CDZ Contd: Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and protect people equally

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Same Sex Marriage, Single Rights and the Abolition of Marriage

This tread started with the question Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from government and still protect people equally.? This would, of course mean that there would no longer be legal or secular marriage since only government can confer legal rights. It is about time that someone actually presented some facts rather than continuing to bloviate about what one thinks could be accomplished, how it could be done and what the ultimate outcome would look like.

I never really took the subject of the abolition of marriage very seriously, but the notion keeps coming up and apparently is not going away. I will start by saying that I discovered, while I have been dismissing it as a product of the lunatic fringe who are motivated by denying gays legal marriage, or have an ax to grind over the admittedly shoddy treatment of single people, there are some who do in fact take it very seriously and there is more momentum for it than I though. My most startling discovery was there is this strange convergence of the issues of same sex marriage, singles rights and the demise of marriage as we know it. Case in point- a piece written by someone who does in fact believe that same sex marriage will lead to the demise of marriage itself via the single rights “movement” but with dire, unintended consequences and is therefore saying that we need to rethink support for marriage equality:

Why Singles Rights And Same-Sex Marriage Will Abolish All Marriage By Stella Morabito Selected excerpts and comments

A response to ‘singles’ rights’ advocates on the importance of marriage to society.

Americans are generally people of goodwill who try to keep the golden rule. I think that’s why the term “equality” has such resonance for so many of us. But as we move farther down the path called “marriage equality,” I believe a greater dose of skepticism is in order by all freedom-loving Americans, whatever their perspective on the issue.

That’s because one particular cross-current rooted in the same-sex marriage movement promises to dominate the aftermath, shift us all away from the idea of freedom to marry, and place us all into system more akin to hard left central planning. It’s a little movement that goes by the moniker “singles’ rights” or sometimes “unmarried equality.” Let’s not fall into a trap here. We need to think this through.

She continues

I recently argued in The Federalist that same-sex marriage is merely a vehicle to abolish all civil marriage, and with it, all family autonomy. I predicted that “singles’ activists” would try to finish the job by using those same “marriage equality” arguments to claim that all civil discriminates against singles and therefore should be abolished. Lo and behold, a singles’ activist, author of the book “Singlism,” and blogger for Psychology Today, Bella DePaulo, confirmed exactly that in her critique of my Federalist article, “Welcome to Selfie Nation.” Here’s what she said: “Morabito says that what I really want is ‘to abolish marriage without saying so.’ That’s not quite right. I’m happy to say so.” http://thefederalist.com/2014/10/29/why-singles-rights-and-same-sex-marriage-will-abolish-all-marriage/

As for me connecting “singles’ rights” with the same-sex marriage movement, DePaulo had this to say by way of confirmation:

The author picks up on an argument I have been making for some time – that single people are targets of institutionalized, legalized discrimination in the form of the 1,000+ federal laws that protect and benefit only those who are legally married. She also accurately notes that my argument, and that of many other like-minded critics, has roots in the same-sex marriage movement.

So theory has it that same sex marriage will, Or at least may, lead to the demise of marriage itself. However, is it by design on the part of pro-gay and/or single rights activists, is it being pushed by the anti-gay activists, or as the result of some sort of spontaneous combustion process? The article continues:

If a little coterie of activists who claim to speak for all singles gets its way, the Supreme Court may soon consider declaring all marriage unconstitutional.

That is the whole point of same-sex marriage, at least as far as such singles’ activists–and likely most LGBT activists—are concerned: to lay the groundwork for abolishing it altogether.

So this author thinks it’s the gay rights activists with the help of single advocates:

That is the whole point of same-sex marriage, at least as far as such singles’ activists–and likely most LGBT activists—are concerned: to lay the groundwork for abolishing it altogether.

She is again saying that there will be dire consequences if marriage is abolished which will come about as the result of singles demanding rights because of the expansion of marriage rights to gays, but so far has not substantiated the claim made earlier that it is the gay marriage advocated that are the primary force behind abolishing marriage

And with it, all family autonomy and family privacy will have to go. Whether you are a left-wing true believer in central planning and control, someone who has accepted the mantra of “marriage equality” for same -marriage, or someone who has accepted the final step of this strange journey—that married “privilege” should be abolished—the path will be set and the outcome will be the same.

And

……my central argument that it is bad for the state to completely disregard family bonds, and thereby legally isolate each and every individual, single and married alike, from the autonomous sanctuary of families.__________________________________________________

In that earlier article in the Federalist by the same author and referenced above, she wrote:

Abolishing all civil marriage is the primary goal of the elites who have been pushing same sex marriage. The scheme called “marriage equality” is not an end in itself, and never really has been. The LGBT agenda has spawned too many other disparate agendas hostile to the existence of marriage, making marriage “unsustainable,” if you will. By now we should be able to hear the growing drumbeat to abolish civil marriage, as well as to legalize polygamy and all manner of reproductive technologies. http://thefederalist.com/2014/04/09/bait-and-switch-how-same-sex-marriage-ends-marriage-and-family-autonomy/

And again discusses the down side of abolishing marriage:

……..whether they know it or not, advocacy for same sex marriage is putting a lot of statist machinery into motion. Because once the state no longer has to recognize your marriage and family, the state no longer has to respect the existence of your marriage and family.

Without civil marriage, the family can no longer exist autonomously and serve as a wall of separation between the individual and the state. This has huge implications for the survival of freedom of association.

And the signs that this is upon us…..

Six Indicators We’re Headed Directly for Abolishing Civil Marriage
We can sort out six developments that indicate we’re on the fast track to abolishing civil marriage. They include: 1) The blueprint for abolishing family, developed by the founder of feminist legal theory, Martha Fineman; 2) support and advocacy of Fineman’s model by facilitators and regulators in the Obama Administration; 3) the statements of prominent LGBT activists themselves, including their 2006 manifesto which in effect established the abolition of marriage as the goal of the same sex marriage movement; 4) the demographic shift to single rather than married households; 5) the growing shift in social climate from marriage equality to marriage hostility; and 6) the recent push to export the LGBT agenda globally, particularly targeting poor and developing nations of Africa.

Regardless of the meaning of any of this, I find it questionable that these forces are formidable enough to add up to the abolition of legal marriage or that the LGBT movement would be to blame if it did come to that. Finally, while some legal theorists believe that there is no constitutional right to marriage, I continue to stress the belief that the idea of abolishing legal marriage is politically and socially wrongheaded, and will not solve any issues or make life better in any way.

 

[320 Years of History]

Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from government and still protect people equally.? This would, of course mean that there would no longer be legal or secular marriage since only government can confer legal rights.

If you really think that is the sole means by which that may be accomplished, you've chosen to take a very narrow view of how the asked about objective might be accomplished. Try thinking just a little bit outside of the box and you might find other things which may be "meant" beside the single meaning you pontificate is also the sole meaning by which the end may be achieved.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from government and still protect people equally.? This would, of course mean that there would no longer be legal or secular marriage since only government can confer legal rights.

If you really think that is the sole means by which that may be accomplished, you've chosen to take a very narrow view of how the asked about objective might be accomplished. Try thinking just a little bit outside of the box and you might find other things which may be "meant" beside the single meaning you pontificate is also the sole meaning by which the end may be achieved.

I have no idea what you're talking about and I don't think that you really do either. Interesting how you cherry pick the opening line of my lengthy post- reply with some convoluted and cryptic riddle -and ignore the rest of it.

 

[320 Years of History]

I have no idea what you're talking about

Okay...TY for letting me know.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Same Sex Marriage, Single Rights and the Abolition of Marriage

This tread started with the question Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from government and still protect people equally.? This would, of course mean that there would no longer be legal or secular marriage since only government can confer legal rights. It is about time that someone actually presented some facts rather than continuing to bloviate about what one thinks could be accomplished, how it could be done and what the ultimate outcome would look like.

I never really took the subject of the abolition of marriage very seriously, but the notion keeps coming up and apparently is not going away. I will start by saying that I discovered, while I have been dismissing it as a product of the lunatic fringe who are motivated by denying gays legal marriage, or have an ax to grind over the admittedly shoddy treatment of single people, there are some who do in fact take it very seriously and there is more momentum for it than I though. My most startling discovery was there is this strange convergence of the issues of same sex marriage, singles rights and the demise of marriage as we know it. Case in point- a piece written by someone who does in fact believe that same sex marriage will lead to the demise of marriage itself via the single rights “movement” but with dire, unintended consequences and is therefore saying that we need to rethink support for marriage equality:

Why Singles Rights And Same-Sex Marriage Will Abolish All Marriage By Stella Morabito Selected excerpts and comments

A response to ‘singles’ rights’ advocates on the importance of marriage to society.

Americans are generally people of goodwill who try to keep the golden rule. I think that’s why the term “equality” has such resonance for so many of us. But as we move farther down the path called “marriage equality,” I believe a greater dose of skepticism is in order by all freedom-loving Americans, whatever their perspective on the issue.

That’s because one particular cross-current rooted in the same-sex marriage movement promises to dominate the aftermath, shift us all away from the idea of freedom to marry, and place us all into system more akin to hard left central planning. It’s a little movement that goes by the moniker “singles’ rights” or sometimes “unmarried equality.” Let’s not fall into a trap here. We need to think this through.

She continues

I recently argued in The Federalist that same-sex marriage is merely a vehicle to abolish all civil marriage, and with it, all family autonomy. I predicted that “singles’ activists” would try to finish the job by using those same “marriage equality” arguments to claim that all civil discriminates against singles and therefore should be abolished. Lo and behold, a singles’ activist, author of the book “Singlism,” and blogger for Psychology Today, Bella DePaulo, confirmed exactly that in her critique of my Federalist article, “Welcome to Selfie Nation.” Here’s what she said: “Morabito says that what I really want is ‘to abolish marriage without saying so.’ That’s not quite right. I’m happy to say so.” http://thefederalist.com/2014/10/29/why-singles-rights-and-same-sex-marriage-will-abolish-all-marriage/

As for me connecting “singles’ rights” with the same-sex marriage movement, DePaulo had this to say by way of confirmation:

The author picks up on an argument I have been making for some time – that single people are targets of institutionalized, legalized discrimination in the form of the 1,000+ federal laws that protect and benefit only those who are legally married. She also accurately notes that my argument, and that of many other like-minded critics, has roots in the same-sex marriage movement.

So theory has it that same sex marriage will, Or at least may, lead to the demise of marriage itself. However, is it by design on the part of pro-gay and/or single rights activists, is it being pushed by the anti-gay activists, or as the result of some sort of spontaneous combustion process? The article continues:

If a little coterie of activists who claim to speak for all singles gets its way, the Supreme Court may soon consider declaring all marriage unconstitutional.

That is the whole point of same-sex marriage, at least as far as such singles’ activists–and likely most LGBT activists—are concerned: to lay the groundwork for abolishing it altogether.

So this author thinks it’s the gay rights activists with the help of single advocates:

That is the whole point of same-sex marriage, at least as far as such singles’ activists–and likely most LGBT activists—are concerned: to lay the groundwork for abolishing it altogether.

She is again saying that there will be dire consequences if marriage is abolished which will come about as the result of singles demanding rights because of the expansion of marriage rights to gays, but so far has not substantiated the claim made earlier that it is the gay marriage advocated that are the primary force behind abolishing marriage

And with it, all family autonomy and family privacy will have to go. Whether you are a left-wing true believer in central planning and control, someone who has accepted the mantra of “marriage equality” for same -marriage, or someone who has accepted the final step of this strange journey—that married “privilege” should be abolished—the path will be set and the outcome will be the same.

And

……my central argument that it is bad for the state to completely disregard family bonds, and thereby legally isolate each and every individual, single and married alike, from the autonomous sanctuary of families.__________________________________________________

In that earlier article in the Federalist by the same author and referenced above, she wrote:

Abolishing all civil marriage is the primary goal of the elites who have been pushing same sex marriage. The scheme called “marriage equality” is not an end in itself, and never really has been. The LGBT agenda has spawned too many other disparate agendas hostile to the existence of marriage, making marriage “unsustainable,” if you will. By now we should be able to hear the growing drumbeat to abolish civil marriage, as well as to legalize polygamy and all manner of reproductive technologies. http://thefederalist.com/2014/04/09/bait-and-switch-how-same-sex-marriage-ends-marriage-and-family-autonomy/

And again discusses the down side of abolishing marriage:

……..whether they know it or not, advocacy for same sex marriage is putting a lot of statist machinery into motion. Because once the state no longer has to recognize your marriage and family, the state no longer has to respect the existence of your marriage and family.

Without civil marriage, the family can no longer exist autonomously and serve as a wall of separation between the individual and the state. This has huge implications for the survival of freedom of association.

And the signs that this is upon us…..

Six Indicators We’re Headed Directly for Abolishing Civil Marriage
We can sort out six developments that indicate we’re on the fast track to abolishing civil marriage. They include: 1) The blueprint for abolishing family, developed by the founder of feminist legal theory, Martha Fineman; 2) support and advocacy of Fineman’s model by facilitators and regulators in the Obama Administration; 3) the statements of prominent LGBT activists themselves, including their 2006 manifesto which in effect established the abolition of marriage as the goal of the same sex marriage movement; 4) the demographic shift to single rather than married households; 5) the growing shift in social climate from marriage equality to marriage hostility; and 6) the recent push to export the LGBT agenda globally, particularly targeting poor and developing nations of Africa.

Regardless of the meaning of any of this, I find it questionable that these forces are formidable enough to add up to the abolition of legal marriage or that the LGBT movement would be to blame if it did come to that. Finally, while some legal theorists believe that there is no constitutional right to marriage, I continue to stress the belief that the idea of abolishing legal marriage is politically and socially wrongheaded, and will not solve any issues or make life better in any way.

Sonny, you are clearly out of your depth. Isn't there a Hello Kitty forum around here you can post in?

Private entitites enter into contracts all the time without government intervention. The government only comes into it when there is a breach that leads to dispute that must be settled.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Same Sex Marriage, Single Rights and the Abolition of Marriage

This tread started with the question Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from government and still protect people equally.? This would, of course mean that there would no longer be legal or secular marriage since only government can confer legal rights. It is about time that someone actually presented some facts rather than continuing to bloviate about what one thinks could be accomplished, how it could be done and what the ultimate outcome would look like.

I never really took the subject of the abolition of marriage very seriously, but the notion keeps coming up and apparently is not going away. I will start by saying that I discovered, while I have been dismissing it as a product of the lunatic fringe who are motivated by denying gays legal marriage, or have an ax to grind over the admittedly shoddy treatment of single people, there are some who do in fact take it very seriously and there is more momentum for it than I though. My most startling discovery was there is this strange convergence of the issues of same sex marriage, singles rights and the demise of marriage as we know it. Case in point- a piece written by someone who does in fact believe that same sex marriage will lead to the demise of marriage itself via the single rights “movement” but with dire, unintended consequences and is therefore saying that we need to rethink support for marriage equality:

Why Singles Rights And Same-Sex Marriage Will Abolish All Marriage By Stella Morabito Selected excerpts and comments

A response to ‘singles’ rights’ advocates on the importance of marriage to society.

Americans are generally people of goodwill who try to keep the golden rule. I think that’s why the term “equality” has such resonance for so many of us. But as we move farther down the path called “marriage equality,” I believe a greater dose of skepticism is in order by all freedom-loving Americans, whatever their perspective on the issue.

That’s because one particular cross-current rooted in the same-sex marriage movement promises to dominate the aftermath, shift us all away from the idea of freedom to marry, and place us all into system more akin to hard left central planning. It’s a little movement that goes by the moniker “singles’ rights” or sometimes “unmarried equality.” Let’s not fall into a trap here. We need to think this through.

She continues

I recently argued in The Federalist that same-sex marriage is merely a vehicle to abolish all civil marriage, and with it, all family autonomy. I predicted that “singles’ activists” would try to finish the job by using those same “marriage equality” arguments to claim that all civil discriminates against singles and therefore should be abolished. Lo and behold, a singles’ activist, author of the book “Singlism,” and blogger for Psychology Today, Bella DePaulo, confirmed exactly that in her critique of my Federalist article, “Welcome to Selfie Nation.” Here’s what she said: “Morabito says that what I really want is ‘to abolish marriage without saying so.’ That’s not quite right. I’m happy to say so.” http://thefederalist.com/2014/10/29/why-singles-rights-and-same-sex-marriage-will-abolish-all-marriage/

As for me connecting “singles’ rights” with the same-sex marriage movement, DePaulo had this to say by way of confirmation:

The author picks up on an argument I have been making for some time – that single people are targets of institutionalized, legalized discrimination in the form of the 1,000+ federal laws that protect and benefit only those who are legally married. She also accurately notes that my argument, and that of many other like-minded critics, has roots in the same-sex marriage movement.

So theory has it that same sex marriage will, Or at least may, lead to the demise of marriage itself. However, is it by design on the part of pro-gay and/or single rights activists, is it being pushed by the anti-gay activists, or as the result of some sort of spontaneous combustion process? The article continues:

If a little coterie of activists who claim to speak for all singles gets its way, the Supreme Court may soon consider declaring all marriage unconstitutional.

That is the whole point of same-sex marriage, at least as far as such singles’ activists–and likely most LGBT activists—are concerned: to lay the groundwork for abolishing it altogether.

So this author thinks it’s the gay rights activists with the help of single advocates:

That is the whole point of same-sex marriage, at least as far as such singles’ activists–and likely most LGBT activists—are concerned: to lay the groundwork for abolishing it altogether.

She is again saying that there will be dire consequences if marriage is abolished which will come about as the result of singles demanding rights because of the expansion of marriage rights to gays, but so far has not substantiated the claim made earlier that it is the gay marriage advocated that are the primary force behind abolishing marriage

And with it, all family autonomy and family privacy will have to go. Whether you are a left-wing true believer in central planning and control, someone who has accepted the mantra of “marriage equality” for same -marriage, or someone who has accepted the final step of this strange journey—that married “privilege” should be abolished—the path will be set and the outcome will be the same.

And

……my central argument that it is bad for the state to completely disregard family bonds, and thereby legally isolate each and every individual, single and married alike, from the autonomous sanctuary of families.__________________________________________________

In that earlier article in the Federalist by the same author and referenced above, she wrote:

Abolishing all civil marriage is the primary goal of the elites who have been pushing same sex marriage. The scheme called “marriage equality” is not an end in itself, and never really has been. The LGBT agenda has spawned too many other disparate agendas hostile to the existence of marriage, making marriage “unsustainable,” if you will. By now we should be able to hear the growing drumbeat to abolish civil marriage, as well as to legalize polygamy and all manner of reproductive technologies. http://thefederalist.com/2014/04/09/bait-and-switch-how-same-sex-marriage-ends-marriage-and-family-autonomy/

And again discusses the down side of abolishing marriage:

……..whether they know it or not, advocacy for same sex marriage is putting a lot of statist machinery into motion. Because once the state no longer has to recognize your marriage and family, the state no longer has to respect the existence of your marriage and family.

Without civil marriage, the family can no longer exist autonomously and serve as a wall of separation between the individual and the state. This has huge implications for the survival of freedom of association.

And the signs that this is upon us…..

Six Indicators We’re Headed Directly for Abolishing Civil Marriage
We can sort out six developments that indicate we’re on the fast track to abolishing civil marriage. They include: 1) The blueprint for abolishing family, developed by the founder of feminist legal theory, Martha Fineman; 2) support and advocacy of Fineman’s model by facilitators and regulators in the Obama Administration; 3) the statements of prominent LGBT activists themselves, including their 2006 manifesto which in effect established the abolition of marriage as the goal of the same sex marriage movement; 4) the demographic shift to single rather than married households; 5) the growing shift in social climate from marriage equality to marriage hostility; and 6) the recent push to export the LGBT agenda globally, particularly targeting poor and developing nations of Africa.

Regardless of the meaning of any of this, I find it questionable that these forces are formidable enough to add up to the abolition of legal marriage or that the LGBT movement would be to blame if it did come to that. Finally, while some legal theorists believe that there is no constitutional right to marriage, I continue to stress the belief that the idea of abolishing legal marriage is politically and socially wrongheaded, and will not solve any issues or make life better in any way.

Sonny, you are clearly out of your depth. Isn't there a Hello Kitty forum around here you can post in?

Private entitites enter into contracts all the time without government intervention. The government only comes into it when there is a breach that leads to dispute that must be settled.

Sonny!!?? You called me sonny!! You have no idea how ******* stupid that is!!

Now, go back and read it again WITH COMPREHENSION> The points that you are not getting are:

1. When people enter into private contracts, those contracts are regulated by contract law and therefor the government is still involved

2. Private contracts will not compel the government or any third party to provide benefits that go with legal marriage.

You're another one who likes to cherry pick opening lines but can't seem to come up with comments on the overall post.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Same Sex Marriage, Single Rights and the Abolition of Marriage

This tread started with the question Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from government and still protect people equally.? This would, of course mean that there would no longer be legal or secular marriage since only government can confer legal rights. It is about time that someone actually presented some facts rather than continuing to bloviate about what one thinks could be accomplished, how it could be done and what the ultimate outcome would look like.

I never really took the subject of the abolition of marriage very seriously, but the notion keeps coming up and apparently is not going away. I will start by saying that I discovered, while I have been dismissing it as a product of the lunatic fringe who are motivated by denying gays legal marriage, or have an ax to grind over the admittedly shoddy treatment of single people, there are some who do in fact take it very seriously and there is more momentum for it than I though. My most startling discovery was there is this strange convergence of the issues of same sex marriage, singles rights and the demise of marriage as we know it. Case in point- a piece written by someone who does in fact believe that same sex marriage will lead to the demise of marriage itself via the single rights “movement” but with dire, unintended consequences and is therefore saying that we need to rethink support for marriage equality:

Why Singles Rights And Same-Sex Marriage Will Abolish All Marriage By Stella Morabito Selected excerpts and comments

A response to ‘singles’ rights’ advocates on the importance of marriage to society.

Americans are generally people of goodwill who try to keep the golden rule. I think that’s why the term “equality” has such resonance for so many of us. But as we move farther down the path called “marriage equality,” I believe a greater dose of skepticism is in order by all freedom-loving Americans, whatever their perspective on the issue.

That’s because one particular cross-current rooted in the same-sex marriage movement promises to dominate the aftermath, shift us all away from the idea of freedom to marry, and place us all into system more akin to hard left central planning. It’s a little movement that goes by the moniker “singles’ rights” or sometimes “unmarried equality.” Let’s not fall into a trap here. We need to think this through.

She continues

I recently argued in The Federalist that same-sex marriage is merely a vehicle to abolish all civil marriage, and with it, all family autonomy. I predicted that “singles’ activists” would try to finish the job by using those same “marriage equality” arguments to claim that all civil discriminates against singles and therefore should be abolished. Lo and behold, a singles’ activist, author of the book “Singlism,” and blogger for Psychology Today, Bella DePaulo, confirmed exactly that in her critique of my Federalist article, “Welcome to Selfie Nation.” Here’s what she said: “Morabito says that what I really want is ‘to abolish marriage without saying so.’ That’s not quite right. I’m happy to say so.” http://thefederalist.com/2014/10/29/why-singles-rights-and-same-sex-marriage-will-abolish-all-marriage/

As for me connecting “singles’ rights” with the same-sex marriage movement, DePaulo had this to say by way of confirmation:

The author picks up on an argument I have been making for some time – that single people are targets of institutionalized, legalized discrimination in the form of the 1,000+ federal laws that protect and benefit only those who are legally married. She also accurately notes that my argument, and that of many other like-minded critics, has roots in the same-sex marriage movement.

So theory has it that same sex marriage will, Or at least may, lead to the demise of marriage itself. However, is it by design on the part of pro-gay and/or single rights activists, is it being pushed by the anti-gay activists, or as the result of some sort of spontaneous combustion process? The article continues:

If a little coterie of activists who claim to speak for all singles gets its way, the Supreme Court may soon consider declaring all marriage unconstitutional.

That is the whole point of same-sex marriage, at least as far as such singles’ activists–and likely most LGBT activists—are concerned: to lay the groundwork for abolishing it altogether.

So this author thinks it’s the gay rights activists with the help of single advocates:

That is the whole point of same-sex marriage, at least as far as such singles’ activists–and likely most LGBT activists—are concerned: to lay the groundwork for abolishing it altogether.

She is again saying that there will be dire consequences if marriage is abolished which will come about as the result of singles demanding rights because of the expansion of marriage rights to gays, but so far has not substantiated the claim made earlier that it is the gay marriage advocated that are the primary force behind abolishing marriage

And with it, all family autonomy and family privacy will have to go. Whether you are a left-wing true believer in central planning and control, someone who has accepted the mantra of “marriage equality” for same -marriage, or someone who has accepted the final step of this strange journey—that married “privilege” should be abolished—the path will be set and the outcome will be the same.

And

……my central argument that it is bad for the state to completely disregard family bonds, and thereby legally isolate each and every individual, single and married alike, from the autonomous sanctuary of families.__________________________________________________

In that earlier article in the Federalist by the same author and referenced above, she wrote:

Abolishing all civil marriage is the primary goal of the elites who have been pushing same sex marriage. The scheme called “marriage equality” is not an end in itself, and never really has been. The LGBT agenda has spawned too many other disparate agendas hostile to the existence of marriage, making marriage “unsustainable,” if you will. By now we should be able to hear the growing drumbeat to abolish civil marriage, as well as to legalize polygamy and all manner of reproductive technologies. http://thefederalist.com/2014/04/09/bait-and-switch-how-same-sex-marriage-ends-marriage-and-family-autonomy/

And again discusses the down side of abolishing marriage:

……..whether they know it or not, advocacy for same sex marriage is putting a lot of statist machinery into motion. Because once the state no longer has to recognize your marriage and family, the state no longer has to respect the existence of your marriage and family.

Without civil marriage, the family can no longer exist autonomously and serve as a wall of separation between the individual and the state. This has huge implications for the survival of freedom of association.

And the signs that this is upon us…..

Six Indicators We’re Headed Directly for Abolishing Civil Marriage
We can sort out six developments that indicate we’re on the fast track to abolishing civil marriage. They include: 1) The blueprint for abolishing family, developed by the founder of feminist legal theory, Martha Fineman; 2) support and advocacy of Fineman’s model by facilitators and regulators in the Obama Administration; 3) the statements of prominent LGBT activists themselves, including their 2006 manifesto which in effect established the abolition of marriage as the goal of the same sex marriage movement; 4) the demographic shift to single rather than married households; 5) the growing shift in social climate from marriage equality to marriage hostility; and 6) the recent push to export the LGBT agenda globally, particularly targeting poor and developing nations of Africa.

Regardless of the meaning of any of this, I find it questionable that these forces are formidable enough to add up to the abolition of legal marriage or that the LGBT movement would be to blame if it did come to that. Finally, while some legal theorists believe that there is no constitutional right to marriage, I continue to stress the belief that the idea of abolishing legal marriage is politically and socially wrongheaded, and will not solve any issues or make life better in any way.

Sonny, you are clearly out of your depth. Isn't there a Hello Kitty forum around here you can post in?

Private entitites enter into contracts all the time without government intervention. The government only comes into it when there is a breach that leads to dispute that must be settled.

Sonny!!?? You called me sonny!! You have no idea how ******* stupid that is!!

Now, go back and read it again WITH COMPREHENSION> The points that you are not getting are:

1. When people enter into private contracts, those contracts are regulated by contract law and therefor the government is still involved

2. Private contracts will not compel the government or any third party to provide benefits that go with legal marriage.

You're another one who likes to cherry pick opening lines but can't seem to come up with comments on the overall post.

OF COURSE a private contract could provide benefits from the government.


It's simple, a law stating "any valid contract is accepted as an agreement to file joint tax statements" etc etc. See, no mention of the word marriage, none

And in point of fact the IRS does NOT verify whether you are actually married or not when you file as married. AND they respect common law marriage as marriage in states that recognize common law marriage.

The actual fact of the matter is the IRS doesn't care on whit about the state issued marriage license.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Same Sex Marriage, Single Rights and the Abolition of Marriage

This tread started with the question Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from government and still protect people equally.? This would, of course mean that there would no longer be legal or secular marriage since only government can confer legal rights. It is about time that someone actually presented some facts rather than continuing to bloviate about what one thinks could be accomplished, how it could be done and what the ultimate outcome would look like.

I never really took the subject of the abolition of marriage very seriously, but the notion keeps coming up and apparently is not going away. I will start by saying that I discovered, while I have been dismissing it as a product of the lunatic fringe who are motivated by denying gays legal marriage, or have an ax to grind over the admittedly shoddy treatment of single people, there are some who do in fact take it very seriously and there is more momentum for it than I though. My most startling discovery was there is this strange convergence of the issues of same sex marriage, singles rights and the demise of marriage as we know it. Case in point- a piece written by someone who does in fact believe that same sex marriage will lead to the demise of marriage itself via the single rights “movement” but with dire, unintended consequences and is therefore saying that we need to rethink support for marriage equality:

Why Singles Rights And Same-Sex Marriage Will Abolish All Marriage By Stella Morabito Selected excerpts and comments

A response to ‘singles’ rights’ advocates on the importance of marriage to society.

Americans are generally people of goodwill who try to keep the golden rule. I think that’s why the term “equality” has such resonance for so many of us. But as we move farther down the path called “marriage equality,” I believe a greater dose of skepticism is in order by all freedom-loving Americans, whatever their perspective on the issue.

That’s because one particular cross-current rooted in the same-sex marriage movement promises to dominate the aftermath, shift us all away from the idea of freedom to marry, and place us all into system more akin to hard left central planning. It’s a little movement that goes by the moniker “singles’ rights” or sometimes “unmarried equality.” Let’s not fall into a trap here. We need to think this through.

She continues

I recently argued in The Federalist that same-sex marriage is merely a vehicle to abolish all civil marriage, and with it, all family autonomy. I predicted that “singles’ activists” would try to finish the job by using those same “marriage equality” arguments to claim that all civil discriminates against singles and therefore should be abolished. Lo and behold, a singles’ activist, author of the book “Singlism,” and blogger for Psychology Today, Bella DePaulo, confirmed exactly that in her critique of my Federalist article, “Welcome to Selfie Nation.” Here’s what she said: “Morabito says that what I really want is ‘to abolish marriage without saying so.’ That’s not quite right. I’m happy to say so.” http://thefederalist.com/2014/10/29/why-singles-rights-and-same-sex-marriage-will-abolish-all-marriage/

As for me connecting “singles’ rights” with the same-sex marriage movement, DePaulo had this to say by way of confirmation:

The author picks up on an argument I have been making for some time – that single people are targets of institutionalized, legalized discrimination in the form of the 1,000+ federal laws that protect and benefit only those who are legally married. She also accurately notes that my argument, and that of many other like-minded critics, has roots in the same-sex marriage movement.

So theory has it that same sex marriage will, Or at least may, lead to the demise of marriage itself. However, is it by design on the part of pro-gay and/or single rights activists, is it being pushed by the anti-gay activists, or as the result of some sort of spontaneous combustion process? The article continues:

If a little coterie of activists who claim to speak for all singles gets its way, the Supreme Court may soon consider declaring all marriage unconstitutional.

That is the whole point of same-sex marriage, at least as far as such singles’ activists–and likely most LGBT activists—are concerned: to lay the groundwork for abolishing it altogether.

So this author thinks it’s the gay rights activists with the help of single advocates:

That is the whole point of same-sex marriage, at least as far as such singles’ activists–and likely most LGBT activists—are concerned: to lay the groundwork for abolishing it altogether.

She is again saying that there will be dire consequences if marriage is abolished which will come about as the result of singles demanding rights because of the expansion of marriage rights to gays, but so far has not substantiated the claim made earlier that it is the gay marriage advocated that are the primary force behind abolishing marriage

And with it, all family autonomy and family privacy will have to go. Whether you are a left-wing true believer in central planning and control, someone who has accepted the mantra of “marriage equality” for same -marriage, or someone who has accepted the final step of this strange journey—that married “privilege” should be abolished—the path will be set and the outcome will be the same.

And

……my central argument that it is bad for the state to completely disregard family bonds, and thereby legally isolate each and every individual, single and married alike, from the autonomous sanctuary of families.__________________________________________________

In that earlier article in the Federalist by the same author and referenced above, she wrote:

Abolishing all civil marriage is the primary goal of the elites who have been pushing same sex marriage. The scheme called “marriage equality” is not an end in itself, and never really has been. The LGBT agenda has spawned too many other disparate agendas hostile to the existence of marriage, making marriage “unsustainable,” if you will. By now we should be able to hear the growing drumbeat to abolish civil marriage, as well as to legalize polygamy and all manner of reproductive technologies. http://thefederalist.com/2014/04/09/bait-and-switch-how-same-sex-marriage-ends-marriage-and-family-autonomy/

And again discusses the down side of abolishing marriage:

……..whether they know it or not, advocacy for same sex marriage is putting a lot of statist machinery into motion. Because once the state no longer has to recognize your marriage and family, the state no longer has to respect the existence of your marriage and family.

Without civil marriage, the family can no longer exist autonomously and serve as a wall of separation between the individual and the state. This has huge implications for the survival of freedom of association.

And the signs that this is upon us…..

Six Indicators We’re Headed Directly for Abolishing Civil Marriage
We can sort out six developments that indicate we’re on the fast track to abolishing civil marriage. They include: 1) The blueprint for abolishing family, developed by the founder of feminist legal theory, Martha Fineman; 2) support and advocacy of Fineman’s model by facilitators and regulators in the Obama Administration; 3) the statements of prominent LGBT activists themselves, including their 2006 manifesto which in effect established the abolition of marriage as the goal of the same sex marriage movement; 4) the demographic shift to single rather than married households; 5) the growing shift in social climate from marriage equality to marriage hostility; and 6) the recent push to export the LGBT agenda globally, particularly targeting poor and developing nations of Africa.

Regardless of the meaning of any of this, I find it questionable that these forces are formidable enough to add up to the abolition of legal marriage or that the LGBT movement would be to blame if it did come to that. Finally, while some legal theorists believe that there is no constitutional right to marriage, I continue to stress the belief that the idea of abolishing legal marriage is politically and socially wrongheaded, and will not solve any issues or make life better in any way.

Sonny, you are clearly out of your depth. Isn't there a Hello Kitty forum around here you can post in?

Private entitites enter into contracts all the time without government intervention. The government only comes into it when there is a breach that leads to dispute that must be settled.

Sonny!!?? You called me sonny!! You have no idea how ******* stupid that is!!

Now, go back and read it again WITH COMPREHENSION> The points that you are not getting are:

1. When people enter into private contracts, those contracts are regulated by contract law and therefor the government is still involved

2. Private contracts will not compel the government or any third party to provide benefits that go with legal marriage.

You're another one who likes to cherry pick opening lines but can't seem to come up with comments on the overall post.

OF COURSE a private contract could provide benefits from the government.


It's simple, a law stating "any valid contract is accepted as an agreement to file joint tax statements" etc etc. See, no mention of the word marriage, none

And in point of fact the IRS does NOT verify whether you are actually married or not when you file as married. AND they respect common law marriage as marriage in states that recognize common law marriage.

The actual fact of the matter is the IRS doesn't care on whit about the state issued marriage license.

1.Only a few states recognize common law marriage

2.You seem to be suggesting that large numbers of people defraud the government by filing joint returns when not actually married.

3.But if legal marriage as we know it were abolished, the feds would know that they are not married.

4. By your own admission, a new law would have to be passed to substitute "contracts" for "marriage" Good luck.

You guys keep insisting on struggle to make this work, when few want it and no one stands to benefit from it.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Same Sex Marriage, Single Rights and the Abolition of Marriage

This tread started with the question Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from government and still protect people equally.? This would, of course mean that there would no longer be legal or secular marriage since only government can confer legal rights. It is about time that someone actually presented some facts rather than continuing to bloviate about what one thinks could be accomplished, how it could be done and what the ultimate outcome would look like.

I never really took the subject of the abolition of marriage very seriously, but the notion keeps coming up and apparently is not going away. I will start by saying that I discovered, while I have been dismissing it as a product of the lunatic fringe who are motivated by denying gays legal marriage, or have an ax to grind over the admittedly shoddy treatment of single people, there are some who do in fact take it very seriously and there is more momentum for it than I though. My most startling discovery was there is this strange convergence of the issues of same sex marriage, singles rights and the demise of marriage as we know it. Case in point- a piece written by someone who does in fact believe that same sex marriage will lead to the demise of marriage itself via the single rights “movement” but with dire, unintended consequences and is therefore saying that we need to rethink support for marriage equality:

Why Singles Rights And Same-Sex Marriage Will Abolish All Marriage By Stella Morabito Selected excerpts and comments

A response to ‘singles’ rights’ advocates on the importance of marriage to society.

Americans are generally people of goodwill who try to keep the golden rule. I think that’s why the term “equality” has such resonance for so many of us. But as we move farther down the path called “marriage equality,” I believe a greater dose of skepticism is in order by all freedom-loving Americans, whatever their perspective on the issue.

That’s because one particular cross-current rooted in the same-sex marriage movement promises to dominate the aftermath, shift us all away from the idea of freedom to marry, and place us all into system more akin to hard left central planning. It’s a little movement that goes by the moniker “singles’ rights” or sometimes “unmarried equality.” Let’s not fall into a trap here. We need to think this through.

She continues

I recently argued in The Federalist that same-sex marriage is merely a vehicle to abolish all civil marriage, and with it, all family autonomy. I predicted that “singles’ activists” would try to finish the job by using those same “marriage equality” arguments to claim that all civil discriminates against singles and therefore should be abolished. Lo and behold, a singles’ activist, author of the book “Singlism,” and blogger for Psychology Today, Bella DePaulo, confirmed exactly that in her critique of my Federalist article, “Welcome to Selfie Nation.” Here’s what she said: “Morabito says that what I really want is ‘to abolish marriage without saying so.’ That’s not quite right. I’m happy to say so.” http://thefederalist.com/2014/10/29/why-singles-rights-and-same-sex-marriage-will-abolish-all-marriage/

As for me connecting “singles’ rights” with the same-sex marriage movement, DePaulo had this to say by way of confirmation:

The author picks up on an argument I have been making for some time – that single people are targets of institutionalized, legalized discrimination in the form of the 1,000+ federal laws that protect and benefit only those who are legally married. She also accurately notes that my argument, and that of many other like-minded critics, has roots in the same-sex marriage movement.

So theory has it that same sex marriage will, Or at least may, lead to the demise of marriage itself. However, is it by design on the part of pro-gay and/or single rights activists, is it being pushed by the anti-gay activists, or as the result of some sort of spontaneous combustion process? The article continues:

If a little coterie of activists who claim to speak for all singles gets its way, the Supreme Court may soon consider declaring all marriage unconstitutional.

That is the whole point of same-sex marriage, at least as far as such singles’ activists–and likely most LGBT activists—are concerned: to lay the groundwork for abolishing it altogether.

So this author thinks it’s the gay rights activists with the help of single advocates:

That is the whole point of same-sex marriage, at least as far as such singles’ activists–and likely most LGBT activists—are concerned: to lay the groundwork for abolishing it altogether.

She is again saying that there will be dire consequences if marriage is abolished which will come about as the result of singles demanding rights because of the expansion of marriage rights to gays, but so far has not substantiated the claim made earlier that it is the gay marriage advocated that are the primary force behind abolishing marriage

And with it, all family autonomy and family privacy will have to go. Whether you are a left-wing true believer in central planning and control, someone who has accepted the mantra of “marriage equality” for same -marriage, or someone who has accepted the final step of this strange journey—that married “privilege” should be abolished—the path will be set and the outcome will be the same.

And

……my central argument that it is bad for the state to completely disregard family bonds, and thereby legally isolate each and every individual, single and married alike, from the autonomous sanctuary of families.__________________________________________________

In that earlier article in the Federalist by the same author and referenced above, she wrote:

Abolishing all civil marriage is the primary goal of the elites who have been pushing same sex marriage. The scheme called “marriage equality” is not an end in itself, and never really has been. The LGBT agenda has spawned too many other disparate agendas hostile to the existence of marriage, making marriage “unsustainable,” if you will. By now we should be able to hear the growing drumbeat to abolish civil marriage, as well as to legalize polygamy and all manner of reproductive technologies. http://thefederalist.com/2014/04/09/bait-and-switch-how-same-sex-marriage-ends-marriage-and-family-autonomy/

And again discusses the down side of abolishing marriage:

……..whether they know it or not, advocacy for same sex marriage is putting a lot of statist machinery into motion. Because once the state no longer has to recognize your marriage and family, the state no longer has to respect the existence of your marriage and family.

Without civil marriage, the family can no longer exist autonomously and serve as a wall of separation between the individual and the state. This has huge implications for the survival of freedom of association.

And the signs that this is upon us…..

Six Indicators We’re Headed Directly for Abolishing Civil Marriage
We can sort out six developments that indicate we’re on the fast track to abolishing civil marriage. They include: 1) The blueprint for abolishing family, developed by the founder of feminist legal theory, Martha Fineman; 2) support and advocacy of Fineman’s model by facilitators and regulators in the Obama Administration; 3) the statements of prominent LGBT activists themselves, including their 2006 manifesto which in effect established the abolition of marriage as the goal of the same sex marriage movement; 4) the demographic shift to single rather than married households; 5) the growing shift in social climate from marriage equality to marriage hostility; and 6) the recent push to export the LGBT agenda globally, particularly targeting poor and developing nations of Africa.

Regardless of the meaning of any of this, I find it questionable that these forces are formidable enough to add up to the abolition of legal marriage or that the LGBT movement would be to blame if it did come to that. Finally, while some legal theorists believe that there is no constitutional right to marriage, I continue to stress the belief that the idea of abolishing legal marriage is politically and socially wrongheaded, and will not solve any issues or make life better in any way.

Sonny, you are clearly out of your depth. Isn't there a Hello Kitty forum around here you can post in?

Private entitites enter into contracts all the time without government intervention. The government only comes into it when there is a breach that leads to dispute that must be settled.

Sonny!!?? You called me sonny!! You have no idea how ******* stupid that is!!

Now, go back and read it again WITH COMPREHENSION> The points that you are not getting are:

1. When people enter into private contracts, those contracts are regulated by contract law and therefor the government is still involved

2. Private contracts will not compel the government or any third party to provide benefits that go with legal marriage.

You're another one who likes to cherry pick opening lines but can't seem to come up with comments on the overall post.

OF COURSE a private contract could provide benefits from the government.


It's simple, a law stating "any valid contract is accepted as an agreement to file joint tax statements" etc etc. See, no mention of the word marriage, none

And in point of fact the IRS does NOT verify whether you are actually married or not when you file as married. AND they respect common law marriage as marriage in states that recognize common law marriage.

The actual fact of the matter is the IRS doesn't care on whit about the state issued marriage license.

1.Only a few states recognize common law marriage

2.You seem to be suggesting that large numbers of people defraud the government by filing joint returns when not actually married.

3.But if legal marriage as we know it were abolished, the feds would know that they are not married.

4. By your own admission, a new law would have to be passed to substitute "contracts" for "marriage" Good luck.

You guys keep insisting on struggle to make this work, when few want it and no one stands to benefit from it.

1. Irrelevant

2. I'm sure many do

3. Irrelevant

4. I never said otherwise.

 

[oldsoul]

Same Sex Marriage, Single Rights and the Abolition of Marriage

This tread started with the question Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from government and still protect people equally.? This would, of course mean that there would no longer be legal or secular marriage since only government can confer legal rights. It is about time that someone actually presented some facts rather than continuing to bloviate about what one thinks could be accomplished, how it could be done and what the ultimate outcome would look like.

I never really took the subject of the abolition of marriage very seriously, but the notion keeps coming up and apparently is not going away. I will start by saying that I discovered, while I have been dismissing it as a product of the lunatic fringe who are motivated by denying gays legal marriage, or have an ax to grind over the admittedly shoddy treatment of single people, there are some who do in fact take it very seriously and there is more momentum for it than I though. My most startling discovery was there is this strange convergence of the issues of same sex marriage, singles rights and the demise of marriage as we know it. Case in point- a piece written by someone who does in fact believe that same sex marriage will lead to the demise of marriage itself via the single rights “movement” but with dire, unintended consequences and is therefore saying that we need to rethink support for marriage equality:

Why Singles Rights And Same-Sex Marriage Will Abolish All Marriage By Stella Morabito Selected excerpts and comments

A response to ‘singles’ rights’ advocates on the importance of marriage to society.

Americans are generally people of goodwill who try to keep the golden rule. I think that’s why the term “equality” has such resonance for so many of us. But as we move farther down the path called “marriage equality,” I believe a greater dose of skepticism is in order by all freedom-loving Americans, whatever their perspective on the issue.

That’s because one particular cross-current rooted in the same-sex marriage movement promises to dominate the aftermath, shift us all away from the idea of freedom to marry, and place us all into system more akin to hard left central planning. It’s a little movement that goes by the moniker “singles’ rights” or sometimes “unmarried equality.” Let’s not fall into a trap here. We need to think this through.

She continues

I recently argued in The Federalist that same-sex marriage is merely a vehicle to abolish all civil marriage, and with it, all family autonomy. I predicted that “singles’ activists” would try to finish the job by using those same “marriage equality” arguments to claim that all civil discriminates against singles and therefore should be abolished. Lo and behold, a singles’ activist, author of the book “Singlism,” and blogger for Psychology Today, Bella DePaulo, confirmed exactly that in her critique of my Federalist article, “Welcome to Selfie Nation.” Here’s what she said: “Morabito says that what I really want is ‘to abolish marriage without saying so.’ That’s not quite right. I’m happy to say so.” http://thefederalist.com/2014/10/29/why-singles-rights-and-same-sex-marriage-will-abolish-all-marriage/

As for me connecting “singles’ rights” with the same-sex marriage movement, DePaulo had this to say by way of confirmation:

The author picks up on an argument I have been making for some time – that single people are targets of institutionalized, legalized discrimination in the form of the 1,000+ federal laws that protect and benefit only those who are legally married. She also accurately notes that my argument, and that of many other like-minded critics, has roots in the same-sex marriage movement.

So theory has it that same sex marriage will, Or at least may, lead to the demise of marriage itself. However, is it by design on the part of pro-gay and/or single rights activists, is it being pushed by the anti-gay activists, or as the result of some sort of spontaneous combustion process? The article continues:

If a little coterie of activists who claim to speak for all singles gets its way, the Supreme Court may soon consider declaring all marriage unconstitutional.

That is the whole point of same-sex marriage, at least as far as such singles’ activists–and likely most LGBT activists—are concerned: to lay the groundwork for abolishing it altogether.

So this author thinks it’s the gay rights activists with the help of single advocates:

That is the whole point of same-sex marriage, at least as far as such singles’ activists–and likely most LGBT activists—are concerned: to lay the groundwork for abolishing it altogether.

She is again saying that there will be dire consequences if marriage is abolished which will come about as the result of singles demanding rights because of the expansion of marriage rights to gays, but so far has not substantiated the claim made earlier that it is the gay marriage advocated that are the primary force behind abolishing marriage

And with it, all family autonomy and family privacy will have to go. Whether you are a left-wing true believer in central planning and control, someone who has accepted the mantra of “marriage equality” for same -marriage, or someone who has accepted the final step of this strange journey—that married “privilege” should be abolished—the path will be set and the outcome will be the same.

And

……my central argument that it is bad for the state to completely disregard family bonds, and thereby legally isolate each and every individual, single and married alike, from the autonomous sanctuary of families.__________________________________________________

In that earlier article in the Federalist by the same author and referenced above, she wrote:

Abolishing all civil marriage is the primary goal of the elites who have been pushing same sex marriage. The scheme called “marriage equality” is not an end in itself, and never really has been. The LGBT agenda has spawned too many other disparate agendas hostile to the existence of marriage, making marriage “unsustainable,” if you will. By now we should be able to hear the growing drumbeat to abolish civil marriage, as well as to legalize polygamy and all manner of reproductive technologies. http://thefederalist.com/2014/04/09/bait-and-switch-how-same-sex-marriage-ends-marriage-and-family-autonomy/

And again discusses the down side of abolishing marriage:

……..whether they know it or not, advocacy for same sex marriage is putting a lot of statist machinery into motion. Because once the state no longer has to recognize your marriage and family, the state no longer has to respect the existence of your marriage and family.

Without civil marriage, the family can no longer exist autonomously and serve as a wall of separation between the individual and the state. This has huge implications for the survival of freedom of association.

And the signs that this is upon us…..

Six Indicators We’re Headed Directly for Abolishing Civil Marriage
We can sort out six developments that indicate we’re on the fast track to abolishing civil marriage. They include: 1) The blueprint for abolishing family, developed by the founder of feminist legal theory, Martha Fineman; 2) support and advocacy of Fineman’s model by facilitators and regulators in the Obama Administration; 3) the statements of prominent LGBT activists themselves, including their 2006 manifesto which in effect established the abolition of marriage as the goal of the same sex marriage movement; 4) the demographic shift to single rather than married households; 5) the growing shift in social climate from marriage equality to marriage hostility; and 6) the recent push to export the LGBT agenda globally, particularly targeting poor and developing nations of Africa.

Regardless of the meaning of any of this, I find it questionable that these forces are formidable enough to add up to the abolition of legal marriage or that the LGBT movement would be to blame if it did come to that. Finally, while some legal theorists believe that there is no constitutional right to marriage, I continue to stress the belief that the idea of abolishing legal marriage is politically and socially wrongheaded, and will not solve any issues or make life better in any way.

I continue to stress the belief that the idea of abolishing legal marriage is politically and socially wrongheaded, and will not solve any issues or make life better in any way.

Except that it gets the government out of marriage, and therefore allows people/entities to make the decision for themselves. I do not see how this would be harmful.
As for the rest of your post:
While it was an...interesting read, I still do not see how this will be a problem. I get the argument that it removes the so-called "wall of separation" between the individual and state, I not only disagree that this "wall" even exists, but that it is unnecessary if it does. What purpose would it serve, assuming it exists? Furthermore, why is a "wall" between the state and an individual necessary? Seems to me, if such a wall where removed, one would find a government by the people, and FOR the people would be much easier to attain and sustain.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Same Sex Marriage, Single Rights and the Abolition of Marriage

This tread started with the question Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from government and still protect people equally.? This would, of course mean that there would no longer be legal or secular marriage since only government can confer legal rights. It is about time that someone actually presented some facts rather than continuing to bloviate about what one thinks could be accomplished, how it could be done and what the ultimate outcome would look like.

I never really took the subject of the abolition of marriage very seriously, but the notion keeps coming up and apparently is not going away. I will start by saying that I discovered, while I have been dismissing it as a product of the lunatic fringe who are motivated by denying gays legal marriage, or have an ax to grind over the admittedly shoddy treatment of single people, there are some who do in fact take it very seriously and there is more momentum for it than I though. My most startling discovery was there is this strange convergence of the issues of same sex marriage, singles rights and the demise of marriage as we know it. Case in point- a piece written by someone who does in fact believe that same sex marriage will lead to the demise of marriage itself via the single rights “movement” but with dire, unintended consequences and is therefore saying that we need to rethink support for marriage equality:

Why Singles Rights And Same-Sex Marriage Will Abolish All Marriage By Stella Morabito Selected excerpts and comments

A response to ‘singles’ rights’ advocates on the importance of marriage to society.

Americans are generally people of goodwill who try to keep the golden rule. I think that’s why the term “equality” has such resonance for so many of us. But as we move farther down the path called “marriage equality,” I believe a greater dose of skepticism is in order by all freedom-loving Americans, whatever their perspective on the issue.

That’s because one particular cross-current rooted in the same-sex marriage movement promises to dominate the aftermath, shift us all away from the idea of freedom to marry, and place us all into system more akin to hard left central planning. It’s a little movement that goes by the moniker “singles’ rights” or sometimes “unmarried equality.” Let’s not fall into a trap here. We need to think this through.

She continues

I recently argued in The Federalist that same-sex marriage is merely a vehicle to abolish all civil marriage, and with it, all family autonomy. I predicted that “singles’ activists” would try to finish the job by using those same “marriage equality” arguments to claim that all civil discriminates against singles and therefore should be abolished. Lo and behold, a singles’ activist, author of the book “Singlism,” and blogger for Psychology Today, Bella DePaulo, confirmed exactly that in her critique of my Federalist article, “Welcome to Selfie Nation.” Here’s what she said: “Morabito says that what I really want is ‘to abolish marriage without saying so.’ That’s not quite right. I’m happy to say so.” http://thefederalist.com/2014/10/29/why-singles-rights-and-same-sex-marriage-will-abolish-all-marriage/

As for me connecting “singles’ rights” with the same-sex marriage movement, DePaulo had this to say by way of confirmation:

The author picks up on an argument I have been making for some time – that single people are targets of institutionalized, legalized discrimination in the form of the 1,000+ federal laws that protect and benefit only those who are legally married. She also accurately notes that my argument, and that of many other like-minded critics, has roots in the same-sex marriage movement.

So theory has it that same sex marriage will, Or at least may, lead to the demise of marriage itself. However, is it by design on the part of pro-gay and/or single rights activists, is it being pushed by the anti-gay activists, or as the result of some sort of spontaneous combustion process? The article continues:

If a little coterie of activists who claim to speak for all singles gets its way, the Supreme Court may soon consider declaring all marriage unconstitutional.

That is the whole point of same-sex marriage, at least as far as such singles’ activists–and likely most LGBT activists—are concerned: to lay the groundwork for abolishing it altogether.

So this author thinks it’s the gay rights activists with the help of single advocates:

That is the whole point of same-sex marriage, at least as far as such singles’ activists–and likely most LGBT activists—are concerned: to lay the groundwork for abolishing it altogether.

She is again saying that there will be dire consequences if marriage is abolished which will come about as the result of singles demanding rights because of the expansion of marriage rights to gays, but so far has not substantiated the claim made earlier that it is the gay marriage advocated that are the primary force behind abolishing marriage

And with it, all family autonomy and family privacy will have to go. Whether you are a left-wing true believer in central planning and control, someone who has accepted the mantra of “marriage equality” for same -marriage, or someone who has accepted the final step of this strange journey—that married “privilege” should be abolished—the path will be set and the outcome will be the same.

And

……my central argument that it is bad for the state to completely disregard family bonds, and thereby legally isolate each and every individual, single and married alike, from the autonomous sanctuary of families.__________________________________________________

In that earlier article in the Federalist by the same author and referenced above, she wrote:

Abolishing all civil marriage is the primary goal of the elites who have been pushing same sex marriage. The scheme called “marriage equality” is not an end in itself, and never really has been. The LGBT agenda has spawned too many other disparate agendas hostile to the existence of marriage, making marriage “unsustainable,” if you will. By now we should be able to hear the growing drumbeat to abolish civil marriage, as well as to legalize polygamy and all manner of reproductive technologies. http://thefederalist.com/2014/04/09/bait-and-switch-how-same-sex-marriage-ends-marriage-and-family-autonomy/

And again discusses the down side of abolishing marriage:

……..whether they know it or not, advocacy for same sex marriage is putting a lot of statist machinery into motion. Because once the state no longer has to recognize your marriage and family, the state no longer has to respect the existence of your marriage and family.

Without civil marriage, the family can no longer exist autonomously and serve as a wall of separation between the individual and the state. This has huge implications for the survival of freedom of association.

And the signs that this is upon us…..

Six Indicators We’re Headed Directly for Abolishing Civil Marriage
We can sort out six developments that indicate we’re on the fast track to abolishing civil marriage. They include: 1) The blueprint for abolishing family, developed by the founder of feminist legal theory, Martha Fineman; 2) support and advocacy of Fineman’s model by facilitators and regulators in the Obama Administration; 3) the statements of prominent LGBT activists themselves, including their 2006 manifesto which in effect established the abolition of marriage as the goal of the same sex marriage movement; 4) the demographic shift to single rather than married households; 5) the growing shift in social climate from marriage equality to marriage hostility; and 6) the recent push to export the LGBT agenda globally, particularly targeting poor and developing nations of Africa.

Regardless of the meaning of any of this, I find it questionable that these forces are formidable enough to add up to the abolition of legal marriage or that the LGBT movement would be to blame if it did come to that. Finally, while some legal theorists believe that there is no constitutional right to marriage, I continue to stress the belief that the idea of abolishing legal marriage is politically and socially wrongheaded, and will not solve any issues or make life better in any way.

I continue to stress the belief that the idea of abolishing legal marriage is politically and socially wrongheaded, and will not solve any issues or make life better in any way.

Except that it gets the government out of marriage, and therefore allows people/entities to make the decision for themselves. I do not see how this would be harmful.

Progressive Patriot: What decisions would those be? The decision not to marry your dog, or a minor child? Or, maybe the decision not to support your children because – without legal marriage- there is no presumption of parenthood. You do not see how that could be harmful?

As for the rest of your post:
While it was an...interesting read, I still do not see how this will be a problem. I get the argument that it removes the so-called "wall of separation" between the individual and state, I not only disagree that this "wall" even exists, but that it is unnecessary if it does. What purpose would it serve, assuming it exists? Furthermore, why is a "wall" between the state and an individual necessary? Seems to me, if such a wall where removed, one would find a government by the people, and FOR the people would be much easier to attain and sustain.

Progressive Patriot: The article explains the purpose very well. Privacy and the autonomy of the family. The family has long been considered a cornerstone of society. If you destroy legal marriage, you destroy the family. Is it not those of us on the left that are always being accused of promoting “collectivism” and central planning.? You know, buzz words for communists which is ironic I’m willing to be that those pushing for this are anti-communist conservatives

As the author said…..

my central argument that it is bad for the state to completely disregard family bonds, and thereby legally isolate each and every individual, single and married alike, from the autonomous sanctuary of families._________________________________________

and

Because once the state no longer has to recognize your marriage and family, the state no longer has to respect the existence of your marriage and family.

Without civil marriage, the family can no longer exist autonomously and serve as a wall of separation between the individual and the state. This has huge implications for the survival of freedom of association.

 

[oldsoul]

Same Sex Marriage, Single Rights and the Abolition of Marriage

This tread started with the question Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from government and still protect people equally.? This would, of course mean that there would no longer be legal or secular marriage since only government can confer legal rights. It is about time that someone actually presented some facts rather than continuing to bloviate about what one thinks could be accomplished, how it could be done and what the ultimate outcome would look like.

I never really took the subject of the abolition of marriage very seriously, but the notion keeps coming up and apparently is not going away. I will start by saying that I discovered, while I have been dismissing it as a product of the lunatic fringe who are motivated by denying gays legal marriage, or have an ax to grind over the admittedly shoddy treatment of single people, there are some who do in fact take it very seriously and there is more momentum for it than I though. My most startling discovery was there is this strange convergence of the issues of same sex marriage, singles rights and the demise of marriage as we know it. Case in point- a piece written by someone who does in fact believe that same sex marriage will lead to the demise of marriage itself via the single rights “movement” but with dire, unintended consequences and is therefore saying that we need to rethink support for marriage equality:

Why Singles Rights And Same-Sex Marriage Will Abolish All Marriage By Stella Morabito Selected excerpts and comments

A response to ‘singles’ rights’ advocates on the importance of marriage to society.

Americans are generally people of goodwill who try to keep the golden rule. I think that’s why the term “equality” has such resonance for so many of us. But as we move farther down the path called “marriage equality,” I believe a greater dose of skepticism is in order by all freedom-loving Americans, whatever their perspective on the issue.

That’s because one particular cross-current rooted in the same-sex marriage movement promises to dominate the aftermath, shift us all away from the idea of freedom to marry, and place us all into system more akin to hard left central planning. It’s a little movement that goes by the moniker “singles’ rights” or sometimes “unmarried equality.” Let’s not fall into a trap here. We need to think this through.

She continues

I recently argued in The Federalist that same-sex marriage is merely a vehicle to abolish all civil marriage, and with it, all family autonomy. I predicted that “singles’ activists” would try to finish the job by using those same “marriage equality” arguments to claim that all civil discriminates against singles and therefore should be abolished. Lo and behold, a singles’ activist, author of the book “Singlism,” and blogger for Psychology Today, Bella DePaulo, confirmed exactly that in her critique of my Federalist article, “Welcome to Selfie Nation.” Here’s what she said: “Morabito says that what I really want is ‘to abolish marriage without saying so.’ That’s not quite right. I’m happy to say so.” http://thefederalist.com/2014/10/29/why-singles-rights-and-same-sex-marriage-will-abolish-all-marriage/

As for me connecting “singles’ rights” with the same-sex marriage movement, DePaulo had this to say by way of confirmation:

The author picks up on an argument I have been making for some time – that single people are targets of institutionalized, legalized discrimination in the form of the 1,000+ federal laws that protect and benefit only those who are legally married. She also accurately notes that my argument, and that of many other like-minded critics, has roots in the same-sex marriage movement.

So theory has it that same sex marriage will, Or at least may, lead to the demise of marriage itself. However, is it by design on the part of pro-gay and/or single rights activists, is it being pushed by the anti-gay activists, or as the result of some sort of spontaneous combustion process? The article continues:

If a little coterie of activists who claim to speak for all singles gets its way, the Supreme Court may soon consider declaring all marriage unconstitutional.

That is the whole point of same-sex marriage, at least as far as such singles’ activists–and likely most LGBT activists—are concerned: to lay the groundwork for abolishing it altogether.

So this author thinks it’s the gay rights activists with the help of single advocates:

That is the whole point of same-sex marriage, at least as far as such singles’ activists–and likely most LGBT activists—are concerned: to lay the groundwork for abolishing it altogether.

She is again saying that there will be dire consequences if marriage is abolished which will come about as the result of singles demanding rights because of the expansion of marriage rights to gays, but so far has not substantiated the claim made earlier that it is the gay marriage advocated that are the primary force behind abolishing marriage

And with it, all family autonomy and family privacy will have to go. Whether you are a left-wing true believer in central planning and control, someone who has accepted the mantra of “marriage equality” for same -marriage, or someone who has accepted the final step of this strange journey—that married “privilege” should be abolished—the path will be set and the outcome will be the same.

And

……my central argument that it is bad for the state to completely disregard family bonds, and thereby legally isolate each and every individual, single and married alike, from the autonomous sanctuary of families.__________________________________________________

In that earlier article in the Federalist by the same author and referenced above, she wrote:

Abolishing all civil marriage is the primary goal of the elites who have been pushing same sex marriage. The scheme called “marriage equality” is not an end in itself, and never really has been. The LGBT agenda has spawned too many other disparate agendas hostile to the existence of marriage, making marriage “unsustainable,” if you will. By now we should be able to hear the growing drumbeat to abolish civil marriage, as well as to legalize polygamy and all manner of reproductive technologies. http://thefederalist.com/2014/04/09/bait-and-switch-how-same-sex-marriage-ends-marriage-and-family-autonomy/

And again discusses the down side of abolishing marriage:

……..whether they know it or not, advocacy for same sex marriage is putting a lot of statist machinery into motion. Because once the state no longer has to recognize your marriage and family, the state no longer has to respect the existence of your marriage and family.

Without civil marriage, the family can no longer exist autonomously and serve as a wall of separation between the individual and the state. This has huge implications for the survival of freedom of association.

And the signs that this is upon us…..

Six Indicators We’re Headed Directly for Abolishing Civil Marriage
We can sort out six developments that indicate we’re on the fast track to abolishing civil marriage. They include: 1) The blueprint for abolishing family, developed by the founder of feminist legal theory, Martha Fineman; 2) support and advocacy of Fineman’s model by facilitators and regulators in the Obama Administration; 3) the statements of prominent LGBT activists themselves, including their 2006 manifesto which in effect established the abolition of marriage as the goal of the same sex marriage movement; 4) the demographic shift to single rather than married households; 5) the growing shift in social climate from marriage equality to marriage hostility; and 6) the recent push to export the LGBT agenda globally, particularly targeting poor and developing nations of Africa.

Regardless of the meaning of any of this, I find it questionable that these forces are formidable enough to add up to the abolition of legal marriage or that the LGBT movement would be to blame if it did come to that. Finally, while some legal theorists believe that there is no constitutional right to marriage, I continue to stress the belief that the idea of abolishing legal marriage is politically and socially wrongheaded, and will not solve any issues or make life better in any way.

I continue to stress the belief that the idea of abolishing legal marriage is politically and socially wrongheaded, and will not solve any issues or make life better in any way.

Except that it gets the government out of marriage, and therefore allows people/entities to make the decision for themselves. I do not see how this would be harmful.

Progressive Patriot: What decisions would those be? The decision not to marry your dog, or a minor child? Or, maybe the decision not to support your children because – without legal marriage- there is no presumption of parenthood. You do not see how that could be harmful?

As for the rest of your post:
While it was an...interesting read, I still do not see how this will be a problem. I get the argument that it removes the so-called "wall of separation" between the individual and state, I not only disagree that this "wall" even exists, but that it is unnecessary if it does. What purpose would it serve, assuming it exists? Furthermore, why is a "wall" between the state and an individual necessary? Seems to me, if such a wall where removed, one would find a government by the people, and FOR the people would be much easier to attain and sustain.

Progressive Patriot: The article explains the purpose very well. Privacy and the autonomy of the family. The family has long been considered a cornerstone of society. If you destroy legal marriage, you destroy the family. Is it not those of us on the left that are always being accused of promoting “collectivism” and central planning.? You know, buzz words for communists which is ironic I’m willing to be that those pushing for this are anti-communist conservatives

As the author said…..

my central argument that it is bad for the state to completely disregard family bonds, and thereby legally isolate each and every individual, single and married alike, from the autonomous sanctuary of families._________________________________________

and

Because once the state no longer has to recognize your marriage and family, the state no longer has to respect the existence of your marriage and family.

Without civil marriage, the family can no longer exist autonomously and serve as a wall of separation between the individual and the state. This has huge implications for the survival of freedom of association.

?????

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Same Sex Marriage, Single Rights and the Abolition of Marriage

This tread started with the question Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from government and still protect people equally.? This would, of course mean that there would no longer be legal or secular marriage since only government can confer legal rights. It is about time that someone actually presented some facts rather than continuing to bloviate about what one thinks could be accomplished, how it could be done and what the ultimate outcome would look like.

I never really took the subject of the abolition of marriage very seriously, but the notion keeps coming up and apparently is not going away. I will start by saying that I discovered, while I have been dismissing it as a product of the lunatic fringe who are motivated by denying gays legal marriage, or have an ax to grind over the admittedly shoddy treatment of single people, there are some who do in fact take it very seriously and there is more momentum for it than I though. My most startling discovery was there is this strange convergence of the issues of same sex marriage, singles rights and the demise of marriage as we know it. Case in point- a piece written by someone who does in fact believe that same sex marriage will lead to the demise of marriage itself via the single rights “movement” but with dire, unintended consequences and is therefore saying that we need to rethink support for marriage equality:

Why Singles Rights And Same-Sex Marriage Will Abolish All Marriage By Stella Morabito Selected excerpts and comments

A response to ‘singles’ rights’ advocates on the importance of marriage to society.

Americans are generally people of goodwill who try to keep the golden rule. I think that’s why the term “equality” has such resonance for so many of us. But as we move farther down the path called “marriage equality,” I believe a greater dose of skepticism is in order by all freedom-loving Americans, whatever their perspective on the issue.

That’s because one particular cross-current rooted in the same-sex marriage movement promises to dominate the aftermath, shift us all away from the idea of freedom to marry, and place us all into system more akin to hard left central planning. It’s a little movement that goes by the moniker “singles’ rights” or sometimes “unmarried equality.” Let’s not fall into a trap here. We need to think this through.

She continues

I recently argued in The Federalist that same-sex marriage is merely a vehicle to abolish all civil marriage, and with it, all family autonomy. I predicted that “singles’ activists” would try to finish the job by using those same “marriage equality” arguments to claim that all civil discriminates against singles and therefore should be abolished. Lo and behold, a singles’ activist, author of the book “Singlism,” and blogger for Psychology Today, Bella DePaulo, confirmed exactly that in her critique of my Federalist article, “Welcome to Selfie Nation.” Here’s what she said: “Morabito says that what I really want is ‘to abolish marriage without saying so.’ That’s not quite right. I’m happy to say so.” http://thefederalist.com/2014/10/29/why-singles-rights-and-same-sex-marriage-will-abolish-all-marriage/

As for me connecting “singles’ rights” with the same-sex marriage movement, DePaulo had this to say by way of confirmation:

The author picks up on an argument I have been making for some time – that single people are targets of institutionalized, legalized discrimination in the form of the 1,000+ federal laws that protect and benefit only those who are legally married. She also accurately notes that my argument, and that of many other like-minded critics, has roots in the same-sex marriage movement.

So theory has it that same sex marriage will, Or at least may, lead to the demise of marriage itself. However, is it by design on the part of pro-gay and/or single rights activists, is it being pushed by the anti-gay activists, or as the result of some sort of spontaneous combustion process? The article continues:

If a little coterie of activists who claim to speak for all singles gets its way, the Supreme Court may soon consider declaring all marriage unconstitutional.

That is the whole point of same-sex marriage, at least as far as such singles’ activists–and likely most LGBT activists—are concerned: to lay the groundwork for abolishing it altogether.

So this author thinks it’s the gay rights activists with the help of single advocates:

That is the whole point of same-sex marriage, at least as far as such singles’ activists–and likely most LGBT activists—are concerned: to lay the groundwork for abolishing it altogether.

She is again saying that there will be dire consequences if marriage is abolished which will come about as the result of singles demanding rights because of the expansion of marriage rights to gays, but so far has not substantiated the claim made earlier that it is the gay marriage advocated that are the primary force behind abolishing marriage

And with it, all family autonomy and family privacy will have to go. Whether you are a left-wing true believer in central planning and control, someone who has accepted the mantra of “marriage equality” for same -marriage, or someone who has accepted the final step of this strange journey—that married “privilege” should be abolished—the path will be set and the outcome will be the same.

And

……my central argument that it is bad for the state to completely disregard family bonds, and thereby legally isolate each and every individual, single and married alike, from the autonomous sanctuary of families.__________________________________________________

In that earlier article in the Federalist by the same author and referenced above, she wrote:

Abolishing all civil marriage is the primary goal of the elites who have been pushing same sex marriage. The scheme called “marriage equality” is not an end in itself, and never really has been. The LGBT agenda has spawned too many other disparate agendas hostile to the existence of marriage, making marriage “unsustainable,” if you will. By now we should be able to hear the growing drumbeat to abolish civil marriage, as well as to legalize polygamy and all manner of reproductive technologies. http://thefederalist.com/2014/04/09/bait-and-switch-how-same-sex-marriage-ends-marriage-and-family-autonomy/

And again discusses the down side of abolishing marriage:

……..whether they know it or not, advocacy for same sex marriage is putting a lot of statist machinery into motion. Because once the state no longer has to recognize your marriage and family, the state no longer has to respect the existence of your marriage and family.

Without civil marriage, the family can no longer exist autonomously and serve as a wall of separation between the individual and the state. This has huge implications for the survival of freedom of association.

And the signs that this is upon us…..

Six Indicators We’re Headed Directly for Abolishing Civil Marriage
We can sort out six developments that indicate we’re on the fast track to abolishing civil marriage. They include: 1) The blueprint for abolishing family, developed by the founder of feminist legal theory, Martha Fineman; 2) support and advocacy of Fineman’s model by facilitators and regulators in the Obama Administration; 3) the statements of prominent LGBT activists themselves, including their 2006 manifesto which in effect established the abolition of marriage as the goal of the same sex marriage movement; 4) the demographic shift to single rather than married households; 5) the growing shift in social climate from marriage equality to marriage hostility; and 6) the recent push to export the LGBT agenda globally, particularly targeting poor and developing nations of Africa.

Regardless of the meaning of any of this, I find it questionable that these forces are formidable enough to add up to the abolition of legal marriage or that the LGBT movement would be to blame if it did come to that. Finally, while some legal theorists believe that there is no constitutional right to marriage, I continue to stress the belief that the idea of abolishing legal marriage is politically and socially wrongheaded, and will not solve any issues or make life better in any way.

I continue to stress the belief that the idea of abolishing legal marriage is politically and socially wrongheaded, and will not solve any issues or make life better in any way.

Except that it gets the government out of marriage, and therefore allows people/entities to make the decision for themselves. I do not see how this would be harmful.

Progressive Patriot: What decisions would those be? The decision not to marry your dog, or a minor child? Or, maybe the decision not to support your children because – without legal marriage- there is no presumption of parenthood. You do not see how that could be harmful?

As for the rest of your post:
While it was an...interesting read, I still do not see how this will be a problem. I get the argument that it removes the so-called "wall of separation" between the individual and state, I not only disagree that this "wall" even exists, but that it is unnecessary if it does. What purpose would it serve, assuming it exists? Furthermore, why is a "wall" between the state and an individual necessary? Seems to me, if such a wall where removed, one would find a government by the people, and FOR the people would be much easier to attain and sustain.

Progressive Patriot: The article explains the purpose very well. Privacy and the autonomy of the family. The family has long been considered a cornerstone of society. If you destroy legal marriage, you destroy the family. Is it not those of us on the left that are always being accused of promoting “collectivism” and central planning.? You know, buzz words for communists which is ironic I’m willing to be that those pushing for this are anti-communist conservatives

As the author said…..

my central argument that it is bad for the state to completely disregard family bonds, and thereby legally isolate each and every individual, single and married alike, from the autonomous sanctuary of families._________________________________________

and

Because once the state no longer has to recognize your marriage and family, the state no longer has to respect the existence of your marriage and family.

Without civil marriage, the family can no longer exist autonomously and serve as a wall of separation between the individual and the state. This has huge implications for the survival of freedom of association.

?????

I thought that was his best post in the thread