000, and again in December 2005. The bill was signed into law by President George W. Bush on January 5, 2006. [1]

VAWA will be up for reauthorization in 2010.

They get crap like this forced onto the states through the "commerce clause." THE vehicle for forcing stupidness on the states and people.

Heeelllll Yes.

Submitted by dlind on Thu, 02/19/2009 - 07:55. Permalink

Better believe it, baby.

Submitted by Cliff Treadway on Thu, 02/19/2009 - 13:44. Permalink

When I lived in the Black Hills a libertarian friend got married in a church, before God and man. Government had no part of it.

—Cliff, Sioux City, Iowa
February’s song: “Carly’s Song” by David Sanborn
Throw-away tools of war.

—

On Facebook:
♦ Personal Profile
♦ Political Group
♦ Political Page

Yes, We Should Have Marriage Licenses

Submitted by PortlandOregon on Thu, 02/19/2009 - 01:59. Permalink

The purpose of marriage is to grant the status of legitimacy to children. It was created to prevent "libertarian" retards from making babies with their sisters and pets.

Marriage is not for homosexuals to express their rage or for DINKs to earn a tax break. Marriage is for children. One man + One woman and their NATURAL born offspring.

[Redacted by Moderator for violating the following: On this site, please don’t use profanity or other disrespectful or divisive language.]

ban and delete.

Submitted by h1ckman on Thu, 02/19/2009 - 19:11. Permalink

--------------
if you build it he will come..........Ron Paul 2012.

—

--------------
if you build it he will come..........Ron Paul 2012.
digg http://digg.com/autos/First_Genuine_Chevy_Volt_to_be_Complet...

Marriage licenses have

Submitted by Republicae on Thu, 02/19/2009 - 17:24. Permalink

Marriage licenses have nothing to do with the legitimacy of children, nor does the power of the State. Marriage licenses, not surprisingly, came into use after the 1860s in this country, after the State began to centralize and expand its power and the scope of its reach into the lives of the People. Prior to the 1860s do you suppose all the children who were born were bastards? Poor illegitimate bastards!

Marriage is not a government issue, anymore than it is a government issue what you name your child or what color you want to paint your kitchen.

http://www.1776solution.blogspot.com

"Don't worry, we've thrown out the Weimar Republicans and elected the Zimbabwe Democrats." Billy Joe Allen

—

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes

side note and off subject

Submitted by Clay Carey on Sat, 02/21/2009 - 16:09. Permalink

we did allow government to tell private business owners how they were going to run their business.....smoking bans are in place all across the country. To me it is the same as telling owners that they all have to have pink painted dining rooms...there really is no difference. My dad does not smoke, but he did speak out against our local smoking ban. With the avent of a 1.00 tax per pack starting April 1st, I have decided to grow my own (should be a good barter item).

Illegitimate "Authority"

Submitted by Gene Greigh on Thu, 02/19/2009 - 14:23. Permalink

Cedar, neither your beloved state nor any organized cultists have any authority to grant or strip "legitimacy" to or from my children. That's my answer to your most annoying point in the post above.

Less compelling than any personal stake I might have had in the discussion, but probably more significant from a broad social context is this -- If "Marriage is for children. One man + One woman and their NATURAL born offspring." (emphasis mine) then what is your answer to adoption?

Firebombing orphanages?
Medical experiments?
Target practice for the FBI and the BATF?

—

West of 89
a novel of another america
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/161155#longdescr

PortlandOregon, this post is not against 'marriage',

Submitted by Anisha on Thu, 02/19/2009 - 13:41. Permalink

but against marriage licenses granted by the judicial branch of the government.

The 'granting' of licenses for something that is intrinsically 'spiritual' and a 'private' matter between two people, is none of anyone's business except the two people getting married.

God is the only witness to their intentions and if children are born, it will be the strength of their intentions that determine the destinies of their children.

We are living in a very 'upside down' time. This was meant to be. Now we have to deal with it. Resist not evil.

For all your judgmental venting, it is this very mentality of yours that is quite ignorant of our Declaration of Independence.

I suggest you read it about 10 times or even 100 times until you 'get' the foundation on which this country was established!