Why don't we get the goverment out of marriage?

[sam9657]

It is obvious that marriage is a religious institutions. What ever happened to seperation of church and state? Why can't the goverment simply just get out of regulating marriages. Who cares of a man wants to marry a man, who can if a man wants to take multiple wifes. In the pic pictures these issues just seem so trivial.

Anyways that is the end of my rambling.

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

There is a large bloc of Americans that want to impose their morality on everyone. You even see a lot of them here. These phonies sell out liberty as soon as it reaches their favorite pet issue. They sell out liberty because the thought of two men kissing makes them blush.

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

There is a large bloc of Americans that want to impose their morality on everyone. You even see a lot of them here. These phonies sell out liberty as soon as it reaches their favorite pet issue. They sell out liberty because the thought of two men kissing makes them blush.Stop bashing Christians!!!:mad:

[Number19]

Government is involved in marriage because citizens want it to be, largely because a "family", or more simply, a "union" of two individuals, represent a "special interest" that the government can then dispense favors upon. These favors come in the form of tax benefits, inheritance, medical care, etc.

Marriage can be as simple as "jumping the broom", but the primary importance of having a marriage "registered" with some form of civil authority, whether it be a church or justice of the peace or some other institution, is for historical documentation and tracing of linage.

The whole issue of "gay marriage" is an issue simply because gays want to politicize the issue. It is simply not enough to declare their commitment before a group of friends. Gays want the legal recognition, from others, that can only be achieved using the force of government.

[heavenlyboy34]

Government is involved in marriage because citizens want it to be, largely because a "family", or more simply, a "union" of two individuals, represent a "special interest" that the government can then dispense favors upon. These favors come in the form of tax benefits, inheritance, medical care, etc.

Marriage can be as simple as "jumping the broom", but the primary importance of having a marriage "registered" with some form of civil authority, whether it be a church or justice of the peace or some other institution, is for historical documentation and tracing of linage.

The whole issue of "gay marriage" is an issue simply because gays want to politicize the issue. It is simply not enough to declare their commitment before a group of friends. Gays want the legal recognition, from others, that can only be achieved using the force of government.

qft

[sratiug]

It is obvious that marriage is a religious institutions. What ever happened to seperation of church and state? Why can't the goverment simply just get out of regulating marriages. Who cares of a man wants to marry a man, who can if a man wants to take multiple wifes. In the pic pictures these issues just seem so trivial.

Anyways that is the end of my rambling.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=172557&highlight=matrimony

[sratiug]

There is a large bloc of Americans that want to impose their morality on everyone. You even see a lot of them here. These phonies sell out liberty as soon as it reaches their favorite pet issue. They sell out liberty because the thought of two men kissing makes them blush.

But if we need the government to license our doctors we must need them to license our wives too... else we'd wind up with stupid whores. All government licensed marriages are perfect!

[Acala]

The whole issue of "gay marriage" is an issue simply because gays want to politicize the issue.

It is an issue because government involves itself in marriage. That makes it political right off. If government stuck to its proper role and got out of the business of saying who is married and who is not and what marriage means, then there would be no more political issue in marriage. Period. The fact that government grants special privileges to some kinds of voluntary social relationships and not to others creates a division. Stop the special treatment for some and the ones who are excluded will no longer have a complaint.

To say that gay marriage is only a political issue because gays want it to be is like saying that the tobacco subsidy is only a political issue because people who don't get the subsidy want to make it a political issue. I guess they should just shut up and accept the government's decision? If government passes laws that dictate benefits and burdens on some people and not others, it IS a political issue already.

Get government out of marriage. It ain't none of their bidness.

[dirknb@hotmail.com]

Government will never get out of anything it already has it's grimy fingers into.

[Theocrat]

But if we need the government to license our doctors we must need them to license our wives too... else we'd wind up with stupid whores. All government licensed marriages are perfect!

Nice one, sratiug! I would add that Mitt only posted those things because the electrochemical processes in his brain made him do it. :rolleyes:

[dannno]

Stop bashing Christians!!!:mad:

I know plenty of Christians who don't care about gay people getting married because it doesn't affect them. They realize it is the true Christian thing to do.

The OP is talking about the fake liberty supporters who want to be able to practice their religion but don't want others to practice theirs. There are gay churches, if they want to get married in their gay church, then let them. And let them go down to the fucking government office and get a marriage license, otherwise you are discriminating against individuals. The other option is to get the government out of marriage.

[Number19]

It is an issue because government involves itself in marriage. That makes it political right off. If government stuck to its proper role and got out of the business of saying who is married and who is not and what marriage means, then there would be no more political issue in marriage. Period. The fact that government grants special privileges to some kinds of voluntary social relationships and not to others creates a division. Stop the special treatment for some and the ones who are excluded will no longer have a complaint.I don't think there is any disagreement with this statement.


To say that gay marriage is only a political issue because gays want it to be is like saying that the tobacco subsidy is only a political issue because people who don't get the subsidy want to make it a political issue. I guess they should just shut up and accept the government's decision? If government passes laws that dictate benefits and burdens on some people and not others, it IS a political issue already.There is controversy on whether someone who advocates a libertarian form of government should simultaneously take advantage of government provided services. I take the position we should never take any position which results in an expansion of government. Short of this, taking from the government is in effect "sticking it to the man". You are adding to pressure which will eventually lead to the collapse of government.

Not all, but the position taken by gays, which you hear about, is to expand government to include themselves at the public trough. The position I could support would be for gays to not advocate for their inclusion, but rather to advocate, as you rightly point out, to get government out of "marriage" in toto.

So gays should not just "shut up and accept the government's decision", but should change the point of their attack.

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

But if we need the government to license our doctors we must need them to license our wives too... else we'd wind up with stupid whores. All government licensed marriages are perfect!

gay marriage deals with legislating morality.

licensing is an issue of fraud and legal contracts.

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Nice one, sratiug! I would add that Mitt only posted those things because the electrochemical processes in his brain made him do it. :rolleyes:

Once again, Theocrat literally does not believe in chemical synapses.

[Number19]

...let them go down to the fucking government office and get a marriage license, otherwise you are discriminating against individuals...Now this is what I really have a problem with. Why should should ANYONE, gay or hetero, need a "license" to get "married".

...licensing is an issue of fraud and legal contracts.Yes. And a legal contract can be drawn up with nothing more than a Notary Public's insurance of it's binding legality.

[dannno]

Now this is what I really have a problem with. Why should should ANYONE, gay or hetero, need a "license" to get "married".


Because those who do get the license receive benefits from the Government. That needs to end. But in the mean time, you can't have government giving benefits to some and not others. I can see a moral justification for staying out of the argument completely, but you certainly shouldn't advocate that position. I almost didn't vote "No" on Prop 8, and was just going to abstain from voting altogether, but I decided to vote "No" because this is government created inequality and I chose to fight it.

[satchelmcqueen]

i agree with the OP
i dont agree with gay marriage, but that is none of my business anyway. unless they force me to marry another man, i say stay out of it. but in the same breath i say also to keep it to yourself and shut up. i dont care what another person does, so long as they keep me out of it, and i dont have to hear about it everyday.

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

As long as the government remains in marriage, they should not discriminate.

[asimplegirl]

Being a Christian myself, I guess I allowed to say this:

We are all about spouting off how we are for smaller government, and want a separation of church and state, then turning around and saying it should be illegal to have an abortion, and for everyone else to have any kind of religious freedom in school- but we can do what we want, for homosexuals to marry- but we can...

I am beginning to get really ticked about this. Why do we care what anyone else does?? As Christians, we can have personal morals and beliefs without pushing them on others...Maybe if we would back off a bit, we wouldn't be seen as judgmental, pushy, and cold?

The way I read the bible, God tells ME not be homosexual, but he does not tell me that I should be the moral compass or babysitter of anyone else. He also told me not to judge and to love my neighbor as myself. I believe the government SHOULD be out of marriage, as well as any other moral things. This would be why I myself, am married through my church, in the eyes of my God, but not legally. I do not have to give my vows to the government. Why would I give vows to an institution that in itself is THE most corrupt being in this country, instead of my God anyway? You pledge morals to the government??? What do they have to do with your life??Nothing.

Absolutely, 100%, the government should have NOTHING to do with marriage. If they stay in it, they should absolutely give this right to EVERYONE- after all, do we leave it up to man to decide who deserves it? What happens when you are next?? When your relationship is not good enough to receive this blessing?? Then how do you feel? You already know- give them one crack in the door, and they WILL slip in.

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

I think the government has a place in the recognition of marriages for legal reasons. For essentially the same reason the government has a place in recognizing who the mother and father of children are.

[RSLudlum]

My wife and I have kept the State out of our marriage for 14yrs. by not signing a 'license'. We mutually decided we didn't need the State's permission with a 'piece of paper' to promise each other devotion. That being said/done, the State does consider us married by 'common law'.

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

My wife and I have kept the State out of our marriage for 14yrs. by not signing a 'license'. We mutually decided we didn't need the State's permission with a 'piece of paper' to promise each other devotion. That being said/done, the State does consider us married by 'common law'.

Its not so much about permission, its about notifying the state for legal reasons that you are entering into marriage

[asimplegirl]

Its not so much about permission, its about notifying the state for legal reasons that you are entering into marriage

You can do this without informing the state, though, just as I have. You sign a contract between the two consenting parties, outlining what it expected, and what will happen in case of anything negative, sign it, get a couple witnesses, get it notarized, file it at a lawyer's office, then, go to your church, vow to your God and your spouse (or at home, with family or alone, to each other) exactly what you will. Contrary to popular belief, people can take care of themselves, if they will get off the government tit. There is no need to inform the state- period.

[satchelmcqueen]

My wife and I have kept the State out of our marriage for 14yrs. by not signing a 'license'. We mutually decided we didn't need the State's permission with a 'piece of paper' to promise each other devotion. That being said/done, the State does consider us married by 'common law'.

yep. up until a few years ago, i never thought much about signing that piece of paper. but you are so right. what is it to the gov who i consider myself married to? as a christian the person does this under gods law, not the US government. as an athiest or non-christian...same thing.

as another here stated, i also think its more about taxes and crap like that more than anything. just think of all the license fees that would be lost if the gov got out of the way. and also other side money making things...lawyers, certain aspects of divorce, etc...

the government doest tax or care who you "date", but they do who you marry? doesnt make sense to me other than an excuse to get more money.