government-free marriage

[erowe1]

1. We were not required to give the Justice a dime.

So who paid him? Who paid the rest of the government employees involved? Who paid for the building? Did all those people who paid those things do so voluntarily? If not, can you not see how they had their natural rights violated so that you could enjoy that government privilege?

2. I listed four out of over a thousand.

If the four examples you listed are so easily answered, I assume the other thousand are easier. Or did you deliberately start with your worst examples instead of your best?

3. Hospitals are quite free to do as they wish. If they don't want to follow federal guidelines, they can do without federal money.

Right. But what about me as a taxpayer? I am not free not to pay taxes for those subsidies of hospitals so that the government can use that money as a way of controlling hospital policy. That's where the violation of natural rights is occurring.

 

[AxisMundi]

How much did you pay for your marriage license, Axis?

Mine cost $25. A Notarized next of Kin document, and a notarized statement of dependence would have cost $10 ea, or $20 total. $5 cheaper.

Name one legal thing that the NOK and Dependence Document can't do, that a legal marriage can.

tax breaks.

Want more?

Joint property ownership. Joint custody. Joint adoption. Inheritance. Medicaid/Veterans benefits through your spouse. In the case of divorce, property division and child visitation rights. Ensured marriage rights no matter where in the country you travel, and outside of the US to other Nations as well....

How many of these thousand plus right you want me to list?

Like I said, if you don't want government in your marriage, don't get legally married.

But leave my goddamn marriage alone!

 

[AxisMundi]

So who paid him? Who paid the rest of the government employees involved? Who paid for the building? Did all those people who paid those things do so voluntarily? If not, can you not see how they had their natural rights violated so that you could enjoy that government privilege?

There is no natural right not to pay for a building you use, or the g'ment officials who work in that building.

If the four examples you listed are so easily answered, I assume the other thousand are easier. Or did you deliberately start with your worst examples instead of your best?

Worst examples? There are many lists of the thousand plus rights and privileges marriage bestows upon a legally married couple. Look it up.

Right. But what about me as a taxpayer? I am not free not to pay taxes for those subsidies of hospitals so that the government can use that money as a way of controlling hospital policy. That's where the violation of natural rights is occurring.

You are certainly free to wheeze your last breath on your living room floor because you might be forced to use a service you pay for.

 

[Icymudpuppy]

All of these can be obtained with Next of Kin, Dependency, or Joint Property documents. Many other nations would also support legal documentation. You basically are saying that you want one document that does it all rather than several. I don't see why you couldn't get a multilevel contract that would have the same effect as a modern marriage certificate. For example, in my state I can buy separately a freshwater fishing license, saltwater fishing license, and shell fishing license, or I can buy any combination of the three at reduced price. Or, like in communication services. I can get phone, tv, internet all separately, or I can bundle them for a reduced rate. Likewise, I can get a Will, Power of Attorney, Trust, and Guardianship separately, or get a package deal.

I don't see why you insist on calling these legal setups marriage, or making having these legal setups dependent on being in a marriage. Why should you and your wife be able to share all those benefits you talk about because you are married, when my brother and I who live together in the same home and share our assets and get tax exemptions, etc, but don't want to get married to each other (because we're just cohabitating, not gay) can't? If it's a right to get tax benefits, it shouldn't be dependent on marriage.

 

[erowe1]

There is no natural right not to pay for a building you use, or the g'ment officials who work in that building.

But that's not what you're supporting. What you're supporting is the state forcing me to pay for the government building and government officials you use. And I do have a natural right not to do that. When you and your wife used those services for free that other people were forced to pay for, you were not exercising a natural right. Had you born the cost of your marriage directly through a user fee that covered everything involved then that wouldn't be a problem. But then in that case there would no longer be a purpose of having it be done by the state rather than by a private for profit entity.

Worst examples? There are many lists of the thousand plus rights and privileges marriage bestows upon a legally married couple. Look it up.

Since your four best examples were so easily answered, I don't think I'll waste my time looking at the other thousand even worse examples than those.

 

[fisharmor]

Anti-Gov-in-Marriage folks - Destroy a time honored institution and MY marriage.

So you'll forgive me if I don't support getting gov out of marriage.

But leave my goddamn marriage alone!

See, this is what I was talking about initially - if you eliminate state defined marriage, you end up with state-worshipers who currently define their marriage strictly by its being defined by the state, and won't know how to handle their own lives or partners otherwise.
It's essentially the same argument as why we can't get rid of medicare or social security overnight - there are too many people like Axis out there who simply wouldn't be able to cope with having his institution cut out from under him. It's just not politically feasible.

For other programs, there are transitional ideas, where we could let other people opt out - but in the case of medicare and SS, they're opting out of getting royally screwed later in life, or screwing their grandkids. In the case of state-defined marriage, if they opt out, they're only losing benefits - there's no down side to using state-defined marriage for the vast majority. So I don't see a transitional idea, and for once, Axis has a point that there are a lot of benefits that the non-state-married would lose, be they thousands or merely the dozens that I suspect.

 

[Vessol]

The only reason why the government is even involved in marriage in the first place was to prevent mixed race marriages.

 

[Sola_Fide]

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

Bump.

This is why all the people who argue for a state-endorsement of gay marriage and think they are arguing for liberty are a little off.

Liberty involves limiting government.

 

[charrob]

Totally agree- government should not in any way be involved in marriage. There should not be any "special" government perks for being married, etc. Marriage should simply be a religious ceremony in a church between a couple and their preacher/priest.

If a married couple want the government perks such as inheritance, health insurance, etc., they need to get a civil union. Additionally any two persons who want a civil union should be allowed to get one. This would include two elderly, widowed, sisters who have no children and want the other to inherit the house should one pass away.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Pro-Equality crowd - Permit a minority of consenting, tax-paying, unrelated adults to enjoy the same exact privileges as everyone else, an Equality that does not effect anyone else but gays.

Anti-Gov-in-Marriage folks - Destroy a time honored institution and MY marriage.

So you'll forgive me if I don't support getting gov out of marriage.

Your statism is bizarre!

 

[amy31416]

Then actually provide scientific evidence that being gay is a genetic trait. I'm still waiting for you to provide a link proving that.

Whether homosexuality is genetic or a choice is absolutely irrelevant, unless, of course--you want the gov't to be able to restrict the choice a person makes.....like who they love, what church they go to, who they can live with, etc. Would you really change your mind on homosexuality if it were proven to be 100% genetic? I kinda doubt it.

Of course, like Axis and a few other folks, you're probably okay with giving the gov't the power to enforce your version of morality, while ignoring that pesky little fact that morality can not be legislated.

 

[AxisMundi]

All of these can be obtained with Next of Kin, Dependency, or Joint Property documents. Many other nations would also support legal documentation. You basically are saying that you want one document that does it all rather than several. I don't see why you couldn't get a multilevel contract that would have the same effect as a modern marriage certificate. For example, in my state I can buy separately a freshwater fishing license, saltwater fishing license, and shell fishing license, or I can buy any combination of the three at reduced price. Or, like in communication services. I can get phone, tv, internet all separately, or I can bundle them for a reduced rate. Likewise, I can get a Will, Power of Attorney, Trust, and Guardianship separately, or get a package deal.

I don't see why you insist on calling these legal setups marriage, or making having these legal setups dependent on being in a marriage. Why should you and your wife be able to share all those benefits you talk about because you are married, when my brother and I who live together in the same home and share our assets and get tax exemptions, etc, but don't want to get married to each other (because we're just cohabitating, not gay) can't? If it's a right to get tax benefits, it shouldn't be dependent on marriage.

Raising kids is tough, for the purposes of this debate, financially.

Even having two income earners in the house is not enough.

And to use a common argument around here, find a woman and get married. No one is keeping you from that right, or the tax breaks.

 

[AxisMundi]

Whether homosexuality is genetic or a choice is absolutely irrelevant, unless, of course--you want the gov't to be able to restrict the choice a person makes.....like who they love, what church they go to, who they can live with, etc. Would you really change your mind on homosexuality if it were proven to be 100% genetic? I kinda doubt it.

Of course, like Axis and a few other folks, you're probably okay with giving the gov't the power to enforce your version of morality, while ignoring that pesky little fact that morality can not be legislated.

Mind showing how I support the g'ment legislating morality?

 

[AxisMundi]

But that's not what you're supporting. What you're supporting is the state forcing me to pay for the government building and government officials you use. And I do have a natural right not to do that. When you and your wife used those services for free that other people were forced to pay for, you were not exercising a natural right. Had you born the cost of your marriage directly through a user fee that covered everything involved then that wouldn't be a problem. But then in that case there would no longer be a purpose of having it be done by the state rather than by a private for profit entity.

So you don't use public roads, libraries, have never had to visit a court room/house, never used a public park or beach, never had to use police/fire/emergency services, didn't attend a public school and/or have your kids in a public school, never had to utilize a county clerk's services, never had to get a building permit, never bought property or registered a car, etc etc.

Taxes are a fact of life. No level of government can operate without them. Get used to it.

What IS an abomination is tax revenue being used to support religion. Everyone uses government services of one kind or another. Not everyone goes to church.

Since your four best examples were so easily answered, I don't think I'll waste my time looking at the other thousand even worse examples than those.

Self education is never a waste of time.

 

[AxisMundi]

Well, I was wondering when this argument would come full circle.

First people claimed that "gay marriage would destroy marriages".

Seeing the writing on the wall, now people are out to destroy marriage all together.

 

[amy31416]

Mind showing how I support the g'ment legislating morality?

I guess "morality" isn't the right word in your case, you want gov't to over-legislate quite a few natural activities that people have partaken in for thousands of years, like agriculture, personal relationships (which may or may not be related to morality), medicine, etc.

We're already legislated out the wazoo--and you want more, more, more...until people can't breathe without the state's approval....all in the name of "safety." Didn't Franklin have a good quote about that?

When legislation goes over the top, as you continually promote, nobody will be able or willing to follow said laws. In a round-about way, you're promoting anarchy more than the most militant anarchists, and you don't even know it.

 

[erowe1]

So you don't use public roads, libraries, have never had to visit a court room/house, never used a public park or beach, never had to use police/fire/emergency services, didn't attend a public school and/or have your kids in a public school, never had to utilize a county clerk's services, never had to get a building permit, never bought property or registered a car, etc etc.

I use all of those things. I also oppose all of them. The state doesn't give me a choice not to participate in those programs, just as it doesn't give me a choice not to participate in your marriage. All of those things are a violation of my natural rights. The fact that I use the services after I'm already forced into them with violence does not constitute consent on my part.

 

[Seraphim]

No I was not joking. I didn't know that. Thanks.

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.

 

[fisharmor]

Well, I was wondering when this argument would come full circle.

First people claimed that "gay marriage would destroy marriages".

Seeing the writing on the wall, now people are out to destroy marriage all together.

Yes. I admit it.
But I am not out to destroy every marriage.
Just yours.
And also every other marriage that was consecrated by the state-god.
Bow down and worship your master, while you can.
My marriage is defined by a different master, and it will survive the coming crumbling of your master and the resultant destruction of your marriage.
For if the government does collapse, you'll apparently be left with nothing.

 

[Sola_Fide]

So you don't use public roads, libraries, have never had to visit a court room/house, never used a public park or beach, never had to use police/fire/emergency services, didn't attend a public school and/or have your kids in a public school, never had to utilize a county clerk's services, never had to get a building permit, never bought property or registered a car, etc etc.

Taxes are a fact of life. No level of government can operate without them. Get used to it.

What IS an abomination is tax revenue being used to support religion. Everyone uses government services of one kind or another. Not everyone goes to church.




Self education is never a waste of time.

Your statism is bizarre! Why are you here again? To try to prove statism to us? LOLOLOLOLOLOL