Bob Barr On The California Gay Marriage Decision

[Bradley in DC]

http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2008/05/16/bob-barr-on-the-california-gay-marriage-decision/

Bob Barr On The California Gay Marriage Decision
Libertarian Party Presidential candidate Bob Barr released the following statement about yesterday’s ruling from the California Supreme Court on gay marriage:

“Regardless of whether one supports or opposes same sex marriage, the decision to recognize such unions or not ought to be a power each state exercises on its own, rather than imposition of a one-size-fits-all mandate by the federal government (as would be required by a Federal Marriage Amendment which has been previously proposed and considered by the Congress). The decision today by the Supreme Court of California properly reflects this fundamental principle of federalism on which our nation was founded.

“Indeed, the primary reason for which I authored the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 was to ensure that each state remained free to determine for its citizens the basis on which marriage would be recognized within its borders, and not be forced to adopt a definition of marriage contrary to its views by another state. The decision in California is an illustration of how this principle of states’ powers should work.”

Constitutionally speaking, of course, Barr is entirely correct. If states like New York, New Jersey, and California want to legalize gay marriage, they should be allowed to do so. The problem with the DOMA, though, is that it would seem to be a direct violation of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. With very limited exceptions, states are required to recognize the validly passed laws of their sister states, including laws about issues like marriage, adoption, and inheritance.

If lesbian couple legally married in New Jersey moves to, say, South Carolina because of a job change, does this mean they wouldn’t be entitled to same benefits as any other married couple, or that they wouldn’t be treated as a married couple if one of them happened to die while living in South Carolina ?

More importantly, though, Federalism simply doesn’t mean the same thing that it meant before the Civil War. The passage of the 14th Amendment, and the Supreme Court case law that has grown from that Amendment, forever changed the relationship between the people, the states, and the Federal Government, and one of the things that changed is the idea that you don’t lose your rights as an American citizen simply because you move from one state to another.

Barr’s position isn’t per se wrong. It’s just incomplete. Which is more than I can say for guys like John McCain.

[phixion]

The government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage fullstop.

Pete

[Minestra di pomodoro]

The government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage fullstop.

The government should have everything to do with marriage because in the United States, marriage is an independent civil institution.

[phixion]

The government should have everything to do with marriage because in the United States, marriage is an independent civil institution.

Doesn't seem very independant to me.

Pete

[Minestra di pomodoro]

Doesn't seem very independant to me.

Pete

I meant independent of the church, contrary to what some people believe.

[yongrel]

This was on the front of Google News yesterday.

[Danke]

The government should have everything to do with marriage because in the United States, marriage is an independent civil institution.

Everything? What exactly does that mean?

[Minestra di pomodoro]

Barr is a liar. He imposed a federal definition of marriage that excluded same-sex couples to deny them federal rights.

[Minestra di pomodoro]

Everything? What exactly does that mean?

Socialized, not privatized.

[AutoDas]

Why do people even get married?

[clouds]

if you separate it from religion, who knows?

[phixion]

Why do people even get married?

A cynical look at marriage would be due to social status, pressure and conditioning.

Pete

[Danke]

Socialized, not privatized.

Well, it is a contract. I don't see why the government should get involved with it beyond enforcement of contracts.

[Bradley in DC]

I meant independent of the church, contrary to what some people believe.

Actually, no, "marriage" is an ecclesiastical law term; church "marriage" contracts were then just recognized by the state.

[Minestra di pomodoro]

if you separate it from religion, who knows?

For the benefits. Marriage is done in spite of religion more often than not.


Well, it is a contract. I don't see why the government should get involved with it beyond enforcement of contracts.

That's the only way they are involved. Do you think it was OK when they married heterosexual people and now since they're marrying same-sex couples in some places they're a terribly tyranny that must be overthrown? :rolleyes:

[Bradley in DC]

The government should have everything to do with marriage because in the United States, marriage is an independent civil institution.

Your definition is, by definition, self-contradictory. Civil society is the part of society NOT governmental. ;)

As Janice Rogers Brown explained (http://www.constitution.org/col/jrb/00420_jrb_fedsoc.htm), "Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates, and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible."

[Bradley in DC]

Barr is a liar. He imposed a federal definition of marriage that excluded same-sex couples to deny them federal rights.

Do you think Dr. Paul, who supports DOMA, is a liar too? :confused:

[Minestra di pomodoro]

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary: CIVIL,



of, relating to, or involving the general public, their activities, needs, or ways, or civic affairs as distinguished from special (as military or religious) affairs


or



a: of, relating to, or based on civil law b: relating to private rights and to remedies sought by action or suit distinct from criminal proceedings c: established by law

[Minestra di pomodoro]

Do you think Dr. Paul, who supports DOMA, is a liar too? :confused:

If he issued a public statement saying that it is a state's rights thing too, yes. I don't regard Ron Paul as infallible.

[torchbearer]

I meant independent of the church, contrary to what some people believe.

So marraige originate with the state, not a religious ceremony from thousands of years ago?
State wants to be the new religion, so it co-ops religious sacrements.

When you get married in a church there are three entities involved in that contract: you, your mate, and a divine. Thus the divine has a vested interest in that marriage and the fruits of that marriage.

When you get married by that state, there are three entities involved in that contract, you, your mate, and the state. Thus the state has a vested interest in that marriage and the fruits of that marriage.
Where does the state get its authority to tell you how to raise your kids?
Where does the state get the authority to take your children if you don't raise them the way they see fit?
What happens if you don't indoctinate your children as the state sees fit?

If you believe marriage is originally a state function, you are mistaken.
The only role government should have is when there is a breech of contract, as is its role for all contracts.
Is the state there when you contract someone to clean your yard? Do you have to buy a license from the state to enter that contract? Is it not binding if the state isn't present to condone the contract?

[Minestra di pomodoro]

So marraige originate with the state, not a religious ceremony from thousands of years ago?

As a function to civil society, certainly not religion. Wasn't until the 7th century when the church gave marriages their blessings.


Where does the state get its authority to tell you how to raise your kids?

Child psychologists, probably.


Where does the state get the authority to take your children if you don't raise them the way they see fit?

From the consent of the governed.


What happens if you don't indoctinate your children as the state see fit?

With what?


If you believe marriage is originally a state function, you are mistaken.

No, I sincerely believe you are mistaken.

[torchbearer]

As a function to civil society, certainly not religion. Wasn't until the 7th century when the church gave marriages their blessings.



Child psychologists, probably.



From the consent of the governed.



With what?



No, I sincerely believe you are mistaken.



You are the product of their sytem. I wouldn't expect you to understand the words i lay before you.
Their control over you is a delusion you willingly believe.
I show you how they gain ownership of your self. You still do not see.
You do not hear. And with your heart, cannot gain the sense of it.

You will continue to live in a society that practices "King as Father".
You don't want to be free, you want a king. If you can't understand that basic idea. There is nothing else i can tell you.

[Bradley in DC]

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary: CIVIL,

I realize you don't see it, but you're making my point. Civil (non-governmental) as opposed to criminal (state-action).

Civil disputes, eg, are disputes between citizens.

Criminal laws are the government against someone.

The church IS a civil institution, not a governmental one. :)

[Minestra di pomodoro]

You will continue to live in a society that practices "King as Father".

That's really interesting, because the Christian system has the father as king, and the wife and children must submit to him. I'm more of a feminist, myself.

[Minestra di pomodoro]

I realize you don't see it, but you're making my point. Civil (non-governmental) as opposed to criminal (state-action).

"Civil" in the context of "Civil law" in common law and "Civil unions" for discriminatory marriage. Words can mean different things in different contexts.

[Bradley in DC]

Words can mean different things in different contexts.

Yup, but you still don't seem to get it, no offense. Go back and read your posts to anyone with any legal training (I'm not even a lawyer and it's obvious you've got it all mixed up).

[nate895]

Marriage is a legal definition, in which case there the legislature has the right top define it however they see fit unless the Constitution already defines it. Even if you said that the churches can make the decision, you still run into the problem of recognizing the union. The state, Constitution, or other entity must provide some definition of marriage, otherwise there can be many problems associated with it.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I meant independent of the church, contrary to what some people believe.

Why? I don't think there's ANY good reason for this.

[Danke]

Originally Posted by Danke:
"Well, it is a contract. I don't see why the government should get involved with it beyond enforcement of contracts."



That's the only way they are involved. Do you think it was OK when they married heterosexual people and now since they're marrying same-sex couples in some places they're a terribly tyranny that must be overthrown? :rolleyes:

You ask such a nonsensical question that had nothing to do with what I have said and include a "rolleyes." Brilliant!

[Minestra di pomodoro]

Why? I don't think there's ANY good reason for this.

nate895's post above yours did well to explain it. The State needs to register you for the rights and responsibilities. If you accept that, and are wondering why the church can't be the gatekeeper, it is that the Church is a private entity and is not accountable to the people, which is why they discriminate against interracial marriages, inter-religion marriages, same-sex marriages, women for divorce requests and so forth. Plus, some people are simply not religious and want the civil benefits and to have nothing to do with the church.

[Minestra di pomodoro]

Yup, but you still don't seem to get it, no offense.

That is offensive.


Go back and read your posts to anyone with any legal training (I'm not even a lawyer and it's obvious you've got it all mixed up).

I was not using strict legal terms. I used the term "civil marriage" to disambiguate marriage from "religious marriage", and "independent" to indicate that there is no state dependence on the church.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Marriage is a legal definition, in which case there the legislature has the right top define it however they see fit unless the Constitution already defines it. Even if you said that the churches can make the decision, you still run into the problem of recognizing the union. The state, Constitution, or other entity must provide some definition of marriage, otherwise there can be many problems associated with it.

The state shouldn't recognize it. Leave it as a private and ceremonial matter.

[Bradley in DC]

I was not using strict legal terms.

But that IS the discussion.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Why should state regulate it and subsidize it? The SOLUTION to this issue is to leave it as a private matter. The bigots won't be happy with gay marriage, the homosexuals won't be happy with the status quo, so I think the SOLUTION is for the government to get out of it and that will solve the issue once and for all.

[Minestra di pomodoro]

The bigots weren't happy with interracial marriage when the Supreme Court struck down the anti-miscegenation laws in 1967. Fortunately, the courts do not cater to bigots.

[nate895]

The state shouldn't recognize it. Leave it as a private and ceremonial matter.

That leads into problems with benefits from work. Your job will have no way of knowing whether you are actually married, you could just be lying. Also, with immigration laws, it will be much harder for foreigners to marry US citizens because the government won't know if they are actually married.

I personally am opposed to same-sex marriage, considering the fact that marriage has had one definition for thousands of years, and since there is a precedent set for that long a period of time, I don't know where you could possibly find that marriage is a natural right that everyone can't enter in with whoever they want.

[Danke]

That leads into problems with benefits from work. Your job will have no way of knowing whether you are actually married, you could just be lying. Also, with immigration laws, it will be much harder for foreigners to marry US citizens because the government won't know if they are actually married.



Show them a copy of your marriage contract.

[torchbearer]

Show them a copy of your marriage contract.

+1. sometimes the simplest concepts are the hardest for people to understand.

[yongrel]

+1. sometimes the simplest concepts are the hardest for people to understand.

QFT

[torchbearer]

That's really interesting, because the Christian system has the father as king, and the wife and children must submit to him. I'm more of a feminist, myself.

Your anti-religious bias is blinding you.
I'm not advocating a religion you moron.
I'm saying the state has no authority to regulate marriages.
Just to enforce the contract if its broken.
Just like they should do in all contracts. That is what civil court is for.

Reminds me of Plato's Cave story.
I'm telling you about the trees, and you are talking about shadow puppets.
There is no possible way for you to understand if you keep believing those shadows are real.
The government only has control over your life, if you believe they have control over it. I'm trying to set you free from that ball and chain you voluntarily wear.

[Ozwest]

If a Catholic church, with a progressive priest, and congregation, wishes to conduct a marriage ceremony between people of the same sex.

What's the problem?

[Ozwest]

What's the verdict?

Church or State?

[Ozwest]

Should the State decide?

[torchbearer]

What's the verdict?

Church or State?

I'm going with this:
Organized Religions and State are two branches of the same tree.
One has an invisible god, one has no god.
They both want to rule your life.
And both require that you believe they have control over you life in order to have control over your life.
Both require a "faith" in those that are leading you.

[Ozwest]

I'm going with this:
Organized Religions and State are two branches of the same tree.
One has an invisible god, one has no god.
They both want to rule your life.
And both require that you believe they have control over you life in order to have control over your life.
Both require a "faith" in those that are leading you.

Sounds convoluted to me.

Separation of "Church and State" rings like a bell.

[torchbearer]

Sounds convoluted to me.

Separation of "Church and State" rings like a bell.

George Bush has a simpleton view on life.
You are either with us or against us.
We are good, they are evil.
Who will rule your life, Church or State.

You forget there is a third answers.
None of the above.
That neutrality is what Ron is talking about.
It is what brings us all together, and its called Freedom.

[Danke]

What's the verdict?

Church or State?

Both (or neither), it is up to you.

You may have to get one of them involved if you want a marriage contract enforced, but not necessarily.

[Ozwest]

George Bush has a simpleton view on life.
You are either with us or against us.
We are good, they are evil.
Who will rule your life, Church or State.

You forget there is a third answers.
None of the above.
That neutrality is what Ron is talking about.
It is what brings us all together, and its called Freedom.
I agree that George Bush is a scrotum.

But...

You are not answering my question.

[torchbearer]

I agree that George Bush is a scrotum.

But...

You are not answering my question.

What question?

[Ozwest]

Both (or neither), it is up to you.

You may have to get one of them involved if you want a marriage contract enforced, but not necessarily.

Please...

What did the fore-fathers say?

[Danke]

torchbearer:
"George Bush has a simpleton view on life.
You are either with us or against us.
We are good, they are evil.
Who will rule your life, Church or State.

You forget there is a third answers.
None of the above.
That neutrality is what Ron is talking about.
It is what brings us all together, and its called Freedom."


I agree that George Bush is a scrotum.

But...

You are not answering my question.

I think it is more of a case that you are not seeing his answer.

[Danke]

Please...

What did the fore-fathers say?

It is written down, go read it.

[Ozwest]

What question?

I know you are well-versed on the Constitution, but you seem intent on blurring the lines regarding this issue to suit your personal agenda.

[torchbearer]

I know you are well-versed on the Constitution, but you seem intent on blurring the lines regarding this issue to suit your personal agenda.

I was giving you a personal answer.
You didn't ask what does the constitution say.

The only thing the constitution says is:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

That's it.
So if congress tells someone they can't pray, that would be unconstitutional.
Which they are doing in public schools.

[nate895]

Show them a copy of your marriage contract.

Problem: in order for a contract to be legal, it must be notarized. The common law governs notarization, therefore terms in a contract can be legislated or made constitutionally. It'd be illegal for a notary to notarize a contract that two people can't, by definition, enter into.

[torchbearer]

Remember, the constitution was written to restrict the government, not to restrict the people.
So don't misconstrue the first amendment to ever mean the government can limit what people say and do, only what congress may or may not do.

[Ozwest]

America was founded by people escaping religious persecution. The Constitution pointedly exclaims that there is to be a Separation between Church and State. Do not confuse that with the "freedom of religion."

[torchbearer]

Problem: in order for a contract to be legal, it must be notarized. The common law governs notarization, therefore terms in a contract can be legislated or made constitutionally. It'd be illegal for a notary to notarize a contract that two people can't, by definition, enter into.

False.
A contract only requires witnesses in Louisiana. As in- a verbal agreement is just as binding as a written agreement.
We are not a common law state. In a lot of ways, its more common sense.
You only need to prove, via witnesses, that such an agreement was made.
You do not need to be a notary to testify to that fact.

Notary is a government tool you can use. It may add validity in a state court, but isn't required for a contract to be binding.
The authority of the contract is in the agreement of the two people to do what they say they are going to do.
And the proof that such an agreement occured. Witnesses.

[torchbearer]

America was founded by people escaping religious persecution. The Constitution pointedly exclaims that there is to be a Separation between Church and State. Do not confuse that with the "freedom of religion."

Quote me that part of the constitution.
And why ask a question, when you pretend to already know the answer.

[Ozwest]

First amendment to the Constitution...

Can't be important.

[nate895]

False.
A contract only requires witnesses in Louisiana. As in- a verbal agreement is just as binding as a written agreement.
We are not a common law state. In a lot of ways, its more common sense.
You only need to prove, via witnesses, that such an agreement was made.
You do not need to be a notary to testify to that fact.

Notary is a government tool you can use. It may add validity in a state court, but isn't required for a contract to be binding.
The authority of the contract is in the agreement of the two people to do what they say they are going to do.
And the proof that such an agreement occured. Witnesses.

Louisiana has civil law, which is different than the rest of country. Thank your former status as a French colony for that. Also, the contract wouldn't hold up in court if it couldn't, by definition, enter into the contract, though other arrangements could be made, I suppose.

[torchbearer]

First amendment to the Constitution...

Can't be important.

I already quote it!

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.


Your argument fails.

[Ozwest]

I already quote it!


Your argument fails.
"Congress shall make no lawrespecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting thefree exercise thereof."

I think that's right.

[Danke]

First amendment to the Constitution...

Can't be important.

Go back and read it again. It is not there.

[Danke]

Remember, the constitution was written to restrict the government, not to restrict the people.
So don't misconstrue the first amendment to ever mean the government can limit what people say and do, only what congress may or may not do.

This is an important point missed by many.

Some States had official religions, it is the Federal Government that was restricted in the 1st Amendment.

[Ozwest]

How can the State legislate?

If a Church wishes to unite same sex couples, the government should bud out.

What's your defence?

[nate895]

How can the State legislate?

If a Church wishes to unite same sex couples, the government should bud out.

What's your defence?

Marriage is a contract, and the State Legislature can define what a word means legally in a contract. If marriage is the union between a man and a woman, a man and a man cannot enter into it.

[Danke]

Problem: in order for a contract to be legal, it must be notarized. The common law governs notarization, therefore terms in a contract can be legislated or made constitutionally. It'd be illegal for a notary to notarize a contract that two people can't, by definition, enter into.

Sure, a government (or an employer) might choose not to recognize your contract under their terms. But it is still a contract.

[Ozwest]

Go back and read it again. It is not there.

You are disrespecting my main man Thomas Jefferson.:)

We are tip toeing through the tulips.

[nate895]

Sure, a government (or an employer) might choose not to recognize your contract under their terms. But it is still a contract.

A contract with nothing promised, delivered, or traded, might as well not be a contract.

[Danke]

A contract with nothing promised, delivered, or traded, might as well not be a contract.

Of course. But that is not what I said.

[Ozwest]

Marriage is a contract, and the State Legislature can define what a word means legally in a contract. If marriage is the union between a man and a woman, a man and a man cannot enter into it.

According to your definition, forget the "Separation of Church and State," throw the rulebook out! Let's digress towards the meaning of the word "contract." Aren't you guys already heading down this slippery slope?

God bless (the former republic) of America.

[nate895]

According to your definition, forget the "Separation of Church and State," throw the rulebook out! Let's digress towards the meaning of the word "contract." Aren't you guys already heading down this slippery slope?

God bless (the former republic) of America.

Since when was it a natural right for gays to be able to get married to each other?

Marriage has always been a union between man and woman, why should we change?

[Ozwest]

Since when was it a natural right for gays to be able to get married to each other?

Marriage has always been a union between man and woman, why should we change?

True colors.

For your information, I am heterosexual.

[nate895]

True colors.

For your information, I am heterosexual.

What, I must be a fascist because I don't believe in gay marriage?

This is the reason why libertarians don't win elections, they exclude, rather than include people. You disagree on one thing (besides abortion) and you're out of consideration.

[Ozwest]

I don't believe that gays exist, abortions occur, and there are prostitutes.

God! I feel better now.

[angelatc]

The bigots weren't happy with interracial marriage when the Supreme Court struck down the anti-miscegenation laws in 1967. Fortunately, the courts do not cater to bigots.

Apparently the government did though. Hence if the government had stayed out of the business of marriage, those laws wouldn't have existed. Hence another argument that the government shouldn't be involved.

[angelatc]

Louisiana has civil law, which is different than the rest of country. Thank your former status as a French colony for that. Also, the contract wouldn't hold up in court if it couldn't, by definition, enter into the contract, though other arrangements could be made, I suppose.

Contracts don't unilaterally have to be notarized. Did you notarize the paperwork agreeing to the terms of your credit card? When you signed up for utility service?

[Ozwest]

What, I must be a fascist because I don't believe in gay marriage?

This is the reason why libertarians don't win elections, they exclude, rather than include people. You disagree on one thing (besides abortion) and you're out of consideration.
Funny you should say that.

How did George and Dick get elected for two terms?

You are their base.

[nate895]

Funny you should say that.

How did George and Dick get elected for two terms?

You are their base.

Sounds like collectivist talk to me. Apparently, all who believe marriage is between a man and woman is an evil Bushie, or worse yet a fool.

[torchbearer]

Sounds like collectivist talk to me. Apparently, all who believe marriage is between a man and woman is an evil Bushie, or worse yet a fool.

no just an intolerant bigot.
Your way is the right way for everyone. Let's make it a law.
If its worth doing, its worth forcing someone to do it.
That is collectivism, and bigotry against people of a different lifestyle is essential to collectivism.

[nate895]

no just an intolerant bigot.
Your way is the right way for everyone. Let's make it a law.
If its worth doing, its worth forcing someone to do it.
That is collectivism, and bigotry against people of a different lifestyle is essential to collectivism.

Yes, I'm an intolerant fool for believing the government should intervene when someone is trying to make a mockery of marriage, whom God himself instituted the first time it happened.

[nate895]

Reading over my statements, I have failed to mention that I believe that gays should have the same protections/benefits as married couples, just that it shouldn't be called marriage. Marriage is a sacred, religious, thing, and is insulted when people who are breaking the moral codes of the faith and enter into "marriage" that is clearly not truly marriage, which has always been, and will always be, between a man and a woman.

[AmericaFyeah92]

Yes, I'm an intolerant fool for believing the government should intervene when someone is trying to make a mockery of marriage, whom God himself instituted the first time it happened.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


:rolleyes:

[angelatc]

Yes, I'm an intolerant fool for believing the government should intervene when someone is trying to make a mockery of marriage, whom God himself instituted the first time it happened.

That's your God, though. Not mine.

And are you saying that you're worthy of making judgment calls in the name of your God?

[Ozwest]

That's your God, though. Not mine.

And are you saying that you're worthy of making judgment calls in the name of your God?How about judgement calls for athiests?

He must be all-knowing.

[Ozwest]

Thanks...

nate895

For your moral guidance.

[nate895]

That's your God, though. Not mine.

And are you saying that you're worthy of making judgment calls in the name of your God?

Umm, I don't know how much clearer he could have been in Leviticus when he stated that lying with a man as you would with a woman is an abomination, and considering he was the first to marry people in Genesis, I don't think he'd promote gay marriage.

[nate895]

Thanks...

nate895

For your moral guidance.

Thanks...

Ozwest

For your characterization of those who disagree with you as fascists.

[Danke]

Umm, I don't know how much clearer he could have been in Leviticus when he stated that lying with a man as you would with a woman is an abomination...

I don't know about "abominations" But it's kinda gross.

[Ozwest]

Thanks...

Ozwest

For your characterization of those who disagree with you as fascists.

I never called you a fascist.

I think you should stop worrying about other peoples sexuality, and go lay some pipe for a well in Africa...Or something.

[majinkoola]

torchbearer's got this thread on lock.
I completely agree that the state's replacing the church's roles, in a poor way.
I find it funny that the guy who supports universal health care was being called a libertarian.
The financial benefits of marriage would be very minimal if the gov't was the right size, then that wouldn't be an argument for state regulation of marriage.

[Mr. Coolidge]

Marriage is a contract, and the State Legislature can define what a word means legally in a contract. If marriage is the union between a man and a woman, a man and a man cannot enter into it.
Oh okay, I see what you were trying to say. I pretty much understand your argument now, though I don't feel I agree with it.

If you were to ask who should be an authority on the legitimacy of love, would "those guys in Washington D.C." come to mind as an answer? I wouldn't think so...

[Ozwest]

Oh okay, I see what you were trying to say. I pretty much understand your argument now, though I don't feel I agree with it.

If you were to ask who should be an authority on the legitimacy of love, would "those guys in Washington D.C." come to mind as an answer? I wouldn't think so...

LOL Very clever Mr.Coolidge.

[hypnagogue]

Oz, may I suggest simply laying out your position, with the relevant information attached, and any questions you may have clearly presented, in one simple post. I'm not sure if you feel your 15 obtuse, 5-word posts somehow make your position clear.

I suspect, unfortunately, that watching everyone clamor to piece together your forum droppings makes you feel terribly clever, and that you aren't really trying to discuss or inform, but simply to mock.

If that's not what you're trying to do, I'd recommend putting a little effort into making fewer, clearer posts.

[LibertiORDeth]

So marraige originate with the state, not a religious ceremony from thousands of years ago?
State wants to be the new religion, so it co-ops religious sacrements.

When you get married in a church there are three entities involved in that contract: you, your mate, and a divine. Thus the divine has a vested interest in that marriage and the fruits of that marriage.

When you get married by that state, there are three entities involved in that contract, you, your mate, and the state. Thus the state has a vested interest in that marriage and the fruits of that marriage.
Where does the state get its authority to tell you how to raise your kids?
Where does the state get the authority to take your children if you don't raise them the way they see fit?
What happens if you don't indoctinate your children as the state sees fit?

If you believe marriage is originally a state function, you are mistaken.
The only role government should have is when there is a breech of contract, as is its role for all contracts.
Is the state there when you contract someone to clean your yard? Do you have to buy a license from the state to enter that contract? Is it not binding if the state isn't present to condone the contract?

+1
This should close the thread, but apparently it didn't, as I see 8 more pages to go through :p

[LibertiORDeth]

Marriage is a legal definition, in which case there the legislature has the right top define it however they see fit unless the Constitution already defines it. Even if you said that the churches can make the decision, you still run into the problem of recognizing the union. The state, Constitution, or other entity must provide some definition of marriage, otherwise there can be many problems associated with it.

Like what?

[LibertiORDeth]

That leads into problems with benefits from work. Your job will have no way of knowing whether you are actually married, you could just be lying. Also, with immigration laws, it will be much harder for foreigners to marry US citizens because the government won't know if they are actually married.


I don't understand how any of this matters.

[Ozwest]

Oz, may I suggest simply laying out your position, with the relevant information attached, and any questions you may have clearly presented, in one simple post. I'm not sure if you feel your 15 obtuse, 5-word posts somehow make your position clear.

I suspect, unfortunately, that watching everyone clamor to piece together your forum droppings makes you feel terribly clever, and that you aren't really trying to discuss or inform, but simply to mock.

If that's not what you're trying to do, I'd recommend putting a little effort into making fewer, clearer posts.

I am not the one being obtuse.

There is no need to droll on about legalities, contracts, the first amendment, or religion.

Why don't you get to the crux of the biscuit?

The idea of gay marriage is despicable, unworthy, blasphemous, and threatening.

A few years ago I would have ticked "all of the above."

I can understand the religious opinion, which is based on blind faith.

But the doublespeak and droolings of pseudo lawyers and constitutianalists borders on P.C bullshit.

Say what you mean. Mean what you say.

[Ozwest]

hypnagogue,

Was that post clear enough for you?

I made a special effort... Just for you.

[Mesogen]

[the] state remained free to determine for its citizens...

What is the state determining for me again?

[nate895]

Oh okay, I see what you were trying to say. I pretty much understand your argument now, though I don't feel I agree with it.

If you were to ask who should be an authority on the legitimacy of love, would "those guys in Washington D.C." come to mind as an answer? I wouldn't think so...

Well, I believe in the tenth amendment, so "those guys in DC" shouldn't do much of anything. However, I am simply stating the fact that marriage has been the union of a man and a woman for eons, and I see no reason to change now.

[hypnagogue]

Hey if that's as pertinent a post as you can make, Oz, we'll just have to accept the fact that dialog isn't everyone's strong suit. It's okay, I'm sure you have some redeeming qualities.

[Ozwest]

Hey if that's as pertinent a post as you can make, Oz, we'll just have to accept the fact that dialog isn't everyone's strong suit. It's okay, I'm sure you have some redeeming qualities.

You get carried away with your own self - importance. The trouble is... Not far enough.

[Danke]

Hey if that's as pertinent a post as you can make, Oz, we'll just have to accept the fact that dialog isn't everyone's strong suit. It's okay, I'm sure you have some redeeming qualities.

+1

[Ozwest]

+1
Birds of a feather flock together.

If ignorance is bliss, you guys must be the happiest people alive.

[Danke]

Birds of a feather flock together.

If ignorance is bliss, you guys must be the happiest people alive.


Wow, clever. (not really)

Now how about participating with something of substantive to this thread? (or just leaving).

[Minestra di pomodoro]

What, I must be a fascist because I don't believe in gay marriage?

No, what makes one a fascist is willing to impose a personal morality on other people using the power of the state.


This is the reason why libertarians don't win elections, they exclude, rather than include people.

The reason why courts strike down discriminatory laws are because they exclude, rather than include people.

[Minestra di pomodoro]

Marriage is a contract, and the State Legislature can define what a word means legally in a contract. If marriage is the union between a man and a woman, a man and a man cannot enter into it.

And it can be changed if the state sees fit, which they did in California today. But you don't seem to agree with that.

[Minestra di pomodoro]

Since when was it a natural right for gays to be able to get married to each other?

Marriage is a natural right, and the government cannot withhold that right on the basis of race, sex, or religion the court has ruled.


Marriage has always been a union between man and woman, why should we change?

A better question is why shouldn't it change? Times change. The court ruled that it is not a compelling state interest to retain the historical definition of marriage. The only arguments from you come from religion, if applied to the state would break the first amendment.

[Minestra di pomodoro]

Yes, I'm an intolerant fool for believing the government should intervene when someone is trying to make a mockery of marriage, whom God himself instituted the first time it happened.

The government should NOT be enforcing religious beliefs! This is the kind of religious intolerance the first Americans were escaping from!

[Minestra di pomodoro]

Reading over my statements, I have failed to mention that I believe that gays should have the same protections/benefits as married couples, just that it shouldn't be called marriage.

The court found that to be discriminatory, making gay men & lesbians "second class citizens". The job of the state is not to defend people, but to pursue justice and the rule of law. Not Biblical law, but law from the consent of the governed.

[Minestra di pomodoro]

I don't know where you could possibly find that marriage is a natural right that everyone can't enter in with whoever they want.

Law school, probably.

[mdh]

I don't see why there is a need to have the government involved in marriage at all.

In fact, I'm right, and there isn't.

Therefore this ruling is out of bounds in that it sanctions government having any hand whatsoever in marriage.

[Minestra di pomodoro]

Therefore this ruling is out of bounds in that it sanctions government having any hand whatsoever in marriage.

You say this as if government had no hand in marriage before. They were always involved in civil marriage. Any other type of marriage (religious or what have you) have been separated from the state.

[familydog]

No, what makes one a fascist is willing to impose a personal morality on other people using the power of the state.

But that only applies to people opposed to gay marriage.

[Bradley in DC]

You say this as if government had no hand in marriage before. They were always involved in civil marriage. Any other type of marriage (religious or what have you) have been separated from the state.

You have demonstrated abundantly that you don't know what you're talking about on "civil" affairs, have pushed for socialism in every single one of your posts and disagree with Dr. Paul on every issue. Why are you here?

[H Roark]

I don't see why there is a need to have the government involved in marriage at all.

In fact, I'm right, and there isn't.

Therefore this ruling is out of bounds in that it sanctions government having any hand whatsoever in marriage.

+1

Dr. Paul on gay marriage ---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGaBAb_oS84

His response is not really a straight one. He says that marriage is neither a state or federal matter and that its a religious one, but then at the end says the states can be given this authority.

I disagree with Barr on this one, he would of been better off if he just kept his mouth shut.

[mdh]

His response is not really a straight one. He says that marriage is neither a state or federal matter and that its a religious one, but then at the end says the states can be given this authority.

Of course, constitutionally, states can have this authority. The question then becomes whether or not they ought to, and I believe the clear answer is no they should not.

[majinkoola]

+1

Dr. Paul on gay marriage ---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGaBAb_oS84

His response is not really a straight one. He says that marriage is neither a state or federal matter and that its a religious one, but then at the end says the states can be given this authority.

I disagree with Barr on this one, he would of been better off if he just kept his mouth shut.

I think Paul's position is clear. He's not for regulating it at the federal level, and if he were a state politician, he would be against regulating it. But he's against the federal gov't deciding the issue for the states.

This is the definition of a wedge issue.

[Minestra di pomodoro]

But that only applies to people opposed to gay marriage.

It doesn't apply to people who think that heterosexual marriage should be banned because those people don't exist.


Of course, constitutionally, states can have this authority. The question then becomes whether or not they ought to, and I believe the clear answer is no they should not.

Why shouldn't states be able to regulate civil marriage?

[Minestra di pomodoro]

You have demonstrated abundantly that you don't know what you're talking about on "civil" affairs,

Where? We had a quibble over my using the term "civil marriage" to mean non-religious marriage, you disputed that, and you conceded that words can mean different things in different contexts.


have pushed for socialism in every single one of your posts, and disagree with Dr. Paul on every issue. Why are you here?

I don't push for socialism in every single one of my posts. Legal same-sex marriage and mandatory vaccinations are not "socialism". Eliminating private property and progressive taxation would be socialism.

But that's besides the point. No one should have to agree with Ron Paul on every issue to discuss him. His ideals of liberty are clouded when it comes to wedge issues like abortion, gay marriage, and religious symbols in public places.

I'm not here for any one purpose, as we do not exist to serve any one purpose. We just are, and you should learn to get along with people who disagree with you.

[mdh]

Why shouldn't states be able to regulate civil marriage?

Because civil marriage shouldn't exist at all. If anything, it should be a contract between two sovereign individuals, regulated only by contract law in that the terms may be enforced by civil proceedings. The notion that government should be empowered to regulate who can freely contract with who else and/or for what purposes is absurd, and stands diametrically opposed to the freedom we seek.

[pcosmar]

Why shouldn't states be able to regulate civil marriage?

Why should the STATE have any say in private contracts or personal asscociations?

Is not the right to freedom of association protected by the Constitution?

[mdh]

I'm not here for any one purpose, as we do not exist to serve any one purpose. We just are, and you should learn to get along with people who disagree with you.

I get along just fine with people who disagree with me. I don't get along at all with those who advocate hostile aggression against me.

Espousing the beliefs you do is no different than hiring a hitman to beat someone up rob them or kill them, except for some reason your damned government considers espousing socialism to be legal aggression. You're essentially requesting that the government initiate force against another sovereign individual. That is inexcusable.

[Minestra di pomodoro]

Why should the STATE have any say in private contracts or personal asscociations?

Because the state is a party in this particular contract.


Is not the right to freedom of association protected by the Constitution?

Yes, and it's being violated by religious bigots.

[Minestra di pomodoro]

I get along just fine with people who disagree with me. I don't get along at all with those who advocate hostile aggression against me.

The government is not aggressing against you by allowing gay people to marry. Don't you see how silly you sound?

[mdh]

The government is not aggressing against you by allowing gay people to marry. Don't you see how silly you sound?

You fail at strawmen.

The government is aggressing against me or anyone else by demanding that I seek their permission before entering into a contract with another sovereign individual. There are penalties if I do not, for example, if I wish to enter into a marriage contract with another man, or with multiple wives, or with one man and one woman just to keep things fresh. :p

[Minestra di pomodoro]

The government is aggressing against me or anyone else by demanding that I seek their permission before entering into a contract with another sovereign individual.

The government is a party in the marriage contract.

[Danke]

The government is not aggressing against you by allowing gay people to marry. Don't you see how silly you sound?

I agree with MDH.

If gay people (or whomever) want to marry, no it is no aggression against me. But if that same government is going to give some special privileges to said group at my expense and taken from me involuntarily (with the back up of using physical force) then yes, it is aggressive.

[Minestra di pomodoro]

If gay people (or whomever) want to marry, no it is no aggression against me. But if that same government is going to give so special privileges to said group at my expense and taken from me involuntarily (with the back up of using physical force) then yes, it is aggressive.

Gay people aren't given "special privileges", they are given the same privileges straight people have enjoyed for years.

[mdh]

The government is a party in the marriage contract.

That is wrong and a bad thing.

[Danke]

The government is a party in the marriage contract.

No necessarily.

To get a license, yes. But not to contract with another individual.

[Danke]

Gay people aren't given "special privileges", they are given the same privileges straight people have enjoyed for years.


Read before you type. I didn't confine my remarks to gay people.

[Danke]

Because civil marriage shouldn't exist at all. If anything, it should be a contract between two sovereign individuals, regulated only by contract law in that the terms may be enforced by civil proceedings. The notion that government should be empowered to regulate who can freely contract with who else and/or for what purposes is absurd, and stands diametrically opposed to the freedom we seek.
+1

[Minestra di pomodoro]

Read before you type. I didn't confine my remarks to gay people.

Then you ought to clarify. Who is getting "special privileges"?

[Danke]

Then you ought to clarify. Who is getting "special privileges"?

Then you ought to read.

[Minestra di pomodoro]

Then you ought to read.

I read it again. This is what you posted:


If gay people (or whomever) want to marry, no it is no aggression against me. But if that same government is going to give some special privileges to said group at my expense and taken from me involuntarily (with the back up of using physical force) then yes, it is aggressive.

"Said group" refers to gays, does it not?

[yongrel]

That is wrong and a bad thing.

Such a simple concept, yet so many people seem confused about it.

[Danke]

I read it again. This is what you posted:



"Said group" refers to gays, does it not?


'If gay people (or whomever) want to marry"

Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever,Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever,
Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever,
Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever,
Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever, Or whomever,

[Minestra di pomodoro]

Yes, but did you mean by allowing them to marry is or would lead to their having "special privileges"? If so, what privileges? If not, what privileges were you thinking of?

[Danke]

Yes, but did you mean by allowing them to marry is or would lead to their having "special privileges"? If so, what privileges? If not, what privileges were you thinking of?

Why do gay people want to have the government recognize their union if it is not to avail them to some unique status over remaining single under the law?

One example. A single person pays the same in FICA taxes as a married person. But who (potentially) receives more benefits?

[Minestra di pomodoro]

Why do gay people want to have the government recognize their union if it is not to avail them to some unique status over remaining single under the law?

Because they don't want the government to treat they and their partner as strangers not closer than family in making important legal decisions.

[Danke]

Because they don't want the government to treat they and their partner as strangers not closer than family in making important legal decisions.

Again, that can be handled already by your unlimited right to contract (as protected under the Constitution).

[Minestra di pomodoro]

Again, that can be handled already by your unlimited right to contract (as protected under the Constitution).

Some rights are exclusive to marital spouses, why should straight people have them and gay people not have them?

[Danke]

Some rights are exclusive to marital spouses, why should straight people have them and gay people not have them?

You really are not reading anything I have written. (or others for that matter).

I am not for any special rights for anyone. Period!

[mdh]

Yes, but did you mean by allowing them to marry is or would lead to their having "special privileges"? If so, what privileges? If not, what privileges were you thinking of?

You want government to allow people to do things.

I want peoples' inherent right to do things to be respected.

You see marriage as a privilege.

I see contracts between sovereign individuals as a natural right.

You see government doing something bad by denying marriage privileges to gays.

I see government doing something bad by denying anyone their rights at all.

[Minestra di pomodoro]

We understand each other, then.

[LibertiORDeth]

hypnagogue,

Was that post clear enough for you?

I made a special effort... Just for you.

Great you do just what he wanted and then make another short, unnecessary post :cool:

[LibertiORDeth]

I don't see why there is a need to have the government involved in marriage at all.

In fact, I'm right, and there isn't.

Therefore this ruling is out of bounds in that it sanctions government having any hand whatsoever in marriage.

+1
What are these ridiculous 15 page arguments about???

By the way this is the third bump of this post, so I think mdh officially wins the argument.

[Mesogen]

Why do gay people want to have the government recognize their union if it is not to avail them to some unique status over remaining single under the law?

One example. A single person pays the same in FICA taxes as a married person. But who (potentially) receives more benefits?

A gay person doesn't have certain inheritance rights or even hospital visitation rights with their spouse.

It's barriers like these that are driving the push for equal marriage rights.

If you just let people decide who they want to inherit or visit them, then none of this would be a problem.

[Danke]

A gay person doesn't have certain inheritance rights or even hospital visitation rights with their spouse.

It's barriers like these that are driving the push for equal marriage rights.

If you just let people decide who they want to inherit or visit them, then none of this would be a problem.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1462479&postcount=144

[Bradley in DC]

relatedly:

The lesson here is that law and governance are natural institutions that arise out of people’s interest in prospering through production, the division of labor, and trade. They do not depend on a central coercive authority for their genesis. States can arise when a powerful group, bent on institutionalized extortion, co-opt and alter existing customary law to serve its own particular interests.

http://www.fee.org/Publications/the-Freeman/article.asp?aid=4716

[angelatc]

Umm, I don't know how much clearer he could have been in Leviticus when he stated that lying with a man as you would with a woman is an abomination, and considering he was the first to marry people in Genesis, I don't think he'd promote gay marriage.


Ok, so you're comfortable making law using an interpretation of the words of a man who made a pronouncement about something that God allegedly said in the Christian Bible. Fair enough.

But it seems to me that type of law is designed to protect a religious belief, and not protect freedom.

Would you then outlaw churches that join same-sex couples?

[Kade]

Barr is a liar. He imposed a federal definition of marriage that excluded same-sex couples to deny them federal rights.

Indeed, qft.

[TastyWheat]

The government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage fullstop.
Exactly. Historically speaking marriage is about affirmation from God and not government. In the grand scheme of things there are very few things a married couple can do that two regular people cannot do. About the only exclusive thing a state-approved marriage does is give my social security benefits to my spouse. Pretty much every other aspect can be achieved privately through contractual agreement.