Libertarian position on gay marriage

[z9000]

deleted

[OrbitzXT]

As far as I know, Ron Paul doesn't support gay marriage. He avoids the question by saying it's a state's right issue. Meaning he isn't against gay marriage if states vote for it and pass it. But he wouldn't pass an amendment one way or the other for or against it. I'm not the most well versed on Ron Paul's stances but that was the opinion I got watching debates.

[Cshelton21]

Curve the argument to a states right issues. The federal government has no authority at the alter or the bedroom. If a state wishes to allow a bonus for a "Legal Marriage" and then sets out to define that marriage, that's fine. Those powers are enumerated to the States. however the federal governments "Marriage tax bonus" is bogus because at its core federal taxs are bogus.

Ron Paul's position is that marriage and government are not, well... married.

[sirgonzo420]

A marriage is an exchange of vows... essentially a contract.

The government has no place in it.

What "insurance", "hospital", and "family" reasons?

What compelling need is there for governments to "recognize" and regulate marriage?

[craezie]

I completely disagree with Ron Paul on marriage (one of the few things that I do). Marriage is a spiritual covenant, but it is also a legal obligation. Marriage is, and has always been, a legal contract recognized by government and society at large. You cannot have a legally binding contract without a legal record. With that contract comes both privileges and responsibilities to society.

Marriage is not just two people who are in love, or who live in the same house, or who have sex.

[bluesc]

What's hilarious is that liberals are gushing over Obama's comments, even though he has only taken the same position as Ron Paul. From Obama's campaign email:


"I respect the beliefs of others, and the right of religious institutions to act in accordance with their own doctrines. But I believe that in the eyes of the law, all Americans should be treated equally. And where states enact same-sex marriage, no federal act should invalidate them."

Now what is the issue?

[z9000]

deleted

[sirgonzo420]

double post

[James Madison]

Having power of attorney would take care of most things. Any remaining issues could be cleared-up by explaining the situation.

[craezie]

A marriage is an exchange of vows... essentially a contract.

The government has no place in it.


Clearly you do not work in law, as the government regulates almost all important contracts. Laws governing different types of contracts are essential for society to work and to preserve equality before the law.

[Beardbar]

It's a hard one that I deal with quite a bit. I support Ron Paul, I support gay marriage. I get asked the question often by my more religious friends and I tell them.

Its covered by the 1st and 14th amendment. Unfortunately most religions feel a need to extort their views on others, but this is America and you can't pick and choose which freedoms people get. Life and Liberty man.

[Jovan Galtic]

If government is not giving anything away, "official recognition" is meaningless. In a free (libertarian) society "married people" don't get any privileges from the government so it makes no difference.

[Evangelical_Protestant]

I'm not sure of the libertarian party's position. My position is that marriage should not be ordained by the government.

Obviously by my user name, you all probably already knew my definition of marriage is the physical union of one man and one woman, but these unions should be between the man and his wife without government recognition.

This ofcourse, is a liberals worst nightmare scenario, because they could no longer use such a ridiculous issue involving an extremely small minority as leverage in politics. Also not recognizing straight marriage would actually reduce the noise of the gay movement. But apparently most of my brethren are not aware of this fact.

End straight marriage recognition and then there will be equality. Ofcourse most gays and leftist fear this simple compromise as it hampers both agendas.

[flynn]

As far as I know, Ron Paul doesn't support gay marriage. He avoids the question by saying it's a state's right issue. Meaning he isn't against gay marriage if states vote for it and pass it. But he wouldn't pass an amendment one way or the other for or against it. I'm not the most well versed on Ron Paul's stances but that was the opinion I got watching debates.

There is a slight misunderstanding with that. Ron Paul has a pure libertarian position on marriage. He wants the gov to get out of it because marriage is business between two consenting adults and not government at the federal level.

[craezie]

If government is not giving anything away, "official recognition" is meaningless. In a free (libertarian) society "married people" don't get any privileges from the government so it makes no difference.

This is simplistic. When you get married, you become family. That person becomes your next of kin, with all of the legal rights and obligations. You are also creating one household, with legal rights over the productivity of the household and legal recognition and protection of any children within the marriage. Marriage isn't about getting something from the government -- it is about protecting the legal rights over the fruit of your marriage (be that monetary or children) you have as a spouse. Most people here agree that a person has the right to the fruit of his labor. Marriage creates a unique contract in which your spouse also has a right to the fruits of your labor because you agree to work together for the common good of yourselves and your children. Often this will require one or both of the spouses spending part of their time caring for children, household needs, or other things that create value but don't earn money. Also, you each automatically get 100% rights over all children issued from the marriage. This is necessary, but also different than non-married people who usually have only 1 person with primary custody.

I love to hear people say "I love her, we don't need a piece of paper". Then, for example one case we had at work, a guy's girlfriend is in a tragic accident and coma, and he wonders why her bank account and custody of their kids go to her parents (who of course hate him).

It is possible to achieve most of the same legal rights as a marriage with legal contracts, but it requires a lot of effort and expense. The exception is the tax protections. Within a marriage, you are treated as one unit and can pass money and things back and forth freely without incurring any kind of gift or income taxes. Once one spouse dies, you also aren't subject to any estate taxes. No other relationship is treated the same way for obvious reasons. So in order to abolish marriage, we would also first need a libertarian utopia where all of those taxes were gone.

[Gumba of Liberty]

I got you brotha, post this on facebook :D


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXpsT3e8UsM

[flynn]

Hey guys, need some liberty related help. I posted something on facebook about how we should privatize marriage and was left this comment

But unfortunately two people need the government to recognize their relationship for insurance, hospital, and family reasons. It's awesome that Obama has evolved his view. I do like Ron Paul, but a recognized legal marriage is more important than the credit he is giving it.


Any good ideas on how to respond?

Respond: Well then it is a good thing that no one is debating whether government should certify marriage or not. The essential argument is, of course, whether government has the power to decide who should get married. Ron Paul is not against a city official stamping a piece of paper to certify between consenting adults. Ron Paul is against government having the power to decide that city official should have any say on consenting adults' personal liberty to form union.

[pcgame]

..

[flynn]

This is simplistic. When you get married, you become family. That person becomes your next of kin, with all of the legal rights and obligations. You are also creating one household, with legal rights over the productivity of the household and legal recognition and protection of any children within the marriage. Marriage isn't about getting something from the government -- it is about protecting the legal rights over the fruit of your marriage (be that monetary or children) you have as a spouse. Most people here agree that a person has the right to the fruit of his labor. Marriage creates a unique contract in which your spouse also has a right to the fruits of your labor because you agree to work together for the common good of yourselves and your children. Often this will require one or both of the spouses spending part of their time caring for children, household needs, or other things that create value but don't earn money. Also, you each automatically get 100% rights over all children issued from the marriage. This is necessary, but also different than non-married people who usually have only 1 person with primary custody.

I love to hear people say "I love her, we don't need a piece of paper". Then, for example one case we had at work, a guy's girlfriend is in a tragic accident and coma, and he wonders why her bank account and custody of their kids go to her parents (who of course hate him).

It is possible to achieve most of the same legal rights as a marriage with legal contracts, but it requires a lot of effort and expense. The exception is the tax protections. Within a marriage, you are treated as one unit and can pass money and things back and forth freely without incurring any kind of gift or income taxes. Once one spouse dies, you also aren't subject to any estate taxes. No other relationship is treated the same way for obvious reasons. So in order to abolish marriage, we would also first need a libertarian utopia where all of those taxes were gone.

So your argument is, people are not smart enough to sign a set of documents to delegate multiple life/death/health related responsibilities if marriage was never invented? Okay, end of straw man attack from here. I just want to say maybe, just maybe government has granted too wide variety of privileges through marriage over the years that people fail to see in each events of life, there maybe other simpler solution to achieve the same thing.

[Gumba of Liberty]

In a libertarian society marriage and incorporation would be two distinctly different institutions. Marriage would be a religious institution where two people come together to bind their immortal souls in the presence of their creator, government would have zero involvement in such an institution. Incorporation, on the other hand, would be a legal union between consenting adults in the eyes of the State. Adults, whether there are 2, 3, or 10 of them could share their lives, homes, bank accounts, etc. and live in communes (forming a type of voluntary communism) if they so choose. A much different world that would be.

[Jovan Galtic]

Exactly. Similar contract can be signed and executed without government definition of "marriage", like all other contracts.

[flynn]

In a libertarian society marriage and incorporation would be two distinctly different institutions. Marriage would be a religious institution where two people come together to bind their immortal souls in the presence of their creator, government would have zero involvement in such an institution. Incorporation, on the other hand, would be a legal union between consenting adults in the eyes of the State. Adults, whether there are 2, 3, or 10 of them could share their lives, homes, bank accounts, etc. and live in communes (forming a type of voluntary communism) if they so choose. A much different would that would be.

Hmmm maybe in a libertarian society marriage would evolve into a per anum contract; such as people could choose different degree of time frame to be married to each other and it'd expire if free people decide to discontinue it.

[Ninja Homer]

This is simplistic. When you get married, you become family. That person becomes your next of kin, with all of the legal rights and obligations. You are also creating one household, with legal rights over the productivity of the household and legal recognition and protection of any children within the marriage. Marriage isn't about getting something from the government -- it is about protecting the legal rights over the fruit of your marriage (be that monetary or children) you have as a spouse. Most people here agree that a person has the right to the fruit of his labor. Marriage creates a unique contract in which your spouse also has a right to the fruits of your labor because you agree to work together for the common good of yourselves and your children. Often this will require one or both of the spouses spending part of their time caring for children, household needs, or other things that create value but don't earn money. Also, you each automatically get 100% rights over all children issued from the marriage. This is necessary, but also different than non-married people who usually have only 1 person with primary custody.

Close, but not quite.

You're forgetting about the third party in a marriage license... the state. It isn't just a contract between husband and wife, you're also inviting the state into your bedroom, and they take partial ownership over any fruits of your labor, including any children or inheritance.

For much of this country's history, a marriage license was not required. Laws for handling marriage (inheritance, etc) still existed, but to prove there was a marriage they just had to get records from the church.

After the abolition of slavery, the first marriage license requirements occurred, for interracial couples. A while after that, people called for equality. Instead of becoming equally free to marry, everybody became equally in bed with the government, and everybody was required to get a marriage license. The state never gives up its power once it has it.

Ron Paul is right... get the state out of the marriage business, and let religion handle it like they've done for thousands of years.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I'd like to settle the debate by turning it into a First Amendment issue: the right of free speech. Everyone can have his or her definition of what marriage means, and if an agreement or contract is reached by the participants, it will qualify as a civil contract if desired. ...

There should be essentially no limits to the voluntary definition of marriage ...

If others who choose a different definition do not impose their standards on anyone else, they have a First Amendment right to their own definition and access to the courts to arbitrate any civil disputes. ...

It is typical of how government intervention in social issues serves no useful purpose. With a bit more tolerance and a lot less government involvement in our lives, this needless problem and emotionally charged debate could be easily avoided. ...

In economics, licensing is designed by the special interests to suppress competition. Licensing for social reasons reflects the intolerant person's desire to mold other people's behavior to their standard. Both depend on the illegitimate use of government force.

That's way stronger than Obama's limp-wristed approach, and even includes polygamy. Yet Ron Paul is a fascist, anti-gay state's rights crusader and Obama is the savior. For invoking state's rights.

Unreal.

[Bohner]

Yep... Marriage is essentially a contract between two consenting parties. The only role government should play is to make sure that the two parties signed the contract in the absence of coercion or fraud, and to enforce it once the terms are agreed upon, and signed on.

[Peace&Freedom]

Marriage has been understood throughout the history of civilization as a religious RITE, not a government or civil rights issue. That rite has always specified a man and a woman (NOT merely "two consenting parties") being joined together under God's blessing---which is why the ceremony is described as bringing them together in HOLY matrimony. The couple make their vows to primarily to GOD to stay faithful, and only secondarily to each other. This is why 'gay marriage' is especially unnerving to traditionalists, for it implies God has blessed sexual immorality as holy, when He absolutely has not, and will not. There can be no such thing as "gay marriage" in the religious rite sense, as there can be gay communion, or gay baptisms.

As a matter of contract, individuals are free to sign an agreement that confers benefits and other transferable resources to each other, which in the absence of force or fraud the government has a legitimate power to protect and enforce, but this does not render the arrangement "marriage," or a God-endorsed union. The emphasis put on forcing everyone to accept a gay union as "married," when a non-government solution is available, is precisely an attempt to use the state as an instrument to effect a propaganda victory to confer social approval of gay couples. Or more simply, social liberals imposing their values on social conservatives. This should be opposed when the left tries it on the right, or when the right tries on the left, from an anti-authoritarian perspective.

There is no actual 'right' to be married at all, other than as a form of free exercise of religious liberty, under which the traditional understanding above applies. Once government at any level is involved in marriage, it involves a license, at which point the marriage is not a rights issue at all, but one of government privilege. A license is a privilege the government grants, not a right an individual is born with. And gays are a group, not an individual to whom rights apply. So when supporters demand a 'right' for gays to marry, what they are actually asking is for a government privilege to be extended to another group. This is not a libertarian appeal, but a collectivist one draped in libertarian rhetoric.

[ProIndividual]

Government has no business at all in marriage..it's religious issue. Govt doesn't have to sanction or ban marriages for them to exist AT ALL.

[ProIndividual]

That rite has always specified a man and a woman (NOT merely "two consenting parties") being joined together under God's blessing

Actually for most of human hisotry marriage was a property arrangement for sale of chattle...women. Most of the history of marriage was dominated by one man marrying many women. They were nothing but property. This is the REAL history of marriage, not the revisionist nonsense religious people like to fantasize about. Marriage is neither monogamous nor voluntary for most of its history.

What is required to prevent two people from getting married today is TYRANNY. Force. Aggression via the state. Statism!

If you can find a preacher/imam/rabbi/whatever to marry you, you should be free to be married w/o state tyranny stopping it. Even if the church worships a toaster oven, and married 5 people to each other, that is legitmate because they are all adults and consent. It takes tyranny to prevent it.

Libertarian 101.


There can be no such thing as "gay marriage" in the religious rite sense, as there can be gay communion, or gay baptisms.

Says you and your interpretation of a myth book.

[Ranger29860]

In a libertarian society marriage and incorporation would be two distinctly different institutions. Marriage would be a religious institution where two people come together to bind their immortal souls in the presence of their creator, government would have zero involvement in such an institution. Incorporation, on the other hand, would be a legal union between consenting adults in the eyes of the State. Adults, whether there are 2, 3, or 10 of them could share their lives, homes, bank accounts, etc. and live in communes (forming a type of voluntary communism) if they so choose. A much different world that would be.

BINGO!

[Peace&Freedom]

Actually for most of human hisotry marriage was a property arrangement for sale of chattle...women. Most of the history of marriage was dominated by one man marrying many women. They were nothing but property. This is the REAL history of marriage, not the revisionist nonsense religious people like to fantasize about. Marriage is neither monogamous nor voluntary for most of its history.

What is required to prevent two people from getting married today is TYRANNY. Force. Aggression via the state. Statism!

If you can find a preacher/imam/rabbi/whatever to marry you, you should be free to be married w/o state tyranny stopping it. Even if the church worships a toaster oven, and married 5 people to each other, that is legitmate because they are all adults and consent. It takes tyranny to prevent it.

Libertarian 101.


Your rant is secularist social liberalism using libertarian rhetoric 101, exhibit A. It takes tyranny AND coercive revisionism on your part to use court decrees and other state instruments to impose acceptance of gay marriage upon a society full of adults who do not consent to it. If adulterers politically mobilized to get the government to make adulterous couples get treated by all the same as married couples, the result would be just as absurd. In fact, it is their exact point to so impose, when non-state contractual methods of getting the union benefits exist, since what they really desire is the moral legitimacy conferred by the term marriage. When the social left does this it is being authoritarian, period.

[tod evans]

I'm not capable of speaking for anyone but myself.

I don't care if ***** want to marry, what I care about is the government imposing financial liability on me or my kids for anybodies marriage hetro or ****.

[farreri]

I don't care if ***** want to marry
Apparently you don't care if you sound homophobic either.

[tod evans]

Apparently you don't care if you sound homophobic either.

Nope, don't care what your opinion of me is.

I'm not politically correct and proud of it. ;)

[fisharmor]

Apparently you don't care if you sound homophobic either.

How can he be homophobic for referring to them as *****?
You've created a syntactic PC black hole that threatens to suck your brain into it.

[fisharmor]

Clearly you do not work in law, as the government regulates almost all important contracts. Laws governing different types of contracts are essential for society to work and to preserve equality before the law.

Why is this opinion showing up so regularly on RPF these days?

Because the state is improperly involved in thing B, partially related thing A requires state involvement.

Not quite QED, folks.

[tod evans]

How can he be homophobic for referring to them as *****?
You've created a syntactic PC black hole that threatens to suck your brain into it.

Hell, I could be hetrophobic too?

[VBRonPaulFan]

you don't need the govt to recognize marriage for insurance companies, families, hospitals, etc to/to not recognize it. some companies/hospitals would recognize civil unions, some wouldn't. what's the big deal? you get the freedom to choose the places that cater to you. the libertarian position to marriage is 'i don't fuck with you, don't fuck with me'. ie - go ahead and marry whomever you want, and i'll marry whomever i want. but don't try to push your beliefs on marriage onto me.

[jmdrake]

Hey guys, need some liberty related help. I posted something on facebook about how we should privatize marriage and was left this comment


But unfortunately two people need the government to recognize their relationship for insurance, hospital, and family reasons. It's awesome that Obama has evolved his view. I do like Ron Paul, but a recognized legal marriage is more important than the credit he is giving it.


Any good ideas on how to respond?

Your personal relationships should not depend on who you are sleeping with. I'll take each issue one at a time.

1) Insurance - You can put anyone on your car insurance you want for an additional fee. The same should be true for your health insurance. The problem is that FDR froze wages and gave tax incentives for health insurance to employers, making it a "group benefit" instead of an individual benefit. Change the tax code (or better yet get rid of the income tax altogether) and this issue goes away.

2) Hospital - All 50 states recognize by law durable powers of attorney for healthcare. Hospitals must allow anyone with a DPOAH to visit the person in the hospital that they hold the DPOAH for and to make medical decisions for that person. People who claim otherwise are ignorant or just lying. I took a family law class for a professor who was stridently pro gay marriage. She brought up the hospital visitation issue. I asked about a power of attorney for healthcare. She said I was right, but it just had to be a durable power of attorney for healthcare. I wonder if I hadn't brought this up if she would have let the rest of the class remain in the dark about this?

3) Family reasons - I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean. :confused: But states that don't recognize gay marriage already put gays in the same "child support" slavery system as they put straights in. Gays can also get alimony if they contract for it when the relationship begins.

Really, the whole gay marriage "issue" is a distraction. Gays can get married. That marriage is just not recognized by the state. But just about any legitimate "right" that comes from marriage can be gained by contract. In contrast polygamists get arrested for even pretending to get married. Why is nobody speaking up for them?

[Feeding the Abscess]

you don't need the govt to recognize marriage for insurance companies, families, hospitals, etc to/to not recognize it. some companies/hospitals would recognize civil unions, some wouldn't. what's the big deal? you get the freedom to choose the places that cater to you. the libertarian position to marriage is 'i don't fuck with you, don't fuck with me'. ie - go ahead and marry whomever you want, and i'll marry whomever i want. but don't try to push your beliefs on marriage onto me.

Problem is, hetero marriage is pushed on everyone (non-hetero couples, polyamorous relationships and single individuals of all stripes), so that doesn't really fly. There are two logical outcomes: everyone wanting to enter a contract can get government goodies, or nobody wanting to enter a contract can get goodies. Sure, first option still involves theft, and it shouldn't be your bargaining position, but it's better than being both immoral and granting rights to groups.

[heavenlyboy34]

Government has no business at all in marriage..it's religious issue. Govt doesn't have to sanction or ban marriages for them to exist AT ALL.
This^^ Marriage (in the strictest sense) is a religious covenant, not a legal contract. It's true that people have used it to determine inheritance rights and so on, but that doesn't change the nature of the covenant-it's just stuff governments have added along the way. It seems more rational to separate the legal and religious aspects of marriage to me.

[jmdrake]

That's way stronger than Obama's limp-wristed approach, and even includes polygamy. Yet Ron Paul is a fascist, anti-gay state's rights crusader and Obama is the savior. For invoking state's rights.

Unreal.

Just searched for your quote and found an awesome website dedicated to Ron Paul's book "Liberty Defined".

http://libertydefined.org/issue/28

Thanks!

[jmdrake]

Problem is, hetero marriage is pushed on everyone (non-hetero couples, polyamorous relationships and single individuals of all stripes), so that doesn't really fly. There are two logical outcomes: everyone wanting to enter a contract can get government goodies, or nobody wanting to enter a contract can get goodies. Sure, first option still involves theft, and it shouldn't be your bargaining position, but it's better than being both immoral and granting rights to groups.

So the answer is push for more theft in order to make it "equal"? I believe the only logical conclusion is to push in the opposite direction and concentrate on disentangling the government from marriage. That's compatible with our goals and should be something we can agree on.

Edit: And for the issues of hospitals and "family", gays can already fix those "problems" through contract. Insurance (health insurance specifically) is the big ugly 200 lbs gorilla. Health insurance tax benefits should be given to the individual instead of the employer for a variety of reasons.

[farreri]

How can he be homophobic for referring to them as *****?
:rolleyes:

[Lishy]

A marriage is an exchange of vows... essentially a contract.

The government has no place in it.

What "insurance", "hospital", and "family" reasons?

What compelling need is there for governments to "recognize" and regulate marriage?

This.

/12chars

/thread

[Sam I am]

Hey guys, need some liberty related help. I posted something on facebook about how we should privatize marriage and was left this comment


Any good ideas on how to respond?


As far as Insurance is concerned, unless it's some sort of public insurance, the insurance company should not be bound by whether or not the government thinks that you're married.

As far as hospital and family matters are concerned, It is currently legal to pre-authorize any person to visit you in the hospital as though they were your spouse, to receive your assets when you die as though they were your spouse, and to make legal decisions on your behalf as though they were your spouse.

[Feeding the Abscess]

So the answer is push for more theft in order to make it "equal"? I believe the only logical conclusion is to push in the opposite direction and concentrate on disentangling the government from marriage. That's compatible with our goals and should be something we can agree on.

Right, the desired outcome is zero government involvement in marriage. But if there are to be handouts, everyone should be able to get them. Everyone

No theft no granting of rights > theft > theft and granting of rights

[jmdrake]

Right, the desired outcome is zero government involvement in marriage. But if there are to be handouts, everyone should be able to get them. Everyone

No theft no granting of rights > theft > theft and granting of rights

Except the current push isn't to give them to "everyone". Those who practice polygamy and incest are left out. So your increasing the amount of theft. It would be like passing a civil rights act that only applied to black people. The only legitimate way forward is to work on reducing the handouts. And they aren't really "handouts" as much as they are control on people's resources. People pay into Social Security for example. They should instead be allowed to pay into an individual savings account.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Except the current push isn't to give them to "everyone". Those who practice polygamy and incest are left out. So your increasing the amount of theft. It would be like passing a civil rights act that only applied to black people. The only legitimate way forward is to work on reducing the handouts. And they aren't really "handouts" as much as they are control on people's resources. People pay into Social Security for example. They should instead be allowed to pay into an individual savings account.

I don't agree with the current push. I don't much care what the mood of the day is, and I agree with your objections regarding polygamy and incest. As well as cohabitants, people dating, etc.

[LawnWake]

Modern marriage is basically one contract that implies a crapload of different contracts to the government. You fix this by getting rid of that 'one contract' and just take care of all contracts individually.

Oh and uhh, let's say there's a privatized version of 'that one contract'. Why the hell wouldn't the free market be able to get a better version of it?

And if it's a 'spritual thing' why even involve the government? What's spiritual about a damn govrernment? YOu don't believe 'God' in his supposed infinity and wisdom can figure out marriage by himself without help from the American government or electorate?

"Yeaah, government sucks at pretty much anything. It's a corrupt and inefficient instiution, but where would marriage be without them?'* @

*as evident by the fact that until very recently, people of different races couldn't marry and white christian taliban are trying to push big government to legislate morality and keep those pesky gays from getting married! Who will think of the children?

@ Between the people who are married.


What compelling need is there for governments to "recognize" and regulate marriage?

To make sure that the government can do what some of these supposed christians think their God can't. Keep the gays form getting married. The guy is supposed to have created the heavens and the Earth, but these christian fundamentalist rednecks think he's too stupid to figure out what he's supposed to do when gay people get married.

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

The proper libertarian position on this issue, is one of non-intrusive government. The question is, why? Marriage is a private contract between 2 individuals, and it's not a role of government.

Individual (Human) Rights holds priority over States Rights, and then States Rights holds priority over Federal Rights.

Individual > State > Federal

[Todd]

A marriage is an exchange of vows... essentially a contract.

The government has no place in it.

What "insurance", "hospital", and "family" reasons?

What compelling need is there for governments to "recognize" and regulate marriage?

This^

The government is in the contract business off all these things for one reason: REVENUE

[Elwar]

Marriage is a religious ceremony.

The government should play no role in marriage.

You should not need a certificate from the government in order to spend the rest of your life with the one that you love.

[dirtdigger]

This is simplistic. When you get married, you become family. That person becomes your next of kin, with all of the legal rights and obligations. You are also creating one household, with legal rights over the productivity of the household and legal recognition and protection of any children within the marriage. Marriage isn't about getting something from the government -- it is about protecting the legal rights over the fruit of your marriage (be that monetary or children) you have as a spouse.

This is incorrect. If you want to talk contracts, let the two individuals write up a contract and enforce it on each other. It is not obligatory for the rest of us to honor allegedly "implied" contracts. Marriage is not a contract but a relationship based on love and trust.

[bill1971]

Yep... Marriage is essentially a contract between two consenting parties. The only role government should play is to make sure that the two parties signed the contract in the absence of coercion or fraud, and to enforce it once the terms are agreed upon, and signed on.

I like it, very brief and to the point.

[seeker4sho]

Hey guys, need some liberty related help. I posted something on facebook about how we should privatize marriage and was left this comment




Any good ideas on how to respond?

Marriage is more than a legal contract. Marriage is a commentment between two individuals. Ron Paul says it is a church matter and the government should stay out of it. I could not agree more. Any two individuals entering into a legal contract should have the same rights as any one else entering into a similar contract.

[DEGuy]

Somewhat relevant story to this post:

I used to live next to a very nice family were the parents decided not to get legally married, but wore wedding bands, presented themselves as husband/wife to everyone, etc.

They were self-decribed commitment-phobes that decided they were happier signing a 5 year agreement with each other that was effectively the same thing as marriage, but with a detailed escape plan at the end. They were great together, but apparantly the thought of a permanent commitment and the ugliness of divorce turned them off from the traditional route. I'd never heard about something like that at the time, but I figured they were happy, so why not?

When I asked about whether or not they had ever run into legal troubles about posing as a married couple, or not being officially married, they said it had never happened, and the contract granted all the same rights. The only difference was they couldn't put down "married" on any official government form. But, when you think about it, do your family and friends really need to look at your tax returns anyhow?

Point is, I don't think it's a factor if people go around saying they are married even if isn't in a legal document. (Except with polygamy)

[jmdrake]

This is incorrect. If you want to talk contracts, let the two individuals write up a contract and enforce it on each other. It is not obligatory for the rest of us to honor allegedly "implied" contracts. Marriage is not a contract but a relationship based on love and trust.

Some contracts allow the contracting party to obligate 3rd parties. Those include powers of attorney, wills etc. Take a will. With it I can obligate a bank to turn over money to whoever I designate at my death even though the bank has no relationship with that person. That person "steps into the shoes" of me. Marriage sets up those relationships in a package deal. But there is no reason those relationships couldn't be done as individual contracts, or that someone couldn't package all of them up into one document without government intervention.

[JorgeStevenson]

This is simplistic...

...
It is possible to achieve most of the same legal rights as a marriage with legal contracts, but it requires a lot of effort and expense. The exception is the tax protections. Within a marriage, you are treated as one unit and can pass money and things back and forth freely without incurring any kind of gift or income taxes. Once one spouse dies, you also aren't subject to any estate taxes. No other relationship is treated the same way for obvious reasons. So in order to abolish marriage, we would also first need a libertarian utopia where all of those taxes were gone.

I agree with everything you wrote, but the bolded section is not quite accurate, and could potentially be drastically misleading. I'm a CPA, I graduated #1 in my masters program at one of the top schools, work at one of the big 4 accounting firms, etc. I studied estate taxes in depth during 2010, so unless the law has changed since then, here's how it works -

The estate tax provides for a 100% deduction of anything you leave to your surviving spouse. However, once only one spouse remains, there is no possibility of receiving the "marriage deduction" unless that spouse remarries. Meaning, if you leave $5M to your spouse when you die, and you die first, there will be no estate tax on that $5M upon your death. But, if that spouse doesn't either remarry or find a way to shield the $5M from the estate tax during his/her lifetime, the entire $5M will be subject to the estate tax upon his/her death.

So, the "marriage deduction" is actually a huge trap if you think about it in the way that you literally worded your statement because you can completely screw over your spouse if you leave them too much. But, the marriage deduction, together with special property rights for married couples and double-gifting, basically provides the foundation of a good estate planning strategy.

[PaulConventionWV]

Curve the argument to a states right issues. The federal government has no authority at the alter or the bedroom. If a state wishes to allow a bonus for a "Legal Marriage" and then sets out to define that marriage, that's fine. Those powers are enumerated to the States. however the federal governments "Marriage tax bonus" is bogus because at its core federal taxs are bogus.

Ron Paul's position is that marriage and government are not, well... married.

I'm not so sure that the states can do that. You would have to look in your state's Constitution to decide if your state is authorized to mix with marriage at all. I don't think it should at all, on any level, and I will fight that in my state. Too bad the federal government is already regulating it.

[PaulConventionWV]

Clearly you do not work in law, as the government regulates almost all important contracts. Laws governing different types of contracts are essential for society to work and to preserve equality before the law.

Because it does... doesn't mean it should.

[PaulConventionWV]

This is simplistic. When you get married, you become family. That person becomes your next of kin, with all of the legal rights and obligations. You are also creating one household, with legal rights over the productivity of the household and legal recognition and protection of any children within the marriage. Marriage isn't about getting something from the government -- it is about protecting the legal rights over the fruit of your marriage (be that monetary or children) you have as a spouse. Most people here agree that a person has the right to the fruit of his labor. Marriage creates a unique contract in which your spouse also has a right to the fruits of your labor because you agree to work together for the common good of yourselves and your children. Often this will require one or both of the spouses spending part of their time caring for children, household needs, or other things that create value but don't earn money. Also, you each automatically get 100% rights over all children issued from the marriage. This is necessary, but also different than non-married people who usually have only 1 person with primary custody.

I love to hear people say "I love her, we don't need a piece of paper". Then, for example one case we had at work, a guy's girlfriend is in a tragic accident and coma, and he wonders why her bank account and custody of their kids go to her parents (who of course hate him).

It is possible to achieve most of the same legal rights as a marriage with legal contracts, but it requires a lot of effort and expense. The exception is the tax protections. Within a marriage, you are treated as one unit and can pass money and things back and forth freely without incurring any kind of gift or income taxes. Once one spouse dies, you also aren't subject to any estate taxes. No other relationship is treated the same way for obvious reasons. So in order to abolish marriage, we would also first need a libertarian utopia where all of those taxes were gone.

Why do you think we need the governmen to tell us who our next of kin is? Contracts can still be made regardless of what the government definition is. All the government has to do is recognize those contracts.

[PaulConventionWV]

Actually for most of human hisotry marriage was a property arrangement for sale of chattle...women. Most of the history of marriage was dominated by one man marrying many women. They were nothing but property. This is the REAL history of marriage, not the revisionist nonsense religious people like to fantasize about. Marriage is neither monogamous nor voluntary for most of its history.

What is required to prevent two people from getting married today is TYRANNY. Force. Aggression via the state. Statism!

If you can find a preacher/imam/rabbi/whatever to marry you, you should be free to be married w/o state tyranny stopping it. Even if the church worships a toaster oven, and married 5 people to each other, that is legitmate because they are all adults and consent. It takes tyranny to prevent it.

Libertarian 101.



Says you and your interpretation of a myth book.

The state does not prevent anyone from getting married. It simply withholds itself as a member in the contract from homosexual couples. I say get the government out of heterosexual couple marraiges, too, not add them as a factor in gay people's lives, too. What you say about marriage, I think, is a very one-sided view of history. I don't think you can speak in such absolute terms about any historical tradition like you do.

[PaulConventionWV]

Apparently you don't care if you sound homophobic either.

What does homophobic even mean? Apparently "not caring" now fits in the category of "homophobic." What a dumb word.

[PaulConventionWV]

Problem is, hetero marriage is pushed on everyone (non-hetero couples, polyamorous relationships and single individuals of all stripes), so that doesn't really fly. There are two logical outcomes: everyone wanting to enter a contract can get government goodies, or nobody wanting to enter a contract can get goodies. Sure, first option still involves theft, and it shouldn't be your bargaining position, but it's better than being both immoral and granting rights to groups.

Government goodies are not rights. That is your first mistake. Your second mistake is assuming that it is better to enforce theft equally than to simply be against theft. If you are against theft, then you will not endorse the government licensing marriage of any kind. Why not just be against theft and stop pretending like it is somehow more practical to add government control in the name of fairness? It doesn't achieve anything. The view that the government should make things fair is nothing but liberal propaganda. You can't have it both ways. You can't be against marriage licenses and then tell me that the government should have more power in the name of fairness. It doesn't make any sense. Fairness would not be an issue if we just got the government out of it altogether. Why argue for more government involvement when you can argue for less to reach the same ends.

[PaulConventionWV]

So the answer is push for more theft in order to make it "equal"? I believe the only logical conclusion is to push in the opposite direction and concentrate on disentangling the government from marriage. That's compatible with our goals and should be something we can agree on.

Edit: And for the issues of hospitals and "family", gays can already fix those "problems" through contract. Insurance (health insurance specifically) is the big ugly 200 lbs gorilla. Health insurance tax benefits should be given to the individual instead of the employer for a variety of reasons.

An anorexic or starved gorilla is 200 lbs. In fact, I doubt if it would be alive at that weight. It might be ugly, but by no means is it big.

[PaulConventionWV]

Right, the desired outcome is zero government involvement in marriage. But if there are to be handouts, everyone should be able to get them. Everyone

No theft no granting of rights > theft > theft and granting of rights

You are not listening. This argument does NOT involve RIGHTS. YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO GET MARRIED. Nobody's freedom is being violated by the fact that government refrains from being a party in your marital contract or civil union.

You achieve the same amount of fairness by giving no government privileges to married individuals as you do by giving them to all, so WHY would we want to move in the direction of MORE government theft? It doesn't make sense to add government involvement when you can have less and achieve the same amount of fairness.

[Jovan Galtic]

What does homophobic even mean? Apparently "not caring" now fits in the category of "homophobic." What a dumb word.

It is just a form of "ad hominem" attack.

[PaulConventionWV]

It is just a form of "ad hominem" attack.

My sentiment exactly.

[DerailingDaTrain]

Government shouldn't be involved in marriage. Period.

That however will take a long time to accomplish. I don't blame any gay person who wants to get married.

[ProIndividual]

Your rant is secularist social liberalism using libertarian rhetoric 101, exhibit A. It takes tyranny AND coercive revisionism on your part to use court decrees and other state instruments to impose acceptance of gay marriage upon a society full of adults who do not consent to it. If adulterers politically mobilized to get the government to make adulterous couples to be treated by all the same as married couples, the result would be just as absurd. In fact, it is their exact point to so impose, when non-state contractual methods of getting the union benefits exist, since what they really desire is the moral legitimacy conferred by the term marriage. When the social left does this it is being authoritarian, period.

Everything I said was historically correct. Most of history marriage was not voluntary or monogamous. I'm also not an athiest, I'm a Deist (what the Founders called Christian Deism).

The fact you think libertarianism is socially liberal shows the black and white fallacy your mind is operating under.

Try proving me wrong with logic and reason, not your religious BS made up morals of tyranny and the state.

No one is suggesting churches be FORCED to marry anyone...what we're suggesting is the state not FORCE them to only marry who they say it's okay to marry based on what other churches want.

If you read what I said you'd know that.

All adults should be able to marry any (and as many) other adullt(s) as they like. Nothing but tyranny of the state can stop these VOLUNTARY associations.

See that's logic...try it now.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Government goodies are not rights. That is your first mistake. Your second mistake is assuming that it is better to enforce theft equally than to simply be against theft. If you are against theft, then you will not endorse the government licensing marriage of any kind. Why not just be against theft and stop pretending like it is somehow more practical to add government control in the name of fairness? It doesn't achieve anything. The view that the government should make things fair is nothing but liberal propaganda. You can't have it both ways. You can't be against marriage licenses and then tell me that the government should have more power in the name of fairness. It doesn't make any sense. Fairness would not be an issue if we just got the government out of it altogether. Why argue for more government involvement when you can argue for less to reach the same ends.

Never said government goodies are natural rights, never said it is better to enforce theft equally than simply oppose theft (in fact, I said it shouldn't be your bargaining position to be for enforcing theft), never said it was practical to add more theft and aggression in the name of fairness, never said government should have more power to ensure fairness, never said the government should be more involved in the issue.

Here's the rub: as long as libertarians and paleocons will either tacitly or expressly agree with Republicans in opposing gay marriage - regardless of the reasoning why - nothing will ever change. Worse, as this generation and the following come into power, gay marriage will be granted and more power ceded to the State. If we give two options:

Anyone and everyone, including polygamist and incestuous relationships, can have access to government handouts and marriage licenses

Nobody receives any benefits or licensing from government for their relationships

Which option will opponents of gay marriage choose? It's time to stop giving them an out. Instead of banging our head against a brick wall and hoping that the next strike will bring it down, we need to walk around the damn wall and build a new one, letting Republicans and supporters of State-sanctioned marriage derp against the wall.

[Ranger29860]

What does homophobic even mean? Apparently "not caring" now fits in the category of "homophobic." What a dumb word.

Homophobia is just like the word racist now in days. When used in the right context it does fit and is not ad hominid. But most people don't know what homophobia really is. Having someone actively seek out ways to persecute you just based on your personal choices in private (I'm not talking about those people who say its icky) like people actively trying to kick you out of the community or throwing bricks through your windows because they think your a pedophile (a lot of people in the south still believe homosexuality leads to pedophilia) is homophobia. Or people who get VIOLENT once they find out your GLBT and assault you or murder you. I can make a 30 page thread on different news stories where gays where killed or assaulted nearly everyday a decade back. Not so much today with the exception of transgender individuals who are still constantly killed sometimes even in public and in bars just because individuals they had just met and were talking to found out they were trans. Until you see this first hand I really don't think you can understand what homophobia truly is. I have seen very few if any individuals on these boards that I would classify as homophobic, hell I don't THINK that I have ever called anyone it on here.

Trying to sell blatant lies to others about the consequences of your lifestyle or that you have "alternate motives" are bigots.
This is where the majority of those I have issue with on these boards are. But even this group is maybe a handful on the forums and only one I would say that applies to has posted in this thread.

Everyone else here just has a different view on how it should be handled not necessarily that should not be allowed. I have not seen anyone claim that says gays should not be aloud to marry once the state gets out of marriage all together. From people who are not also bigoted.

If you don't lie about homosexuals but you don't want to allow them to get married once state involvement is gone, I don't know how I would classify you. But you are sure as hell not homophobic or bigoted. But that being said I am pretty sure your not for individual rights either.


TLDR;
Homophobia = Fear of gays (violent reaction)
Bigot = Hatred of gays (lies to get others to hate)

[papitosabe]

i think RP answered the very issue on the Kudlow report the othe day..he said he doesn't agree, but the federal gov't should stay out...

[PaulConventionWV]

Never said government goodies are natural rights, never said it is better to enforce theft equally than simply oppose theft (in fact, I said it shouldn't be your bargaining position to be for enforcing theft), never said it was practical to add more theft and aggression in the name of fairness, never said government should have more power to ensure fairness, never said the government should be more involved in the issue.

Here's the rub: as long as libertarians and paleocons will either tacitly or expressly agree with Republicans in opposing gay marriage - regardless of the reasoning why - nothing will ever change. Worse, as this generation and the following come into power, gay marriage will be granted and more power ceded to the State. If we give two options:

Anyone and everyone, including polygamist and incestuous relationships, can have access to government handouts and marriage licenses

Nobody receives any benefits or licensing from government for their relationships

Which option will opponents of gay marriage choose? It's time to stop giving them an out. Instead of banging our head against a brick wall and hoping that the next strike will bring it down, we need to walk around the damn wall and build a new one, letting Republicans and supporters of State-sanctioned marriage derp against the wall.


Problem is, hetero marriage is pushed on everyone (non-hetero couples, polyamorous relationships and single individuals of all stripes), so that doesn't really fly. There are two logical outcomes: everyone wanting to enter a contract can get government goodies, or nobody wanting to enter a contract can get goodies. Sure, first option still involves theft, and it shouldn't be your bargaining position, but it's better than being both immoral and granting rights to groups.

If you don't believe government goodies are rights, then what "rights" are you referring to in this quote?

The problem with even recognizing the possibility that we could extend government goodies to gay couples is that it's the same argument for not ending the fed. It's not practical to end the fed, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. A better analogy, in fact, would be expanding the fed's powers because you don't believe it's practical to eliminate it, and you just want things to be "fair." I am not talking specifically about you, FTA, but that seems to be a prevailing opinion of many here.

[PaulConventionWV]

Homophobia is just like the word racist now in days. When used in the right context it does fit and is not ad hominid. But most people don't know what homophobia really is. Having someone actively seek out ways to persecute you just based on your personal choices in private (I'm not talking about those people who say its icky) like people actively trying to kick you out of the community or throwing bricks through your windows because they think your a pedophile (a lot of people in the south still believe homosexuality leads to pedophilia) is homophobia. Or people who get VIOLENT once they find out your GLBT and assault you or murder you. I can make a 30 page thread on different news stories where gays where killed or assaulted nearly everyday a decade back. Not so much today with the exception of transgender individuals who are still constantly killed sometimes even in public and in bars just because individuals they had just met and were talking to found out they were trans. Until you see this first hand I really don't think you can understand what homophobia truly is. I have seen very few if any individuals on these boards that I would classify as homophobic, hell I don't THINK that I have ever called anyone it on here.

Trying to sell blatant lies to others about the consequences of your lifestyle or that you have "alternate motives" are bigots.
This is where the majority of those I have issue with on these boards are. But even this group is maybe a handful on the forums and only one I would say that applies to has posted in this thread.

Everyone else here just has a different view on how it should be handled not necessarily that should not be allowed. I have not seen anyone claim that says gays should not be aloud to marry once the state gets out of marriage all together. From people who are not also bigoted.

If you don't lie about homosexuals but you don't want to allow them to get married once state involvement is gone, I don't know how I would classify you. But you are sure as hell not homophobic or bigoted. But that being said I am pretty sure your not for individual rights either.


TLDR;
Homophobia = Fear of gays (violent reaction)
Bigot = Hatred of gays (lies to get others to hate)

From what I can tell, your definition certainly isn't the popular one. In fact, that is the first time I have heard it referred to like that. It is CONSTANTLY thrown around as being someone who questions the validity or moral uprightness of the gay movement. Just the mere question these days can get you labeled a homophobe.

[Ranger29860]

From what I can tell, your definition certainly isn't the popular one. In fact, that is the first time I have heard it referred to like that. It is CONSTANTLY thrown around as being someone who questions the validity or moral uprightness of the gay movement. Just the mere question these days can get you labeled a homophobe.

Thats why I say its like the word racist. Unless you have experienced true homophobia you really have no clue what homophobia looks like in the real world. Someone simply saying gays are wrong morally is not a homophobe I would just refer to them and don't take this personally I would refer to them as an idiot or a very judgmental person and may even be a bigot if they are taking certain stances and regurgitating things they know is a lie.

Full disclosure here. I am a Transwomen and I have had to bolt out of certain area's even with friends because I have had to fear for my well being. Its just like true racism i'm talking deepsouth you go into a town and you will disappear racism. Not this pansy crap people complain about that you see on the news. I would think a black man or women that lived during the civil rights movement would know what I am talking about. Fear of homosexuals is usually a sign of lack of knowledge about the GLBT community. That fear tends to manifest itself as violence.

But that being said I came out in my community in an area that may not be the same as the west coast so there might be a difference of definitions in my area. But when someone refers to another as a homophobe down here its a clear sign that, that person is dangerous and you need to stay the hell away.

[ProIndividual]

i think RP answered the very issue on the Kudlow report the othe day..he said he doesn't agree, but the federal gov't should stay out...

State tyranny is almost as bad as federal tyranny...it's not a great position to take, honestly. But it is a step in the right direction (less centralized government intrusion), that's for sure. He is running a campaign in the gay-hater Party at that, so I guess it's sort of a no-brainer to take that approach.

[papitosabe]

State tyranny is almost as bad as federal tyranny...it's not a great position to take, honestly. But it is a step in the right direction (less centralized government intrusion), that's for sure. He is running a campaign in the gay-hater Party at that, so I guess it's sort of a no-brainer to take that approach.

honestly, i don't even know that he's said states should be involved...this may have been last year, but I think he's stated that marriage should be between a person and the church, and gov't should stay out altogether..not sure though..will see if i can find that clip

edit**that was quick..first video on youtube..


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGaBAb_oS84 my god, I can't stand that carl cameron guy..even more than brett, hannity, oreilly..

[Mani]

Why are people against gay marriage anyway? Is it a religious issue? Because if it's a religious issue are we referring specifically to Christianity?

Dont most religions have a concept such as marriage, and if so, shouldn't this issue be looked at on a case by case basis of the gay couple's specific religion? Shouldn't it be, gay marriage is not allowed in this couple's religion...but there may be other religions or priest within certain religions that allow it.

If a specific religion allows for gay marriage and a couple gets married within the sanction of that religion isn't that the end of the story? They are married, IMO.


If someone of another religion says marriage is between only a man and a women and anything else is immoral, now isn't he or she pushing his different religious viewpoints on another person? If the gay couple has received permission from their faith now another person is of a differing faith is pushing his viewpoints onto the gay couple he's now preventing the gay couple from fully enjoying the right to practice and live within their own religous beliefs.

And if it's an issue within the same faith, shouldn't it stay within the realm of that faith and not interfere with anyone else's religious practices?

If a Christian is upset 2 Christian men are getting married in a Christian church shouldn't he complain to the church? Why the heck is he complaining to the government?

And if a Christian man is upset 2 Buddhist men are getting married in a Buddhist temple, shouldn't he shut the fuck up, because this is America and we have the freedom to practice our religion here?

This is under the assumption the reason people don't like gay marriage is because of a religious issue.
I'm sorry to use specific religions it is for illustration purposes only, no desire to offend anyone of any faith or nonfaith.

[Feeding the Abscess]

If you don't believe government goodies are rights, then what "rights" are you referring to in this quote?

The problem with even recognizing the possibility that we could extend government goodies to gay couples is that it's the same argument for not ending the fed. It's not practical to end the fed, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. A better analogy, in fact, would be expanding the fed's powers because you don't believe it's practical to eliminate it, and you just want things to be "fair." I am not talking specifically about you, FTA, but that seems to be a prevailing opinion of many here.

I'm referring to positive rights.

I understand what you're saying, but gay marriage is going to happen. If you don't want to troll conservatives by saying you're for gay marriage and every other type of marriage, use it as a warning; inform them that our generation is going to enact gay marriage fairly soon, and that the only chance of preventing it from happening is to strip all marriage licenses everywhere immediately. Bonus points if you can use "this is God's domain, putting the government in charge of this is placing idols before the LORD" type of rhetoric, too.

The worst that can happen is what will happen anyway, and there's a small chance you might change someone's mind using that tactic. Agreeing with conservatives about keeping gay marriage away has no chance of going anywhere. Liberty won't be won by piecemeal, and this is a perfect example of that.

[Feeding the Abscess]

State tyranny is almost as bad as federal tyranny...it's not a great position to take, honestly. But it is a step in the right direction (less centralized government intrusion), that's for sure. He is running a campaign in the gay-hater Party at that, so I guess it's sort of a no-brainer to take that approach.

He talked about marriage during a Des Moines Register editorial interview:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-3Hb2v8ZXw

@44:30 mark, he reiterates the point from his book that I quoted earlier in this thread. Ron's said a lot more than Obama has for marriage equality, yet Obama's praised for state's rights stance and Ron's a racist gay hater somehow.

[dody38]

I tend to believe the same way you do, Craezie. I have read many times that Ron Paul's opinion was that the states should make those decisions on same-sex marriage, but early this month, I saw a clip of him saying that it was none of the state's business---so now I see that he thinks all government should stay out of the marriage business. I think our country will be lost without Ron Paul, because he's the only one that will uphold our constitution. Romney is a NWO man in disguise, which means we will be doomed. I am not a Libertian, but recognize Dr. Paul's integrity and how important it is not to give the government so much control that we are imprisioned---which is where we'll get with Romney, or God help us---Obama! I don't agree with everything, but enough to see if we lose our constitution, we lose our lives. We can deal with the other issues later. Our churches will no longer be held at gunpoint, and our choices regarding teaching our children will have free reign including charter schooling and home schooling---even hopefully getting our public schools straightened out. These are better choices than legislating morality which has failed. This government funds enemies more than friends, which will not happen---giving us a fighting chance here and abroad. Paul always says that we can't grasp the idea of a man in the white house who's main function is keeping us safe! Our country has so failed---Ron Paul with give us a fighting chance!

[Icymudpuppy]

I would like to see the government out of marriage altogether.

For those legal concerns about shared financial responsibilities, children, Visitation, Inheritance, etc. You could just start a non-profit corporation called "Smith Family" and assign John and Jane smith as equal partners with Durable POA, and the children when they arrive would have their legal guardianship assigned to officer's of the corporation.

Gays could do it exactly the same way. It is really easier to start a corporation than most people think.

[craezie]

I would like to see the government out of marriage altogether.

For those legal concerns about shared financial responsibilities, children, Visitation, Inheritance, etc. You could just start a non-profit corporation called "Smith Family" and assign John and Jane smith as equal partners with Durable POA, and the children when they arrive would have their legal guardianship assigned to officer's of the corporation.

Gays could do it exactly the same way. It is really easier to start a corporation than most people think.

This is more or less how a lot of gay couples DO deal with things. However, I do not favor a society where you need a lawyer to preserve your legal rights over your children, and a corporation is the building block of a family.

[Icymudpuppy]

This is more or less how a lot of gay couples DO deal with things. However, I do not favor a society where you need a lawyer to preserve your legal rights over your children, and a corporation is the building block of a family.

In WA state, we made it an easy process by calling said Corporation a "Domestic Partnership" available to anyone which is basically all the same benefits of marriage without the name. Call it a fast-track lawyer less method of setting up your non-profit corporation.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I consider this to be "nonsense" as it is dealing with a false dichotomy. Here is the way this theory works:
1) The ultimate Truth is unapproachable placing it, as an entity, outside of the mind's ability to comprehend. 2) Therefore, in order to create an interpretation the mind can understand (or a "reality" of it), one must first slice the "continuum" whole into two parts, or a dichotomy. 3) The best truth will be that "formal" dichotomy on the path leading towards the ultimate Truth, for example, that which our Founding Fathers decared as self-evident and unalienable natural law. 4) Any less than the formal dichotomy is a false dichotomy. 5) The teaching of false dichotomies should be considered diseducation which I consider a condition worse than being left uneducated. 6) The one true American dichotomy deals with the long standing conflict happening going on forever between a minority of a few tyrants and a majority of many disadvantaged commoners. 7) False dichotomies deal with white versus black, male versus female, rich versus poor, hetero versus homosexuality, and so on.
Before one chooses a topic, they must first choose a dichotomy. If they choose to divide the truth into a false dichotomy, then they are speaking nonsense. The only true issues which should be discussed are those dealing with the one true dichotomy.
We aren't one big family here. Indeed, there are those advantaged individuals and those who are disadvantaged. In regards to speaking about the issues, we should always focus on that dichotomy which is in the best interest of the disadvantaged.

[heavenlyboy34]

I consider this to be "nonsense" as it is dealing with a false dichotomy. Here is the way this theory works:
1) The ultimate Truth is unapproachable placing it, as an entity, outside of the mind's ability to comprehend. 2) Therefore, in order to create an interpretation the mind can understand (or a "reality" of it), one must first slice the "continuum" whole into two parts, or a dichotomy. 3) The best truth will be that "formal" dichotomy on the path leading towards the ultimate Truth, for example, that which our Founding Fathers decared as self-evident and unalienable natural law. 4) Any less than the formal dichotomy is a false dichotomy. 5) The teaching of false dichotomies should be considered diseducation which I consider a condition worse than being left uneducated. 6) The one true American dichotomy deals with the long standing conflict happening going on forever between a minority of a few tyrants and a majority of many disadvantaged commoners. 7) False dichotomies deal with white versus black, male versus female, rich versus poor, hetero versus homosexuality, and so on.
Before one chooses a topic, they must first choose a dichotomy. If they choose to divide the truth into a false dichotomy, then they are speaking nonsense. The only true issues which should be discussed are those dealing with the one true dichotomy.
We aren't one big family here. Indeed, there are those advantaged individuals and those who are disadvantaged. In regards to speaking about the issues, we should always focus on that dichotomy which is in the best interest of the disadvantaged.
There aren't very many issues that can be limited to a dichotomy. In fact, most of the time restricting oneself this way limits one's ability to find better, more creative, less destructive solutions. I would argue that one of the great problems we face is dichotomous thought.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I tend to believe the same way you do, Craezie. I have read many times that Ron Paul's opinion was that the states should make those decisions on same-sex marriage, but early this month, I saw a clip of him saying that it was none of the state's business---so now I see that he thinks all government should stay out of the marriage business. I think our country will be lost without Ron Paul, because he's the only one that will uphold our constitution. Romney is a NWO man in disguise, which means we will be doomed. I am not a Libertian, but recognize Dr. Paul's integrity and how important it is not to give the government so much control that we are imprisioned---which is where we'll get with Romney, or God help us---Obama! I don't agree with everything, but enough to see if we lose our constitution, we lose our lives. We can deal with the other issues later. Our churches will no longer be held at gunpoint, and our choices regarding teaching our children will have free reign including charter schooling and home schooling---even hopefully getting our public schools straightened out. These are better choices than legislating morality which has failed. This government funds enemies more than friends, which will not happen---giving us a fighting chance here and abroad. Paul always says that we can't grasp the idea of a man in the white house who's main function is keeping us safe! Our country has so failed---Ron Paul with give us a fighting chance!

A subtle point difficult to understand is this:
1) In its infancy, the Supreme Court did not determine constitutionality. 2) In order to determine constitutionality, the two party system was set up in the United States. 3) The winning party could then sway interpretation of or the enactment of the U.S. Constitution.

So, a third party isn't necessary.

Furthermore, another subtlety deals with Aristotle and why he, in the first place, created his "golden mean" political spectrum. Aristotle didn't create the concept of "liberal" and "conservative" ideas in order to make Greece a nation of extemists, but to help bring them together making them more moderate.

As is typical, the sophisticates (wisdomer people) in the world simply don't know what they are talking about, but certainly look like they do.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

There aren't very many issues that can be limited to a dichotomy. In fact, most of the time restricting oneself this way limits one's ability to find better, more creative, less destructive solutions. I would argue that one of the great problems we face is dichotomous thought.

As this conflict has been going on forever, the problem here isn't ignorance, but irreverence. We have finally established the excuse that just any orgy for the sake of an orgy is an acceptable orgy. No reason to even pull your pants all the way back up as that will make it more difficult to drop them back down. This has happened because we have placed the importance of the issue, which believes there is no such thing as wrong, evil, or madness in other words, over the idea of a formal dichotomy. In the end, we will debate the petty issues until we have to go to war over establishing a primary dichotomy.
Metaphorically speaking, our Founding Fathers isolated tyranny as half of that dichotomy. This would be a tyrant sitting on the throne as the owner of all things. As his opposite or inverse (perverse), a homeless whore tresspasses on his territory. This is the other half of the dichotomy as she represents the disadvantaged commoner people.