Want marriage? Then get the government out.

[DiamondDave]

The concept of marriage nor the concept of 2 people entering a legal contract about things the government is involved in, would be going away...

And as for the "1000" rights, most of them have no business being in government anyway... protect the right to choose and keep the same legal rights of other citizens... government should not protect the choice, as we can discriminate against choices every day of our lives... whether we choose to discriminate against the stinky, the crass, the crude, the bigoted, the touchy feely hippie, or whatever else... We should accept the person as a citizen and the freedoms of that citizen, not inherently each of their choices, what they do, how they live, etc

 

[bodecea]

Well.. I guess it's discriminatory when you won't call me African American... I mean... I wish to be called that and recognized as that by the government.... I feel I have always been, even if my skin is white, even if I am seen as different by other African Americans... I want the same extra privileges that are given to that minority group because I feel I am one... I am human just as they are... I want affirmative action working for me...

DISCRIMINATION!!! It should not only be black skinned or black heritage that are to be called "African American", because that would be discriminatory

I don't see anyone from stopping you from doing that....go for it. You want me to call you African-American, no problem there. Consider it done.

I see you did not mention anything about the 'rights' or special privileges... which I can infer that you believe that while I wish to call myself such, I don't get those same things..... well guess what fancy britches, I guess you would get very upset if someone said the same thing about your want for laws and government privilege for gay marriage

You are an African-American...no one is stopping you from being so....but you seem to think that African-Americans have...um...special privileges? What special privileges were you hoping to get as a newly declared African-American?

 

[midcan5]

The reason government is involved should be as obvious as the nose on your face - people often do not get along, do not share, and are simply bastards at times. It is the reason we have a federal government, it is the reason we have laws, and it is the government which has the responsibility for making sure laws are followed. The utopia idea that without an established entity to enforce the laws of the land: marriages / contracts / agreements / property rights etc etc - all happiness would follow is naive at best. Gays simply want the same rights as others and those rights are defined by the marriage contract. And the marriage contract is backed by the government, for sure as hell ain't no one else gonna do it. Clear?

For anyone interested in a serious look at the issue see: 'Why This Is A Civil Rights Issue'

"When gay people say that this is a civil rights issue, we are referring to matters like the fact that we cannot make medical decisions for our partners in an emergency. Instead, the hospitals are usually forced by state laws to go to the families who may be estranged from us for decades, who are often hostile to us, and totally ignore our wishes for the treatment of our partners. If that hostile family wishes to exclude us from the hospital room, they may legally do so in nearly all cases. It is even not uncommon for hostile families to make decisions based on their hostility -- with results actually intended to be inimical to the interests of the patient! One couple I know uses the following line in the "sig" lines on their email: "...partners and lovers for 40 years, yet still strangers before the law." Is this fair?

If our partners are arrested, we can be compelled to testify against them or provide evidence against them, which legally married couples are not forced to do. Is this fair?

In most cases, even carefully drafted wills and durable powers of attorney have proven to not be enough if a family wishes to challenge a will, overturn a custody decision, or exclude us from a funeral or deny us the right to visit a partner's grave. As survivors, they can even sieze a real estate property that we may have been buying together for years, quickly sell it at a huge loss and stick us with the remaining debt on a property we no longer own. When these are presented to a homophobic probate judge, he will usually find some pretext to overturn them. Is this fair?

These aren't just theoretical issues, either; they happen with surprising frequency. Almost any older gay couple can tell you horror stories of friends who have been victimized in such ways.

These are all civil rights issues that have nothing whatever to do with the ecclesiastical origins of marriage; they are matters that have become enshrined in state laws over the years in many ways that exclude us from the rights that legally married couples enjoy and consider their constitutional right. This is why we say it is very much a civil rights issue; it has nothing to do with who performs the ceremony or whether an announcement is accepted for publication in the local paper. It is not a matter of "special rights" to ask for the same rights that other couples enjoy by law, even by constitutional mandate." Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives

Completely and utterly missed the point. You have conflated government protection of the right to contract with government issuance of contracts. Why should we go to government to get a marriage contract? If anyone wants to marry anyone else, gay or straight, they should be able to do so. The right to private contract allows this. But marriage today is not treated as a right but a granted privilege. If marriage were treated as a right, there would be no call for legalizing gay marriage because you don't legalize rights. If something is a right, it is de facto legal. People have a right to enter into a private contract with anyone they please. Marriage is a private contract. But the marriage license prevents people from engaging in this right. They only allow people to get married if they say so. They have created a privilege out of the natural right to contract. That is what you should be fighting to change. That is the true civil right that has been revoked by the government.

People have a right to sign employment contracts. Imagine if government prevented you from signing an employment contract, and would only allow you to have a job if you obtained an employment license, for which it would set the criteria. Having a job would have been converted into a privilege.

I agree that marriage is a right. But that fact that government has control over marriage means it currently is not a right. It is a privilege. And to return the natural right of social contractual marriage, we must get the government out.

I think you must live in dreamy land if you think rights are natural. Rights only exist in a society and are enforced by contract and contract is enforced by law and law is backed by that bogeyman of libertarians the government. Government has no control over marriage, you can marry whomever you like unless you happen to be gay then society and the church say no, but that is changing as New York demonstrated. Employment could be an example, as you often sign a contract and agreement, a code of conduct, and guess what that agreement is open to everyone - well not everyone but we won't go there - and that is all gays want but they want backing and you can now guess where that backing comes from. It doesn't come from any imaginary natural right as outside of society the word is meaningless.

 

[Iridescence]

Um, don't rights come with abilities? Perhaps some 'rights' are just more natural than others because of abilities.

If the laws of the land cannot 'heal and further prevent' what is considered a fluke, a flaw within our nation's people, ie gay and lesbian tendencies, then it seems that 'we' as a nation have little choice but to accept it to the degrees necessary for their productivity in living life as 'the rest of us'.

It seems WRONG for the laws of the land to not accommodate the beneficiary issues that come up in gay and lesbian unions.

 

[DiamondDave]

I don't see anyone from stopping you from doing that....go for it. You want me to call you African-American, no problem there. Consider it done.

I see you did not mention anything about the 'rights' or special privileges... which I can infer that you believe that while I wish to call myself such, I don't get those same things..... well guess what fancy britches, I guess you would get very upset if someone said the same thing about your want for laws and government privilege for gay marriage

You are an African-American...no one is stopping you from being so....but you seem to think that African-Americans have...um...special privileges? What special privileges were you hoping to get as a newly declared African-American?

Affirmative action benefits... designation of 'hate crime' if someone white beats me down... government recognized designation for purposes of scholarships... etc...

YOu honestly think all these little designations behind liberal stances don't have benefits??? Benefits from the government or assisted by the government

 

[Iridescence]

That is EXACTLY why neither the libs or the cons aught to rule without the skwabbling of balance.

 

[The Rabbi]

The concept of marriage nor the concept of 2 people entering a legal contract about things the government is involved in, would be going away...

And as for the "1000" rights, most of them have no business being in government anyway... protect the right to choose and keep the same legal rights of other citizens... government should not protect the choice, as we can discriminate against choices every day of our lives... whether we choose to discriminate against the stinky, the crass, the crude, the bigoted, the touchy feely hippie, or whatever else... We should accept the person as a citizen and the freedoms of that citizen, not inherently each of their choices, what they do, how they live, etc

If the gov't abolishes marriage and all reference to it then it would be going away.
You are drifting into incoherence and inconsistency here.

 

[mal]

It's like having a Pet Rock...or that Geico Money Stack with eyes.

^It's Certainly Easier than Dealing with this:

If government doesn't grant rights, then where do they come from? Absent a government and if I'm stronger than you, your only right is to sit meekly by while I eat YOUR kill, leaving you the scraps, if there are any.

The government has to get involved in marriage, because like all contracts there are legal issues to be decided. Without government the stronger always wins.

He is correct...government does not creat rights, it protects the rights we are born with...and civil marriage is a way to protect our rights as married couples. The 14th amendment requires that the government provide that protection equally among all law-abiding, tax-paying citizens UNLESS it can come up with a provable, clear reason to withhold that equal protection.

And no one seems to be able to come up with that proof.

You aren't Denied a Right to Marriage, Bodey...

You are Denied the Ability to Redefine it Selectively for your Deviation from "our very Existence and Survival".



peace...

Nice Evasion, Mr. Gervais.



peace...

 

[The Rabbi]

The whine of the homosexual lobby is that they are a poor oppressed minority in need of special treatment. It isn't true.

 

[ShackledNation]

The reason government is involved should be as obvious as the nose on your face - people often do not get along, do not share, and are simply bastards at times. It is the reason we have a federal government, it is the reason we have laws, and it is the government which has the responsibility for making sure laws are followed. The utopia idea that without an established entity to enforce the laws of the land: marriages / contracts / agreements / property rights etc etc - all happiness would follow is naive at best. Gays simply want the same rights as others and those rights are defined by the marriage contract. And the marriage contract is backed by the government, for sure as hell ain't no one else gonna do it. Clear?

For anyone interested in a serious look at the issue see: 'Why This Is A Civil Rights Issue'

"When gay people say that this is a civil rights issue, we are referring to matters like the fact that we cannot make medical decisions for our partners in an emergency. Instead, the hospitals are usually forced by state laws to go to the families who may be estranged from us for decades, who are often hostile to us, and totally ignore our wishes for the treatment of our partners. If that hostile family wishes to exclude us from the hospital room, they may legally do so in nearly all cases. It is even not uncommon for hostile families to make decisions based on their hostility -- with results actually intended to be inimical to the interests of the patient! One couple I know uses the following line in the "sig" lines on their email: "...partners and lovers for 40 years, yet still strangers before the law." Is this fair?

If our partners are arrested, we can be compelled to testify against them or provide evidence against them, which legally married couples are not forced to do. Is this fair?

In most cases, even carefully drafted wills and durable powers of attorney have proven to not be enough if a family wishes to challenge a will, overturn a custody decision, or exclude us from a funeral or deny us the right to visit a partner's grave. As survivors, they can even sieze a real estate property that we may have been buying together for years, quickly sell it at a huge loss and stick us with the remaining debt on a property we no longer own. When these are presented to a homophobic probate judge, he will usually find some pretext to overturn them. Is this fair?

These aren't just theoretical issues, either; they happen with surprising frequency. Almost any older gay couple can tell you horror stories of friends who have been victimized in such ways.

These are all civil rights issues that have nothing whatever to do with the ecclesiastical origins of marriage; they are matters that have become enshrined in state laws over the years in many ways that exclude us from the rights that legally married couples enjoy and consider their constitutional right. This is why we say it is very much a civil rights issue; it has nothing to do with who performs the ceremony or whether an announcement is accepted for publication in the local paper. It is not a matter of "special rights" to ask for the same rights that other couples enjoy by law, even by constitutional mandate." Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives

Completely and utterly missed the point. You have conflated government protection of the right to contract with government issuance of contracts. Why should we go to government to get a marriage contract? If anyone wants to marry anyone else, gay or straight, they should be able to do so. The right to private contract allows this. But marriage today is not treated as a right but a granted privilege. If marriage were treated as a right, there would be no call for legalizing gay marriage because you don't legalize rights. If something is a right, it is de facto legal. People have a right to enter into a private contract with anyone they please. Marriage is a private contract. But the marriage license prevents people from engaging in this right. They only allow people to get married if they say so. They have created a privilege out of the natural right to contract. That is what you should be fighting to change. That is the true civil right that has been revoked by the government.

People have a right to sign employment contracts. Imagine if government prevented you from signing an employment contract, and would only allow you to have a job if you obtained an employment license, for which it would set the criteria. Having a job would have been converted into a privilege.

I agree that marriage is a right. But that fact that government has control over marriage means it currently is not a right. It is a privilege. And to return the natural right of social contractual marriage, we must get the government out.

I think you must live in dreamy land if you think rights are natural.

That is the dreamy land this entire country was founded on. Have you read the declaration of independence?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed​

How can you honestly believe that we need government to grant rights? The very act of granting a right makes it a privilege. Government is supposed to protect rights, not create them.

Rights only exist in a society and are enforced by contract and contract is enforced by law and law is backed by that bogeyman of libertarians the government.

Society is not dependent on the existence of a government. I never signed a contract saying I have the right to life. Rights are natural and inherent in all human beings. The purpose of government is to ensure that human beings do not infringe upon the natural rights of others. People naturally have the right to do anything they want so long as they do not aggress against others in the process.

Government has no control over marriage, you can marry whomever you like unless you happen to be gay then society and the church say no, but that is changing as New York demonstrated.

Government has no control over marriage, but yet government blocks some people from marrying? That's is control over marriage!

Employment could be an example, as you often sign a contract and agreement, a code of conduct, and guess what that agreement is open to everyone - well not everyone but we won't go there - and that is all gays want but they want backing and you can now guess where that backing comes from. It doesn't come from any imaginary natural right as outside of society the word is meaningless.

Society is not created by government, so I fail to see how that supports your argument that rights are not natural. Society is made of of individuals with natural human rights The reason they support a government is in the hopes that it will protect those rights from aggressors in society. You are right that government must ensure contracts are followed. But that in absolutely no way justifies or even logically follows that government must be the issuer of those contracts. If that were the case, all contracts should be issued by government, and nobody could enter a contractual agreement unless they first went to government. Obviously that is not how society works. Again, you are conflating issuance of contract with protection of contract. Government does that latter in our society, individuals do the former. In the case of marriage, government has usurped the authority of individuals and it too does the former.

 

[mal]

The whine of the homosexual lobby is that they are a poor oppressed minority in need of special treatment. It isn't true.

They should Thank Allah that they aren't in the Middle East with those Peace Loving and Tolerant Muslims!...



peace...

 

[The Rabbi]

The whine of the homosexual lobby is that they are a poor oppressed minority in need of special treatment. It isn't true.

They should Thank Allah that they aren't in the Middle East with those Peace Loving and Tolerant Muslims!...



peace...

Actaully any traditional society deems homosexuality a perversion to be obliterated. Maybe they're on to something?

 

[dblack]

Interestingly, the gay marriage issue points to a broader problem that is also at the heart of the 'individual mandate' as well as corporate welfare. The issue is our habit of using the tax code (and other indirect regulation) to manipulate society. The reason gays want to have their marriages recognized by the state is that the state gives special consideration to people who married.

The debate over the individual mandate element of Obamacare has done us all a tremendous service if we will only pay attention. It has pointed out that tax 'incentives' (whether they are called rebates, or deductions, or loopholes, or credits) are all 'mandates' in disguise. They are extra-constitutional exertions of government power to push us in this direction or that. Gays, straights, atheists, and Christians etc, etc -- all of us, need to come to terms with this as a blatant abuse of governmental power an reject it wholesale.

 

[The Rabbi]

Interestingly, the gay marriage issue points to a broader problem that is also at the heart of the 'individual mandate' as well as corporate welfare. The issue is our habit of using the tax code (and other indirect regulation) to manipulate society. The reason gays want to have their marriages recognized by the state is that the state gives special consideration to people who married.

The debate over the individual mandate element of Obamacare has done us all a tremendous service if we will only pay attention. It has pointed out that tax 'incentives' (whether they are called rebates, or deductions, or loopholes, or credits) are all 'mandates' in disguise. They are extra-constitutional exertions of government power to push us in this direction or that. Gays, straights, atheists, and Christians etc, etc -- all of us, need to come to terms with this as a blatant abuse of governmental power an reject it wholesale.

Are you maintaining that it is unconstittutional for the government to set marriage laws?

 

[dblack]

Are you maintaining that it is unconstittutional for the government to set marriage laws?

I'll claim it oughta be, yeah.

 

[The Rabbi]

Are you maintaining that it is unconstittutional for the government to set marriage laws?

I'll claim it oughta be, yeah.

So the answer is no, it is not unconstitutional for the state governments to determine marriage laws.
Thanks for clarifying that.

 

[dblack]

So the answer is no, it is not unconstitutional for the state governments to determine marriage laws.
Thanks for clarifying that.

Don't put words in my mouth. I think it ought to be unconstitutional for government to be that involved in our personal lives. I think a reasonable interpretation of the US constitution supports that. But I'm perfectly aware that the current status quo is not that reasonable - so the issue of whether it is constitutional is relatively moot.

The point of posting here is to express the way we think things should be. If you can't accept that, I don't know what to tell you. Get over it?

 

[The Rabbi]

So the answer is no, it is not unconstitutional for the state governments to determine marriage laws.
Thanks for clarifying that.

Don't put words in my mouth. I think it ought to be unconstitutional for government to be that involved in our personal lives. I think a reasonable interpretation of the US constitution supports that. But I'm perfectly aware that the current status quo is not that reasonable - so the issue of whether it is constitutional is relatively moot.

The point of posting here is to express the way we think things should be. If you can't accept that, I don't know what to tell you. Get over it?

I think I ought to get into the hot tub with Cindy Crawford. That isn't happening either.
The Constitution reserves all other powers to the states. That clearly means marriage. Even the heaviest wookie-suiter in the room does not dispute that.
As to whether the gov't ought to regulate that, the answer is a resounding yes.

 

[dblack]

As to whether the gov't ought to regulate that, the answer is a resounding yes.

THE answer?

YOUR answer. Not mine.

 

[The Rabbi]

As to whether the gov't ought to regulate that, the answer is a resounding yes.

THE answer?

YOUR answer. Not mine.

No, THE answer. Other answers are simply wrong.