Ky. County clerk makes a stand against feds

[erowe1]

Ender, why are you beating a dead horse? You claimed that couples can't visit each other in hospital w/out proof of marriage. I refuted your claim with real world experience. It's not as cut and dried as you are making it out to be.

Even if that were true, that's between the hospital and its customers.

 

[Deborah K]

Even if that were true, that's between the hospital and its customers.

Even if what were true? What Ender claims, or what I've personally experienced??

 

[erowe1]

Even if what were true?

Obviously what Ender said.

 

[Deborah K]

Obviously what Ender said.

Take it up with Ender then, he claims otherwise. Ya snarky bastid.

 

[Ender]

Ender, why are you beating a dead horse? You claimed that couples can't visit each other in hospital w/out proof of marriage. I refuted your claim with real world experience. It's not as cut and dried as you are making it out to be.

Did you read? Some states do- some states don't.

California is definitely more liberal in that area.

 

[Deborah K]

Did you read? Some states do- some states don't.

California is definitely more liberal in that area.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...against-feds&p=5982644&viewfull=1#post5982644

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Just got an AP breaking news flash across my phone, she's been ordered released from jail and instructed 'not to interfere' with licensing.

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

That's true. But the federal government doesn't mandate that you get a marriage license to exercise any rights at all. Neither does any state government.

I think Voluntarist and Ender have proven otherwise.

How?

Alright, first, you have a right to the fruits of your labor, property rights. Second, the government has devised the system such that you get to keep more of the fruits of your labor if you are married (ex. married filing jointly: larger standard deduction, income is split among the couple. ex. Kentucky inheritance tax as posted by Voluntarist.). Therefore to keep that portion of the fruits of your labor it is mandated by the federal and state governments that you must be married.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Alright, first, you have a right to the fruits of your labor, property rights. Second, the government has devised the system such that you get to keep more of the fruits of your labor if you are married (ex. married filing jointly: larger standard deduction, income is split among the couple. ex. Kentucky inheritance tax as posted by Voluntarist.). Therefore to keep that portion of the fruits of your labor it is mandated by the federal and state governments that you must be married.

To be honest, I do not believe that granting special favors and incentives to people just because they are married is Constitutional, or permissible under the Constitutional requirement for a republican form of government. Every soul under the same law. When you have one law for singles and another law for marrieds, then the Constitution stands in abrogation.

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[erowe1]

To be honest, I do not believe that granting special favors and incentives to people just because they are married is Constitutional, or permissible under the Constitutional requirement for a republican form of government. Every soul under the same law. When you have one law for singles and another law for marrieds, then the Constitution stands in abrogation.

Exactly.

The violation of equal protection happens as soon as you divide people into the two classes of married and unmarried. Moving around the line that divides those two groups, while still having a population of some married people and some unmarried people, does nothing to fix that problem.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I'm 61 and never married (with two children) and completely agree.

There seems to be a lot of talk about polygamy/polyandry being the next class of citizens to be added to the marriage list. Personally, I think the next battle along these lines won't be over marriage registration, but rather, some cohabiting couple starting a discrimination suit over one of the thousands of federal/state laws regarding marriage.

Oh absolutely. This is the entire problem with our tax code and government involvement in the fist place.

 

[erowe1]

Alright, first, you have a right to the fruits of your labor, property rights. Second, the government has devised the system such that you get to keep more of the fruits of your labor if you are married (ex. married filing jointly: larger standard deduction, income is split among the couple. ex. Kentucky inheritance tax as posted by Voluntarist.). Therefore to keep that portion of the fruits of your labor it is mandated by the federal and state governments that you must be married.

That's true, inasmuch as unmarried people get taxed more than married people. But that's not always the case. Sometimes it's the other way around.

But the reason for that is not because of discrimination against gays. It's because of discrimination between married people and unmarried people, and same-sex couples, just like all other unmarried people, are not married. While it is not legitimate for state and federal laws to base anything on this distinction, it's also not arbitrary and senseless, at least not when marriage is defined the traditional way, since it forms the core of the normal family unit in which children are raised following a model of a husband being the main bread-winner and a wife sacrificing her career to raise the kids. The only fix to this problem is to get rid of the distinction under the law and get the government out of the marriage business. Trying to fix a big government problem with a bigger government solution that will create new unforeseen problems, which is what happens when you broaden the reasonable definition of marriage as one man and one woman arbitrarily to include totally different kinds of partnerships, is a step backwards.

And the gain in freedom by some people paying less in taxes is more than offset by the loss in freedom by way of expanding things like Social Security to give spousal benefits to same-sex couples, and punishing private businesses for discrimination when they don't want to bake wedding cakes inscribed with the slogan, "Three cheers for fudge packing," and when an innocent woman like Kim Davis is put in jail.

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

That's true, inasmuch as unmarried people get taxed more than married people. But that's not always the case. Sometimes it's the other way around.

But the reason for that is not because of discrimination against gays. It's because of discrimination between married people and unmarried people, and same-sex couples, just like all other unmarried people, are not married. While it is not legitimate for state and federal laws to base anything on this distinction, it's also not arbitrary and senseless, at least not when marriage is defined the traditional way, since it forms the core of the normal family unit in which children are raised following a model of a husband being the main bread-winner and a wife sacrificing her career to raise the kids. The only fix to this problem is to get rid of the distinction under the law and get the government out of the marriage business. Trying to fix a big government problem with a bigger government solution that will create new unforeseen problems, which is what happens when you broaden the reasonable definition of marriage as one man and one woman arbitrarily to include totally different kinds of partnerships, is a step backwards.

And the gain in freedom by some people paying less in taxes is more than offset by the loss in freedom by way of expanding things like Social Security to give spousal benefits to same-sex couples, and punishing private businesses for discrimination when they don't want to bake wedding cakes inscribed with the slogan, "Three cheers for fudge packing," and when an innocent woman like Kim Davis is put in jail.

And this is why I say the religious zealots are to emotionally attached. I view this as a simple matter of 'reductions of force', while the religious are more worried about how the government defines marriage. But the truth is that government can't define marriage to individuals or to religious institutions. All the government can do is hand out a certificate that provides whatever benefits they have decided to endow. And at this point, and its been asked many times, no one has proven that these benefits the government has endowed are coercive ones.

Social Security could go either way, I'll give you that. But someone who has not received the money they contributed to social security is deserving of deciding how that money will be allocated in the event of their death. I have no problem discriminating based on theft though, just discrimination that amounts to force. And as to the discrimination suits, they are entirely based on commerce laws, not on how the government defines who can obtain this certificate.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

And this is why I say the religious zealots are to emotionally attached. I view this as a simple matter of 'reductions of force', while the religious are more worried about how the government defines marriage. But the truth is that government can't define marriage to individuals or to religious institutions. All the government can do is hand out a certificate that provides whatever benefits they have decided to endow. And at this point, and its been asked many times, no one has proven that these benefits the government has endowed are coercive ones.

I think you're right, but what you say is not inconsistent with the religious person's fear of the government defining marriage. See, the problem, to me, is that the government can define and is defining marriage as an institution of government rather than a private one. This is the fear that many Christians have, although many don't actually realize the connection between their fear of a certain "definition" and the government's intrusion in their lives. The simpletons only know that they don't like what the government is doing to the institution of marriage, although they are unable to pinpoint just what the problem is besides the vague notion of a supposedly incorrect "definition". It just so happens, however, that what they are afraid of is the government takeover of the marriage institution which is the process by which the government goes about redefining marriage.

In this way, I think the religious people are right in their loathing of the government's attempts to redefine marriage because it has real-world implications that you, yourself would agree are bad (I assume).

 

[tod evans]

"Teh-Newz" is eerily quiet..........

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[Sonny Tufts]

See, the problem, to me, is that the government can define and is defining marriage as an institution of government rather than a private one. This is the fear that many Christians have, although many don't actually realize the connection between their fear of a certain "definition" and the government's intrusion in their lives. The simpletons only know that they don't like what the government is doing to the institution of marriage, although they are unable to pinpoint just what the problem is besides the vague notion of a supposedly incorrect "definition". It just so happens, however, that what they are afraid of is the government takeover of the marriage institution which is the process by which the government goes about redefining marriage.

But government has required marriage licenses for a long time, except in those states that recognize common-law marriage. If the religious folks really had an objection to the government's involvement, you'd think it would have manifested long ago. I would suggest that the "government-redefinition-of-marriage" objection has less to do with religious people's disapproval of the current situation than does their visceral dislike of gays.

 

[erowe1]

But government has required marriage licenses for a long time, except in those states that recognize common-law marriage. If the religious folks really had an objection to the government's involvement, you'd think it would have manifested long ago. I would suggest that the "government-redefinition-of-marriage" objection has less to do with religious people's disapproval of the current situation than does their visceral dislike of gays.

It's not so much a visceral dislike of gays as it is a visceral dislike of their actions. This is a perfectly healthy attitude, and it is a discredit to our culture that more people don't have it. One of the reasons homosexuality is becoming more and more common is because of the prevailing acceptance and even promotion of it, and the shunning of those who won't go along with this trend.

The real impetus behind the push to have the government redefine marriage to include same-sex couples is so as to grant gay people a sense of legitimacy, as if to say, "Even the state says that there's nothing wrong with us. So there must not be." It's not really about equal rights, and has nothing at all to do with liberty.

 

[erowe1]

But someone who has not received the money they contributed to social security is deserving of deciding how that money will be allocated in the event of their death.

I disagree. Social Security is not and never has been about getting back what you put in. It's other people getting your money, and then you getting other people's money.

The more it gets cut the better. The less it gets expanded the better. The sooner it stops getting paid out to anyone at all the better. The government is going to break the promises it made at some point, and the sooner that happens the better.