Before you donate to Young Americans for Liberty...

[Revolution9]

Exactly, that is what I was saying earlier. Marriage should be protected under freedom of religion and freedom of association and no one, especially any government, should be allowed to define it or interpret it.

If they want to deliver benefits to people for being married, they should have to recognize and enforce any marriage like any other contract entered into that is defined by the parties to the contract.

What is marriage and what is the goal of getting married, being married and staying married? Folks can have sex and love all year long and not be married so that can't be it. Just what does it mean "to get married"? Within an honest answer to that comes the way out of this dilemma. But hardly anybody likes to be honest with themselves in the late US.. Wearing the garb of another is common fashion these days and pretending you are what you aren't. They even legislate that you must officially recognize illusions as reality. Strange place, this modern America...where pervs in a dress can use the same public restroom as a 7 year old girl but her daddy will get arrested for entering the same bathroom.

Rev9

 

[Revolution9]

What are you talking about? I'm arguing that federal and state government should neither one be involved in marriage and that either doing so is unconstitutional. Furthermore, no government should be doling out benefits for marriage contracts, but in lieu of the perfect case where there are no benefits, they are not allowed to selectively enforce contracts or violate the First Amendment to the Constitution.

You do know that state's rights are constricted by the United States Constitution, don't you?

In a contract there is issuance of product. In a marriage this is offspring. No matter how you stretch it this is not occurring in a guy on guy shakedown. Since the product of a marriage cannot be issued by the two males involved then there cannot be a marriage no matter how much the dictionary and traditional multi-millenia definition is twisted. What is left is two guys doing sexual things to each other and not a marriage and I could give a flying frak how much they love each other. That is just pure epinephrin, dopamine and phenethylamine excitement.. I refuse to honor an illusion as reality nor allow the cabal to twist my proper understanding of the dynamics of the English tongue.

Rev9

 

[Revolution9]

There's hope for the liberty movement yet.

Yeah.. if yer all rah rah siss boom bah about getting them to sign on with progressive/communist bogus idealisms. Kinda like yer type. A goal of communism prior to cutting of the head of the country it takes over is the feminisation of the males. Yer falling for it hook, line and yer sunk. Tailwalked the whole way.

Rev9

 

[whoisjohngalt]

In a contract there is issuance of product. In a marriage this is offspring. No matter how you stretch it this is not occurring in a guy on guy shakedown. Since the product of a marriage cannot be issued by the two males involved then there cannot be a marriage no matter how much the dictionary and traditional multi-millenia definition is twisted. What is left is two guys doing sexual things to each other and not a marriage and I could give a flying frak how much they love each other. That is just pure epinephrin, dopamine and phenethylamine excitement.. I refuse to honor an illusion as reality nor allow the cabal to twist my proper understanding of the dynamics of the English tongue.

Rev9

False. Issuance of a product is not an essential part of a contract. I believe what you are thinking of is "specific performance". In real estate they often use the example of a father leaving his house to his daughter. The specific performance of the daughter is "love" in this example. A contract can exist in which love serves as the specific performance or to use your terminology, the "issuance of product".

Your problem is you think that you invented/control the English language. I've got a newsflash for you Walter Cronchite: YOU DON'T

Also, you apparently don't know shit about contracts.

 

[realtonygoodwin]

Thanks for this. It is disappointing.

People seem to think having the government recognize their marriage is a right. It isn't. It is a privilege, just like driving on public roads

 

[Revolution9]

False. Issuance of a product is not an essential part of a contract. I believe what you are thinking of is "specific performance". In real estate they often use the example of a father leaving his house to his daughter. The specific performance of the daughter is "love" in this example. A contract can exist in which love serves as the specific performance or to use your terminology, the "issuance of product".

Your problem is you think that you invented/control the English language. I've got a newsflash for you Walter Cronchite: YOU DON'T

Also, you apparently don't know shit about contracts.

A product is something produced in the context I spoke of and the issuance is the release of that product at it's finish. All contracts have a final goal..the product,,and the goal is not completed until the issuance of that product. They call completed magazines issues as one example. Love is produced through effort and energy. It is issued in gesture. A marriage is not about the production and issuance of love. It is about the production and issuance of offspring.. You think yer all bright because you tapdanced with a few words that connotate the exact same frakkin' thing I did. As well I note you ironically chose the produce of his marriage to make the point with. I don't own the English tongue, but I do understand how to parse it in traditional, universal terms.

Rev9

 

[jmdrake]

False. Issuance of a product is not an essential part of a contract. I believe what you are thinking of is "specific performance". In real estate they often use the example of a father leaving his house to his daughter. The specific performance of the daughter is "love" in this example. A contract can exist in which love serves as the specific performance or to use your terminology, the "issuance of product".

Ummmm....that's a gift and not a contract. If a father wrote a "contract" promising his daughter his house in exchange for "love" no court on the planet would force him to honor that contract because it lacked consideration.

Edit: But don't take my word for it.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/consideration
Consideration is an essential element for the formation of a contract. It may consist of a promise to perform a desired act or a promise to refrain from doing an act that one is legally entitled to do. In a bilateral contract—an agreement by which both parties exchange mutual promises—each promise is regarded as sufficient consideration for the other. In a unilateral contract, an agreement by which one party makes a promise in exchange for the other's performance, the performance is consideration for the promise, while the promise is consideration for the performance.

Consideration must have a value that can be objectively determined. A promise, for example, to make a gift or a promise of love or affection is not enforceable because of the subjective nature of the promise.

Your problem is you think that you invented/control the English language. I've got a newsflash for you Walter Cronchite: YOU DON'T

Also, you apparently don't know shit about contracts.

He knows more than you apparently.

 

[specsaregood]

In a contract there is issuance of product. In a marriage this is offspring. No matter how you stretch it this is not occurring in a guy on guy shakedown. Since the product of a marriage cannot be issued by the two males involved then there cannot be a marriage no matter how much the dictionary and traditional multi-millenia definition is twisted. What is left is two guys doing sexual things to each other and not a marriage and I could give a flying frak how much they love each other. That is just pure epinephrin, dopamine and phenethylamine excitement.. I refuse to honor an illusion as reality nor allow the cabal to twist my proper understanding of the dynamics of the English tongue.

Rev9

Is just the simple act of producing offspring the "product"? Or is the product a fully-grown adult, capable of working, producing and feeding the social pyramid scheme? An offspring alone is in someways just a promise of a future product, complete with overhead. In which case, a gay couple that adopted a child, raised it, trained it, fed it and produced a self-sufficient adult might be said to have produced more of a product than some hetero couple that just produces kids and abandoned them.

 

[Revolution9]

Is just the simple act of producing offspring the "product"?

The contract in a marriage is to produce and raise a family "till death do you part". It does not necessarily involve love nor affection but does require devotion and cooperation for the social contract to succeed. Social contracts often fail. I do note that in countries where traditional roles are kept that marriages last lifetimes. I note that marriage comes from mari..the sea or ocean and the rite is called a wedding. It is a case of blending and dissolving into. Gays can only penetrate. This act is not sacred and produces no issuance of life. No indigenous tribes on the face of the earth celebrate male to male coupling. Perhaps because they are not that far removed from jungle animals fucking they can understand the intent of nature and know what to celebrate as a part of it and what to ignore as an abberration.

Rev9

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

DOMA federally defines marriage.

It needs to go. At the very least, Section 3 needs to be struck from the bill.

 

[The Free Hornet]

State's Rights, for starts.

If I buy a car from you in North Dakota, South Dakota has no right to nullify that contract, return the car, and call me an auto theft.

It would seem lots of people here think it is a state's right to ignore two individuals who freely entered into a contract. I only defend state's rights to the extent that it helps defend individual rights. Using "state's rights" to hold people down is wrong. It is fine to run for US Congress or the Presidentcy and limit the scope of your activities because that is your job. What some on the board are doing is advocating state-based oppression.

Don't believe me, read the bill text yourself:

`No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.'.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:H.R.3396.ENR:

This is not about the right of one state to not acknowledge the marriages from another state. If that were the case, the part in bold above would not be there and this would apply to ALL marriages. If states have the right to not acknowledge gay marriage, ought not the Feds defend the right to not acknowledge straight, two-person marriages?

What line did you fall for to believe this BS?

The act even goes further, if you think they want gays "pretending" to be married, think again:

`In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.'.

This is open hostility and it is high-time the bigots got called out on it. Why hide behind "states' rights"? Admit your bigotry and be proud!

 

[fr33]

I agree with YAL on this. State tyranny is still tyranny. We need an "act" that explicitly get's government out of licensing marriage.

 

[The Free Hornet]

There are two interesting quirks to the language of DOMA.

1) DOMA is specific in its defintion of man+woman=marriage and that it only applies to states that consider the gay union to be a "marriage". In other words, a state like Illinois that has a civil union may not be affected by DOMA as much as another state that allowed gay "marriage":

The federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) continues to define a “spouse” as a husband or wife of the opposite sex. A civil union in Illinois will not, therefore, be a “marriage” under DOMA.

http://www.natlawreview.com/article...icated-federal-doma-and-potential-doma-repeal

2) Another source suggests that gays can 100% ignore anti-nepotism laws wrt their non-spouse and hire their gay non-spouse, gay non-spouse's children, and gay non-spouse's entire family: Advocates For The Rational Wing of the Republican Party: The DOMA Loophole: Gays Can Ignore Nepotism Laws Thanks To Anti-Gay Discrimination.


Noteworthy: The bill to repeal/replace DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) is called the Respect for Marriage Act.

It is clear to see who here thinks government can solve problems and make our lives better by restricting choices to whatever they learned in Sunday School.

 

[farreri]

understand that it seems to have changed some from the days when it started as Students for Ron Paul.

Here's what the official YAL Facebook page posted today:

Another win for liberty! DOMA was ruled unconstitutional by a Boston court.

https://www.facebook.com/yaliberty

It is a win for liberty. Can't see how a state can prohibit a certain group of consenting adults to marry yet allow other groups to do so without that violating the US Constitution.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. "


Personally, I think anybody knocking gay marriage are just homophobes. That's just my humble opinion.

 

[Revolution9]

If I buy a car from you in North Dakota, South Dakota has no right to nullify that contract, return the car, and call me an auto theft.

Your logic is wrong headed for the situation. Your example should read. If a man buys a horse in North Dakota does South Dakota have to register it as an automobile even though it isn't?

Rev9

 

[kylejack]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/07/congressman-ron-paul-says-he-supports-defense-of-marriage-act/

Irrelevant! The court only struck down the part about federal recognition. States retain the right to recognize or not recognize gay marriages.

 

[Revolution9]

It is a win for liberty. Can't see how a state can prohibit a certain group of consenting adults to marry yet allow other groups to do so without that violating the US Constitution.

It just violates what the word in actuality means and all the connotations of that word. Let's just abroggate many thousands of years of tradition because of some modern cocksucker. They can do whatever they want but to change the meanings of words for temporal reasons because someone wants to feel secure in their sexual doings is not something to be catered to. They should just STFU and go do it..behind closed doors. i don't wanna hear about it and that is all they are trying to say...

Rev9

 

[fr33]

Your logic is wrong headed for the situation. Your example should read. If a man buys a horse in North Dakota does South Dakota have to register it as an automobile even though it isn't?

Rev9

Both of you have your logic wrong. Consenting adults are not cars or horses. They are human beings.

 

[Revolution9]

It is a win for liberty. Can't see how a state can prohibit a certain group of consenting adults to marry yet allow other groups to do so without that violating the US Constitution.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. "


Personally, I think anybody knocking gay marriage are just homophobes. That's just my humble opinion.

I think anybody knocking folks who do not cotten to marriage being other than what it is are a bunch of indoctrinated sissies with no depth of knowledge of the histories of cultures and indigenous tribes... if ya wanna throw monikers around carelessly. Homophobia is a stupid trick on the gullible just like anti-semitism.

Rev9

 

[Anti Federalist]

Thanks for this. It is disappointing.

People seem to think having the government recognize their marriage is a right. It isn't. It is a privilege, just like driving on public roads

Driving and using the roads that your tax dollars pay for is a right.