government-free marriage

[monticello]

I've been seeing a lot of interest lately in the idea of government-free marriage. I think it is a great idea to redefine the gay marriage argument not as pro/con, but rather shoudl government be invovled in the marriage licensing business period.
ref: www.governmentfreemarriage.com

 

[erowe1]

Nice. Is that your website?

I just added it to the Facebook group, Christians for the Abolition of All State Marriage Licenses.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=98459775318

 

[Dan710]

I've never understood why the government has to be the third party in a marriage to make it 'official'. I agree that marriage isn't a government issue, it should be between the people and their respective church. If you want 40 wives, fine, if you want one, fine, if you want a same sex marriage, fine. How is any of that the governments business?

 

[Kregisen]

Definitely....my argument to all the anti-gay marriage people is just: I think all Christians should be more worried that the government is regulating a private religious event than whether two people marry eachother or not.

Not sure if this is an issue we can win part of the GOP over with, but if they want to debate it using logic they'll agree with us.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

awesome thread, thnx.

 

[fisharmor]

I can't get to the FB page right now, but the blog doesn't consider two points.
First, that the position of government-free marriage must consider the contract aspects between the people choosing to call themselves married.
After all, the gay marriage crowd uses hospital visits, inheritance, and property rights as the basis of their argument.
Despite being an inappropriate and dismal failure, these are currently the purview of the state, so the state has to pronounce on the matter in some form.
So married heterosexual couples would need to be informed that they would need to sign an actual contract stating the nature of the agreement with their spouses, or a grandfather clause would need to be legislated. I wouldn't be a fan of the latter, since it would bind couples to an agreement they didn't necessarily agree to.
How to avoid the pandemonium? You're either forcing married couples to redefine their agreement formally, or you're screwing married couples out of property.

Second, doesn't it naturally follow that many of our institutions which are based on marriage would crumble?
I'm speaking of employer-granted health insurance, federal and state tax breaks, and other government abuses which I would be well in favor of - but would be political suicide, if they weren't accompanied by a general decrease in government intrusion.
In short, there are a lot of other ramifications to this which would need to be fixed - it's a huge overhaul.

I'm a fan, but I'm not sure how it would get implemented without smashing the existing system to bits. Which I'd really love. But how to get there?

 

[TonySutton]

Since this is primarily a state issue, which state is best positioned to change first?

 

[erowe1]

I can't get to the FB page right now, but the blog doesn't consider two points.
First, that the position of government-free marriage must consider the contract aspects between the people choosing to call themselves married.
After all, the gay marriage crowd uses hospital visits, inheritance, and property rights as the basis of their argument.

Hospital visitation rules, including whether or not gay partners are considered spouses, should be left up to the hospitals. The government has no business telling them what their rules should be. Hospitals that want to treat gay couples as married, and hospitals that wish to discriminate against customers for any reason, should be judged by the market, not the state.

So married heterosexual couples would need to be informed that they would need to sign an actual contract stating the nature of the agreement with their spouses, or a grandfather clause would need to be legislated. I wouldn't be a fan of the latter, since it would bind couples to an agreement they didn't necessarily agree to.

Written contracts wouldn't have to be necessary. If these couples had weddings where they made vows in front of witnesses, then those are contracts. Written contracts may be prudent. But leaving it up to the couples to decide what's in their contracts, rather than using a one-size-fits-all state-based one is an improvement even if it does mean that people have to take responsibility for that.

How to avoid the pandemonium? You're either forcing married couples to redefine their agreement formally, or you're screwing married couples out of property.

Screwing them out of what property?

Second, doesn't it naturally follow that many of our institutions which are based on marriage would crumble?
I'm speaking of employer-granted health insurance, federal and state tax breaks, and other government abuses which I would be well in favor of - but would be political suicide, if they weren't accompanied by a general decrease in government intrusion.

It would be great if all those things crumbled. Employment-based health insurance only exists because of government-created tax incentives that favor it. It's a farce. And even given its existence, it should be up to those employers and those insurance companies to decide their policies regarding married couples. The state has no right to tell them they either have to or may not treat gay couples as married couples. It's a given that getting the state out of marriage would also mean the end of filing joint income tax returns I think. But that would also be a good thing. It that means married couples end up paying more, then it could be balanced with an across-the-board tax cut.

 

[fisharmor]

Hospital visitation rules, including whether or not gay partners are considered spouses, should be left up to the hospitals. The government has no business telling them what their rules should be. Hospitals that want to treat gay couples as married, and hospitals that wish to discriminate against customers for any reason, should be judged by the market, not the state.

Yes, but now you've entered the arena of having to allow competing hospitals, something which I'm not sure is legally possible anywhere in the US. Highly desirable - but again, getting the state out of marriage opens up a new problem.

Written contracts wouldn't have to be necessary. If these couples had weddings where they made vows in front of witnesses, then those are contracts. Written contracts may be prudent. But leaving it up to the couples to decide what's in their contracts, rather than using a one-size-fits-all state-based one is an improvement even if it does mean that people have to take responsibility for that.....
Screwing them out of what property?

When a man and woman get married, isn't it implied in many jurisdictions that they share property? And what about children?
When a man marries two women, has kids with both, and then divorces one, what happens with the children? How about alimony and child support? There's already a body of law dealing with this WRT state defined marriage.
If the bigamist man dies and one of his wives isn't on the deed to the house, what happens?
Again, I'd be fine with trashing the existing system - I'm merely pointing out how much the system has trenched in and is prepared to wait out this particular siege.

It would be great if all those things crumbled....

Complete agreement here. I just don't know how it's politically possible.
I'm on the side of the abolition of state defined marriage - I don't even know where my state marriage certificate is, and I don't even remember filling it out, because fuck them.
I'm just playing devil's advocate for the sake of trying to flesh these things out.

 

[Maximus]

CampaignForLiberty the website has a couple good articles on this when you do a search for marriage licenses. The marriage license is only about 100 years old.

 

[Seraphim]

Outside of GOVT and Churches...who marries the gays? Say, Govt is not involved (and it should not be)...that leaves the churches...To me, I see this as scaring the BEJEZUZ out of gays and anyone who supports gay rights. Kind of like fisharmour, I'm just playing DA...

Who marries the gays? I really don't see religious/church support for that.

 

[erowe1]

When a man and woman get married, isn't it implied in many jurisdictions that they share property?

Yes. I don't see the problem there. You don't need state marriage licenses for people to share property.

And what about children?
When a man marries two women, has kids with both, and then divorces one, what happens with the children? How about alimony and child support? There's already a body of law dealing with this WRT state defined marriage. If the bigamist man dies and one of his wives isn't on the deed to the house, what happens?

There is not a body of law covering that now, since bigamists are not included in state marriage licenses. Getting the state out of the marriage business would make it easier, not harder, to deal with situations like that.

 

[erowe1]

Outside of GOVT and Churches...who marries the gays? Say, Govt is not involved (and it should not be)...that leaves the churches...To me, I see this as scaring the BEJEZUZ out of gays and anyone who supports gay rights. Kind of like fisharmour, I'm just playing DA...

Who marries the gays? I really don't see religious/church support for that.

You're kidding right? There are pro-gay churches who do gay weddings all over the place.

That's part of why "gay marriage ban" is a misnomer. There is no gay marriage ban anywhere in the USA. Gays get married in every state all the time. They have weddings, live together, and live their lives with complete freedom to do whatever they think marriage entails for them without any of it being banned. The people who want more government aren't the anti-gay marriage folks, it's the pro-gay marriage folks.

 

[Kludge]

If you don't want a license, don't get one. They mean nothing. Wife or husband can use a different surname, no problem - just use your legal name for government forms. Not even an issue worth discussing, except maybe how much focus the gay community has put on it. Don't understand the point in fighting it.

With regards to children -- the government doesn't care about marriage, they judge parents, and unmarried men are still liable to pay child support. Most everything else can be resolved with wills.

 

[erowe1]

If you don't want a license, don't get one. They mean nothing. Wife or husband can use a different surname, no problem - just use your legal name for government forms. Not even an issue worth discussing, except maybe how much focus the gay community has put on it. Don't understand the point in fighting it.

With regards to children -- the government doesn't care about marriage, they judge parents, and unmarried men are still liable to pay child support. Most everything else can be resolved with wills.

I think you're probably right about how it works in practice. There are plenty of married couples who never get marriage licenses. But the letter of the law is not on their side. If they file joint tax returns, the IRS could go after them, since they require that people who do that be legally married according to the laws of some state, and most state laws say you're not legally married if you don't have a marriage license. I expect that laws regarding other things that come up in this issue are similarly specific.

Your final point is also right. The main reason this has become such an issue recently is because the role it plays in the gay agenda has made these phony gay marriage bans into a great non-issue for the two parties to fight about and motivate their constituencies to go to the polls.

 

[AxisMundi]

I've been seeing a lot of interest lately in the idea of government-free marriage. I think it is a great idea to redefine the gay marriage argument not as pro/con, but rather shoudl government be invovled in the marriage licensing business period.
ref: www.governmentfreemarriage.com

1. There already is marriage free government. You could go to any willing clergymen, secular marriage officiant, your neighbor or even your dog and have them marry you to your spouse. You could even wear rings and call yourself hubby and wife. It is not, however, legally recognized.

2. Some of us married folk happen to enjoy, and have utilized, the thousand plus rights and privileges inherent in a g'ment recognized marriage.

Leave MY marriage alone.

3. Since this topic usually is the result of the Fight for Equality for the GLBT community, there is no valid secular reason to deny gays the Civil Right of marriage.

 

[Icymudpuppy]

The hospital argument is easily settled by getting a legal declaration of "Next of Kin" This works for any non-government sanctioned situation. The only problem is in places where you cannot designate a person "next of kin" unless you are legally married, adopted, etc.

A gay couple could label each other next of Kin, a church sanctioned but govt free married couple could label each other next of kin. A polygamist could label all his wives next of kin, although in most such families, the eldest son would get that coveted position and it would be his responsibility to divy up any inheritance.

The employer insurance issue is only a problem because of our F'ed up healthcare system. Without the pre-tax incentives of employer based health care, all health care would be individual, and each person could pick a plan most suited to their needs, much like car insurance. A health insurance provider may allow a family to share a plan like many families share car insurance with a multi-car multi-driver discount.

 

[AxisMundi]

Hospital visitation rules, including whether or not gay partners are considered spouses, should be left up to the hospitals. The government has no business telling them what their rules should be. Hospitals that want to treat gay couples as married, and hospitals that wish to discriminate against customers for any reason, should be judged by the market, not the state.

Hospitals that accept g'ment subsidies and programs, such as Medicaid/Care, are bound by law to adhere to federal guidelines.

Also, say a gay couple with a committed relationship of 15 years is traveling and get smacked by a drunk driver, resulting in a horrible car crash. One comes out unscathed, the other sits at death's door. Do you REALLY think it would be proper for a hospital to be permitted to refuse visitation rights?

Written contracts wouldn't have to be necessary. If these couples had weddings where they made vows in front of witnesses, then those are contracts. Written contracts may be prudent. But leaving it up to the couples to decide what's in their contracts, rather than using a one-size-fits-all state-based one is an improvement even if it does mean that people have to take responsibility for that.

Vows taken in front of witnesses that no one can prove accept to those that were there. Again, a hospital could refuse a man to see his wife.

Screwing them out of what property?

One of the thousand-plus rights and privileges my wife and I enjoy is joint ownership of property.

It would be great if all those things crumbled. Employment-based health insurance only exists because of government-created tax incentives that favor it. It's a farce. And even given its existence, it should be up to those employers and those insurance companies to decide their policies regarding married couples. The state has no right to tell them they either have to or may not treat gay couples as married couples. It's a given that getting the state out of marriage would also mean the end of filing joint income tax returns I think. But that would also be a good thing. It that means married couples end up paying more, then it could be balanced with an across-the-board tax cut.

Would you support employers/health insurance providers discriminating against a black hetero couple? Asian? Irish? Catholic? Latino?

 

[Brett85]

That's part of why "gay marriage ban" is a misnomer. There is no gay marriage ban anywhere in the USA. Gays get married in every state all the time. They have weddings, live together, and live their lives with complete freedom to do whatever they think marriage entails for them without any of it being banned. The people who want more government aren't the anti-gay marriage folks, it's the pro-gay marriage folks.

This. I need to copy and paste this and show it to every single person who believes that being "pro gay marriage" is a libertarian position. People like Dick Cheney, Meghan McCain, and John Bolton can claim to be libertarians simply because they want the government to recognize same sex marriages. It's ridiculous.

 

[AxisMundi]

The hospital argument is easily settled by getting a legal declaration of "Next of Kin" This works for any non-government sanctioned situation. The only problem is in places where you cannot designate a person "next of kin" unless you are legally married, adopted, etc.

A gay couple could label each other next of Kin, a church sanctioned but govt free married couple could label each other next of kin. A polygamist could label all his wives next of kin, although in most such families, the eldest son would get that coveted position and it would be his responsibility to divy up any inheritance.

The employer insurance issue is only a problem because of our F'ed up healthcare system. Without the pre-tax incentives of employer based health care, all health care would be individual, and each person could pick a plan most suited to their needs, much like car insurance. A health insurance provider may allow a family to share a plan like many families share car insurance with a multi-car multi-driver discount.

Church? What about the Atheists, non-Abrahamic Theists and Dharmics? Would be be expected to go to a church for our marriage or do without? And why should married couples be limited to places where they can declare themselves next of kin?

And why should a couple spend thousands more for something given freely merely by saying "I Do" in front of a state-sanctioned marriage officiant, be they secular or clergy.