Boston Mayor to Outlaw Chick-Fil-A

[jkr]

Just fuck the mayor of Boston, leave Boston out of it. There are many good people there and Ron Paul supporters.

AGREED
its just too much...they go on the "zero commerce" list with Tennessee, watch it Cali you are on thin ice...

 

[Nickels]

I can speak for myself. I got married by my former pastor. (Now retired). Sometime after the wedding he came up to me and said in an urgent voice "Wait! We haven't signed the marriage license yet." I was like "Okay. But you just pronounce me married...so I'm married." He was like "It's not official until the license is signed." which I thought was kinda odd since I'd already been on my honeymoon. Does that mean we were "foreignicating"?

Legally you were not married, you may not care, and this is no reflection on your moral character, but that's just it. If you don't care if you're legally registered a marriage, who does?

Anyway, I signed the dang thing not cause I was hoping for a tax break (most folks get a tax penalty) or hoping to be on my wife's insurance (I had health insurance before I got married) or for any other supposed granted "benefit". I signed it because we wanted to be married.

What the hell does that mean? You just said "I was married because the church said so, who cares about that dang piece of paper"!
How did signing that paper make you any more married than you were?

I think that's the case for a lot of people.

So why shouldn't any 2 people sign a pointless piece of paper according to you? You were not more married than you were before, so why not let any 2 adults sign it?

Basically what you and some have said, is summed up as "the government doesn't get to tell me if I'm married, I was married because I said so, but I still wanted to get their stupid pointless recognition because I don't know who I was trying to convince, I knew my word wasn't good enough".

If you want to denounce your recognition of the government's authrotiy to license and recognize marriage, UNREGISTER YOUR MARRIAGE OR REGISTER A DIVORCE. It's very easy for one to say "You're not missing out on anything" when you're enjoying it. Say it like you mean it. If you believe you don't need a driver license to drive, TEAR IT UP. If you believe you don't need permission to fish, DO IT. Don't get permission and then say "Well, I didn't need your permission anyway".

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

So tired of people being bigots and calling what is happening a "war on christianity".

I cant wait until the word is free of religion someday.

You mean including the religion of atheism?

 

[Indy Vidual]

Why are dogs getting treated like dogs?
Puppies are our future :o

• If you were stranded on a real "Planet of the Apes" would you agree that humans have no rights?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I wasn't referring to you. I was talking about people in this thread specifically comparing homosexual marriage to marrying their dog and others on the board who say they are against the government being involved in all marriage and yet the opposite seems to be true. It's come up in other threads on the topic but it's calmed down a bit since eduardo got banned.

I've never done that. I solely focus on getting the government out of marriage. If you're talking about Danke, I'm not even sure if he's a Christian. He's just likes to mess with you. Most people here are talking about government intervention.

 

[jmdrake]

Okay. I think you missed the point of my anecdote so I'll spell it out for you. I believed then (and still believe) that to be married before God I needed to go through the ceremony. I'm not a "we're shacking up so we're married" kind of guy. The person who officiated over the ceremony told me I wasn't really married. Now if he had said "Okay, technically you're really married, but for tax purposes you're not married until you sign this paper" would I have signed? I don't know. Tax wise many people are penalized by being married. (If you and your spouse have close incomes then being married is a tax penalty. If there is a big disparity in incomes it's a tax benefit). The point is that there was no discussion about the legal ramifications of signing a piece of paper. It was just presented as "the thing to do". I'd bet you a dime to a dollar that this is true for most folks that get married. There is no sit down calculation of "This is how our lives will change under the law if we get married versus if we shack". Hope you get what I'm saying now. My point isn't about what people should do but rather what they do do.

Legally you were not married, you may not care, and this is no reflection on your moral character, but that's just it. If you don't care if you're legally registered a marriage, who does?



What the hell does that mean? You just said "I was married because the church said so, who cares about that dang piece of paper"!
How did signing that paper make you any more married than you were?



So why shouldn't any 2 people sign a pointless piece of paper according to you? You were not more married than you were before, so why not let any 2 adults sign it?

 

[idiom]

Because they were right for the past 120 years.

It was a mistake to let women vote?

 

[Nickels]

Okay. I think you missed the point of my anecdote so I'll spell it out for you. I believed then (and still believe) that to be married before God I needed to go through the ceremony. I'm not a "we're shacking up so we're married" kind of guy.

Actually I understood that. I apologize if I left your pastor out of the last line.

The person who officiated over the ceremony told me I wasn't really married. Now if he had said "Okay, technically you're really married, but for tax purposes you're not married until you sign this paper" would I have signed? I don't know.

So he lied to you? You can undo the damage right now.

Tax wise many people are penalized by being married. (If you and your spouse have close incomes then being married is a tax penalty. If there is a big disparity in incomes it's a tax benefit). The point is that there was no discussion about the legal ramifications of signing a piece of paper.

Goes to show how easy it is to sucker you into signing a paper you don't understand. And then tell people it's not as good as they think, while you stay married and registered

It was just presented as "the thing to do". I'd bet you a dime to a dollar that this is true for most folks that get married.

What do you mean by "the thing to do"? What is the benefit of "the thing to do"? To not look like sneaky fornicators?

If you're trying to say "there ARE benefits, but that wasn't what we were thinking" then that changes no facts. Some people care about the benefits. Even if its purely superficial.

There is no sit down calculation of "This is how our lives will change under the law if we get married versus if we shack". Hope you get what I'm saying now. My point isn't about what people should do but rather what they do do.

So now I am asking you what people SHOULD DO. Should gay couples have the benefit of signing the same piece of paper that you did? Yes or no?

If yes, then good, you can keep your license.
If not, why not, why do you keep your license if there is no benefit, and why do you think you get a benefit they do not?

My question is : are you serious about getting the government out of marriage? Or equality for gays? If so, what are your actions to show that? If not, fine.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Government registered marriage did not. So I meant to say/ask "Why do people register their marriages unless there are benefits to it"?

You register your car and driver license because it's basically a crime without it, you can be fined, it's not nice and not fair, but you deal with it.
There is no crime to simply cohabitate, nor is there a crime to have children without marriage, and the state enforces child support regardless of marriage status.
So why DO people register their marriages? Do they just want a new driver license?

That's a very good question. The answer is because we are conditioned that way. You'll notice that marriage is never mentioned on TV without the implication that you have to have a license in order to be married. This has been drilled into us. We believe that we can't function in society unless the government recognizes our marriage and we apply for it so that we can have the government handle our taxes and our legal concerns as a couple instead of as two individuals. In reality, however, there are many liberty perks to being in an unlicensed marriage. I can't really list them, per se, but I know that inviting the government into your marriage only allows the government more control over your personal life.

My argument is that we don't need government marriage licenses. What's more, it's unconstitutional for the government to regulate marriage. Thus far, the debate has revolved around the difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals.

This is a false dichotomy. Instead of bickering about why heteros and homos are unequal, let's examine why the government is sponsoring anyone's marriage. Get the government out of hetero marriages and you don't have the problem of unfairness, and you also relieve the tax burden on people who don't want to be paying for other people's marriages, as well as generally loosening the government grip on our personal lives.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

http://www.history.com/shows/pawn-stars/bios/the-old-man-the-appraiser

So does the guy who looks content up until the end (to the right of the screen) look like the old man from pawn stars?

I was just watching that show when I saw your post, and no, he doesn't.

 

[Nickels]

My argument is that we don't need government marriage licenses. What's more, it's unconstitutional for the government to regulate marriage. Thus far, the debate has revolved around the difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals.

when people like jmdrake who are married and registered actually unregister their marriages or register a divorce, I'll take these arguments seriously. Why don't people put their license and marriage where their mouth claims to be?

 

[jmdrake]

Actually I understood that. I apologize if I left your pastor out of the last line.

Okay.

So he lied to you? You can undo the damage right now.

A) I don't think it was a lie. I think he probably thought that himself.
B) Undo what "damage"? I don't think signing a piece of paper damaged me in any way.

Goes to show how easy it is to sucker you into signing a paper you don't understand. And then tell people it's not as good as they think, while you stay married and registered

Ummmm.....okay. I'm not even sure what you're trying to say but....okay.

What do you mean by "the thing to do"? What is the benefit of "the thing to do"? To not look like sneaky fornicators?

I'm sure you have a point in here somewhere.

If you're trying to say "there ARE benefits, but that wasn't what we were thinking" then that changes no facts. Some people care about the benefits. Even if its purely superficial.

You're initial position was that for someone to get a breakdown of what the advantages of marriage are that person should ask people why they get married. I'm glad you know realize that was a ridiculous question. Took you long enough. To answer your question, marriage has been around for thousands of years and is deeply ingrained in our culture. People have gotten married long before there were marriage licenses. And there were marriage licenses before most of what people now consider to be "marriage benefits". (Insurance, pension plans etc). The marriage license came about to prevent miscegenation and not as some "key" for getting "benefits". While the miscegenation laws are now void, the marriage license, having been connected to "benefits", remains. Older marriage "rights" (inheritance, joint property, etc), can be conferred between private parties without the involvement of the state through wills, powers of attorney, deeds, etc. Most people being unsophisticated many years ago, society came up with some "default rules" for married people. But those rules don't only apply to married people. You can though private document avail yourself of most of those defaults. And taxes, as I explained, can be higher or lower for a married/unmarried couple based on the disparity in income. But sense it's politically correct to push gay marriage today, nobody is talking about marriage tax penalties, only marriage tax benefits.

So now I am asking you what people SHOULD DO. Should gay couples have the benefit of signing the same piece of paper that you did? Yes or no?

People should advocate to get rid of the income tax which will have the immediate effect of getting rid of any marriage tax benefit or penalty as well as decoupling health insurance from employment. Social security should also be restructured to 100% retirement savings accounts which you can leave to whoever you want and not just your "spouse". Then the fight over marriage will go away.

If yes, then good, you can keep your license.
If not, why not, why do you keep your license if there is no benefit, and why do you think you get a benefit they do not?

I never said there was no benefit to the license. I said I didn't get married for it. But let's say there was no benefit to it. Why should I get rid of it? Just to make some argument point with some stranger on the internet?

My question is : are you serious about getting the government out of marriage? Or equality for gays? If so, what are your actions to show that? If not, fine.

I'm serious about decreasing the size of government. Are you?

 

[jmdrake]

when people like jmdrake who are married and registered actually unregister their marriages or register a divorce, I'll take these arguments seriously. Why don't people put their license and marriage where their mouth claims to be?

Then by all means don't take me serious. Just go about your live thinking you know everything.

Edit: But while your at it go back and read your snide and flippant answer to NIU Students for Liberty's serious question.

 

[Nickels]

Okay.
A) I don't think it was a lie. I think he probably thought that himself.
B) Undo what "damage"? I don't think signing a piece of paper damaged me in any way.

No damage, no benefits? So it's a pointless piece of paper?

Ummmm.....okay. I'm not even sure what you're trying to say but....okay.

I'm sure you have a point in here somewhere.

You were obviously trying to convince somebody by signing that peice of paper.

You're initial position was that for someone to get a breakdown of what the advantages of marriage are that person should ask people why they get married. I'm glad you know realize that was a ridiculous question. Took you long enough. To answer your question, marriage has been around for thousands of years and is deeply ingrained in our culture.

But like you said, "government came later", and didn't stop you from signing their recognition papers. Perhaps one of the most obvious benefits people don't think about especially when they're young, is inheritance or power to decide when family is not available.

People have gotten married long before there were marriage licenses. And there were marriage licenses before most of what people now consider to be "marriage benefits". (Insurance, pension plans etc). The marriage license came about to prevent miscegenation and not as some "key" for getting "benefits".

I understand people don't get married for the intention of abusing recent benefits, at least most do not, but that doesn't change the fact they get a piece of paper of recognition which gays and whoever else currently isn't "allowed" doesn't get.

While the miscegenation laws are now void, the marriage license, having been connected to "benefits", remains. Older marriage "rights" (inheritance, joint property, etc), can be conferred between private parties without the involvement of the state through wills, powers of attorney, deeds, etc. Most people being unsophisticated many years ago, society came up with some "default rules" for married people. But those rules don't only apply to married people. You can though private document avail yourself of most of those defaults. And taxes, as I explained, can be higher or lower for a married/unmarried couple based on the disparity in income. But sense it's politically correct to push gay marriage today, nobody is talking about marriage tax penalties, only marriage tax benefits.

Or, some people just simply focus on the benefits you said, the most superficial ones. "it's a piece of paper" "I want to get married" if there's no damage to having it, why shouldn't any 2 people sign a harmless peice of paper?

People should advocate to get rid of the income tax which will have the immediate effect of getting rid of any marriage tax benefit or penalty as well as decoupling health insurance from employment. Social security should also be restructured to 100% retirement savings accounts which you can leave to whoever you want and not just your "spouse". Then the fight over marriage will go away.

I never said there was no benefit to the license. I said I didn't get married for it. But let's say there was no benefit to it. Why should I get rid of it? Just to make some argument point with some stranger on the internet?

just to show you are serious about getting government out of your bedroom.

I'm serious about decreasing the size of government. Are you?

then get rid of that document you don't need. show me you are serious.

 

[Nickels]

Then by all means don't take me serious. Just go about your live thinking you know everything.

Edit: But while your at it go back and read your snide and flippant answer to NIU Students for Liberty's serious question.

I edited my answer just to make you happy.

 

[jkr]

It was a mistake to let women vote?

DEEPENS on whos COuNTING

 

[KingNothing]

Then do you have a line to be drawn?

Can I marry my dog and be equally recognized by the state as a heterosexual couple?

Who gives a chicken? No one is going to do that anyway.
What about 10-percent of the population does care about, however, is the right to marry the consenting adult of their choosing even though they do not currently have that right.

Chik-fil-A is stupid for speaking against it, as is anyone else who does so. Being anti-gay marriage is moronic.

You've either got to be completely against State sanctioned marriages, or in favor of any consenting adult marrying another consenting adult. There should be no in between.

 

[jmdrake]

No damage, no benefits? So it's a pointless piece of paper?

I never said there were no damages. I never said there were damages. I never said there were no benefits. I never said their were benefits. All I said was that none of that factored into why I signed it. You're trying to make something out of nothing.

You were obviously trying to convince somebody by signing that peice of paper.

Ummm...no. You obviously do not know what I was obviously doing. Why is everything so agenda driven for you? When I got married I wasn't at all thinking about the "pros and cons of having a state sanctioned marriage". It's like a lot of people will sign petitions without even reading them.

But like you said, "government came later", and didn't stop you from signing their recognition papers. Perhaps one of the most obvious benefits people don't think about especially when they're young, is inheritance or power to decide when family is not available.

It neither stopped me from signing them nor caused me to sign them. You are right that the government tries to guess the will of people who don't have a will. (Pun very much intended). And if you care about someone enough to make sure they get your stuff when you die, have a will. (Or a trust or a fill-in-the-blank). Even if you're married there's no guarantee your spouse will get everything when you die if you don't have a will. In some states the spouse takes the "elective share". That's good because some spouses are total jerks and would leave the children out if not for state intervention. Then again, maybe you wanted your kids left out. How to make sure? Have a will. Or be a statist and let the state make the decision for you.

I understand people don't get married for the intention of abusing recent benefits, at least most do not, but that doesn't change the fact they get a piece of paper of recognition which gays and whoever else currently isn't "allowed" doesn't get.

Let's take the inheritance issue we just talked about. A will is as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> piece of paper than a marriage license/certificate in that regard. Gay people can get that. I think the way to get the state out of marriage is for more people to realize that you can take care of many basic necessities through wills, powers of attorney etc. You think "we'd better make sure gays can get that too." And you're entitled to your opinion as long as you don't try to force it on anyone else.

Or, some people just simply focus on the benefits you said, the most superficial ones. "it's a piece of paper" "I want to get married" if there's no damage to having it, why shouldn't any 2 people sign a harmless peice of paper?

You've got access to a laser printer right? If you don't go to Kinkos, print off a piece of paper and sign it already. But if you want your partner to have certain legal benefits then go to a lawyer. That's the smart thing to do whether you are gay or not.

just to show you are serious about getting government out of your bedroom.

To who? You? If you haven't figured it out already I don't care what you think.

then get rid of that document you don't need. show me you are serious.

See above.

 

[jmdrake]

I edited my answer just to make you happy.

Don't do it for my benefit. I'm not the one that asked the question. And you didn't actually answer NIU's question by the way, which shows how moronic your initial answer was as well as your follow up. Again, most folks aren't sitting around calculating the pros/cons of a marriage license. Sure that's the obsession of the gay marriage community (and many of them haven't figured out yet that most gays will be on the tax penalty side of the equation if gay marriage is ever federally recognized), but your average "I want to get married" couple just doesn't do that. If they were that intentional about understanding the financial aspects of marriage the divorce rate wouldn't be so high. Now the real answer to NIU's question is that state recognized marriage gives some default "contracts" that people could draw up for themselves without government intervention as well as some government "benefits" (as well as a big tax penalty for many) that really shouldn't exist anyway. The small government solution (for me anyway) is to work toward getting rid of our current tax system and restructuring social security to get the federal government out of marriage. If you wish to help in that effort, by all means do so.

 

[Nickels]

The small government solution (for me anyway) is to work toward getting rid of our current tax system and restructuring social security to get the federal government out of marriage. If you wish to help in that effort, by all means do so.

why not just stop registering marriages? Taxes and social security were not designed for married people, so why wait on that?