Why get "legally" married?

[Reason]

Since I am relatively agnostic...

Since I am a libertarian...

--

Make the case for why I should want to get "legally" married versus just choosing to have a ceremony & continue living together.

So far the most compelling reason I am aware of would be the tax benefits...

[farreri]

Some people just love misery.







:P

[Kelly.]

Since I am relatively agnostic...

Since I am a libertarian...

--

Make the case for why I should want to get "legally" married versus just choosing to have a ceremony & continue living together.

So far the most compelling reason I am aware of would be the tax benefits...

so far as i know, you can file married without a marriage certificate. (so long as you meet the common law marriage requirements in your state)

im also interested in this, as the marriage certificate you get is a contract between the married couple and the government, not permission to get married, as most people think.

in another thread someone mentioned that most things can be taken care of with powers of attorney, wills and trusts, but that it is cheaper to get a marriage certificate.
i think getting an ID card with the new last name would be the hardest part, after that, most people would accept the new ID as proof of marriage.

[TonySutton]

If you want the government to root itself deeply into your private life, getting legally married is the perfect solution.

[CaptUSA]

Make the case for why I should want to get "legally" married versus just choosing to have a ceremony & continue living together.

It makes it easier to get 1/2 of your spouse's stuff when things go bad?

[moostraks]

I had to due to custody of minor children. My ex spouse demanded a clause in the divorce that I was not allowed unrelated males (to whom I was not married) to be in the household after a certain time at night. So I married my best friend and luckily it worked out well...

[Enforcer]

There must not be any real Libertarians on this forum. I was married. When I got divorced, the judge issued an order. As part of that order, he said that I would "have the right to remarry."

If I have a Right to marry / remarry, why in the name of good common sense would I apply for a license in order to do something I already had a Right to do? How many of you on this forum know the difference between a Right and a privilege?

[mport1]

Since I am relatively agnostic...

Since I am a libertarian...

--

Make the case for why I should want to get "legally" married versus just choosing to have a ceremony & continue living together.

So far the most compelling reason I am aware of would be the tax benefits...

You'd have to weight the negatives with the opportunity of getting some of your stolen tax money back.

[Todd]

To file jointly. :rolleyes:

[dannno]

I made a thread recently about how to go about a non-state marriage. Finally got a good response from someone practicing:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?375145-How-to-The-Non-state-Solution-for-a-Libertarian-Marriage

[The Northbreather]

So you can resent your spouse and the government for coercing you into a binding contract. It's true love system style.

[The Free Hornet]

There must not be any real Libertarians on this forum. I was married. When I got divorced, the judge issued an order. As part of that order, he said that I would "have the right to remarry."

If I have a Right to marry / remarry, why in the name of good common sense would I apply for a license in order to do something I already had a Right to do? How many of you on this forum know the difference between a Right and a privilege?

a) You don't seriously expect a judge to use the term "right" in the philosophic or poltical sense as opposed the the legal sense. You do not.

b) You apply for a license (dog, driving, marriage) so as to pick and choose your battles or to use the government to secure rights the same government would otherwise take away not unlike a protection racket.

c) You might seek a marriage license if it better secured your rights or perceived rights. If you promise your girlfriend the heavens and the moon and the relationship sours, she will have a better claim to those (or at least half of 'em) if married. If you promise your girlfriend 10% of the heavens and the moon and the relationship sours, you will have better luck keeping 90% with a valid pre-nuptial agreement.

Clear?

As to "real Libertarians", I am somewhat of a "real small-L libertarian". I still have affinity for being a "real Objectivist" but can't rightly claim that due to their over-zealous defense of IP and pre-emptive war. Going forward, I like the label "voluntaryist" best. For some reason it conveys the direction I want to go in without suggesting either anarchy or a specific course that would be misinterpreted.

[pcgame]

..

[pcgame]

bump

[Enforcer]

a) You don't seriously expect a judge to use the term "right" in the philosophic or poltical sense as opposed the the legal sense. You do not.

b) You apply for a license (dog, driving, marriage) so as to pick and choose your battles or to use the government to secure rights the same government would otherwise take away not unlike a protection racket.

c) You might seek a marriage license if it better secured your rights or perceived rights. If you promise your girlfriend the heavens and the moon and the relationship sours, she will have a better claim to those (or at least half of 'em) if married. If you promise your girlfriend 10% of the heavens and the moon and the relationship sours, you will have better luck keeping 90% with a valid pre-nuptial agreement.

Clear?

As to "real Libertarians", I am somewhat of a "real small-L libertarian". I still have affinity for being a "real Objectivist" but can't rightly claim that due to their over-zealous defense of IP and pre-emptive war. Going forward, I like the label "voluntaryist" best. For some reason it conveys the direction I want to go in without suggesting either anarchy or a specific course that would be misinterpreted.

Applying for a license is 180 degrees opposite of where you want to go if are arguing a point about securing a Right. Rights are not secured by forfeiting them. Back when we had the Miranda Warning, the principle was unequivocal:

"You have the Right to remain silent. If you give up the Right to remain silent, anything you say CAN AND WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU".

Reducing Rights in favor of a privilege has the opposite effect of securing a Right. Do I expect judges to honor the Constitution? No, I do not. But, there are things you can do about it:

http://www.freeforum101.com/outcastsandoutl/viewtopic.php?t=187&highlight=avenues+redress&mforum=outcastsandoutl

ANYTHING you can accomplish with a marriage license save of expecting the system to validate you can be accomplished by other means.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[satchelmcqueen]

so that when it ends you are forced into court fees, stress, deliberate bs from all people, lose half your stuff no matter if the other person turns out to be a whore behind your back....

dont do it. just live together.

[Danke]

so that when it ends you are forced into court fees, stress, deliberate bs from all people, lose half your stuff no matter if the other person turns out to be a whore behind your back....

dont do it. just live together.

WWOD

[carclinic]

Well, I'd like my wife to get legal status here, but yes to me it is important to get married in church because it's an oath you make before your spouse and God. The law is secondary.

[awake]

Married is simply the highest form of relationship. It is a stage beyond friends and the deepest emotional and spiritual experience a human can have with another human being. But like everything else that the violence of the the state touches, marriage becomes all about the transfer and redistribution of property.