The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: sure, sure. we have dif

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Marriage and the State (see in situ)

sure, sure. we have dif

sure, sure. we have dif discussions going on here we need to unravel.

people should be allowed to sign whatever contract they want. whether the state will enforce said contract depends on the law. if i sell myself to you or agree to serve you for food and shelter, that is a contract the state will not enforce. so the state doesn't simply enforce any and all contracts, if they conflict with the law.

second, marriage laws and specific, standard marriage contracts recognized by courts and convenient for two simple people to enter into without hiring expensive legal counsel is probably not going away. two people want to get married, they don't want to become legal scholars. they go and get a standard marriage license and the court recognizes it according to how marriage is defined by the law. the people of a state, through the state legislature, gets to decide the nature of that standard marriage contract.

whether state A wants to issue marriage license or enforce marriage contracts according to the actual definition of marriage or some new definition is up to the state.

if the government per se, or states in particular, cannot define marriage or limit marriage, than that would imply all marriages simply be individual, customized contracts with any possible range of terms and conditions. 2 people, 5 people, 10 people, of any s e x, could marry one, or 10, or 20 people of any other s e x. it wouldn't be marriage it would just be a custom contract. the variety of contracts could contradict each other. the status of spouses and children could be contradictory if the state does not define marriage or limit what contracts it recognizes as marriage or will enforce in general.

i think letting each state define what marriages it will uphold and recognize is reasonable, with no state forced to recognize the definition of any other state.

but on a practical note i do support universal rights to gay marriage just so it becomes a dead issue. the fad will prob disappear within a few years or a decade after that except for a tiny number of people.