Libertarian position on gay marriage

[jmdrake]

That's way stronger than Obama's limp-wristed approach, and even includes polygamy. Yet Ron Paul is a fascist, anti-gay state's rights crusader and Obama is the savior. For invoking state's rights.

Unreal.

Just searched for your quote and found an awesome website dedicated to Ron Paul's book "Liberty Defined".

http://libertydefined.org/issue/28

Thanks!

 

[jmdrake]

Problem is, hetero marriage is pushed on everyone (non-hetero couples, polyamorous relationships and single individuals of all stripes), so that doesn't really fly. There are two logical outcomes: everyone wanting to enter a contract can get government goodies, or nobody wanting to enter a contract can get goodies. Sure, first option still involves theft, and it shouldn't be your bargaining position, but it's better than being both immoral and granting rights to groups.

So the answer is push for more theft in order to make it "equal"? I believe the only logical conclusion is to push in the opposite direction and concentrate on disentangling the government from marriage. That's compatible with our goals and should be something we can agree on.

Edit: And for the issues of hospitals and "family", gays can already fix those "problems" through contract. Insurance (health insurance specifically) is the big ugly 200 lbs gorilla. Health insurance tax benefits should be given to the individual instead of the employer for a variety of reasons.

 

[farreri]

How can he be homophobic for referring to them as homos?

 

[Lishy]

A marriage is an exchange of vows... essentially a contract.

The government has no place in it.

What "insurance", "hospital", and "family" reasons?

What compelling need is there for governments to "recognize" and regulate marriage?

This.

/12chars

/thread

 

[Sam I am]

Hey guys, need some liberty related help. I posted something on facebook about how we should privatize marriage and was left this comment


Any good ideas on how to respond?

As far as Insurance is concerned, unless it's some sort of public insurance, the insurance company should not be bound by whether or not the government thinks that you're married.

As far as hospital and family matters are concerned, It is currently legal to pre-authorize any person to visit you in the hospital as though they were your spouse, to receive your assets when you die as though they were your spouse, and to make legal decisions on your behalf as though they were your spouse.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

So the answer is push for more theft in order to make it "equal"? I believe the only logical conclusion is to push in the opposite direction and concentrate on disentangling the government from marriage. That's compatible with our goals and should be something we can agree on.

Right, the desired outcome is zero government involvement in marriage. But if there are to be handouts, everyone should be able to get them. Everyone

No theft no granting of rights > theft > theft and granting of rights

 

[jmdrake]

Right, the desired outcome is zero government involvement in marriage. But if there are to be handouts, everyone should be able to get them. Everyone

No theft no granting of rights > theft > theft and granting of rights

Except the current push isn't to give them to "everyone". Those who practice polygamy and incest are left out. So your increasing the amount of theft. It would be like passing a civil rights act that only applied to black people. The only legitimate way forward is to work on reducing the handouts. And they aren't really "handouts" as much as they are control on people's resources. People pay into Social Security for example. They should instead be allowed to pay into an individual savings account.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Except the current push isn't to give them to "everyone". Those who practice polygamy and incest are left out. So your increasing the amount of theft. It would be like passing a civil rights act that only applied to black people. The only legitimate way forward is to work on reducing the handouts. And they aren't really "handouts" as much as they are control on people's resources. People pay into Social Security for example. They should instead be allowed to pay into an individual savings account.

I don't agree with the current push. I don't much care what the mood of the day is, and I agree with your objections regarding polygamy and incest. As well as cohabitants, people dating, etc.

 

[LawnWake]

Modern marriage is basically one contract that implies a crapload of different contracts to the government. You fix this by getting rid of that 'one contract' and just take care of all contracts individually.

Oh and uhh, let's say there's a privatized version of 'that one contract'. Why the hell wouldn't the free market be able to get a better version of it?

And if it's a 'spritual thing' why even involve the government? What's spiritual about a damn govrernment? YOu don't believe 'God' in his supposed infinity and wisdom can figure out marriage by himself without help from the American government or electorate?

"Yeaah, government sucks at pretty much anything. It's a corrupt and inefficient instiution, but where would marriage be without them?'* @

*as evident by the fact that until very recently, people of different races couldn't marry and white christian taliban are trying to push big government to legislate morality and keep those pesky gays from getting married! Who will think of the children?

@ Between the people who are married.

What compelling need is there for governments to "recognize" and regulate marriage?

To make sure that the government can do what some of these supposed christians think their God can't. Keep the gays form getting married. The guy is supposed to have created the heavens and the Earth, but these christian fundamentalist rednecks think he's too stupid to figure out what he's supposed to do when gay people get married.

 

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

The proper libertarian position on this issue, is one of non-intrusive government. The question is, why? Marriage is a private contract between 2 individuals, and it's not a role of government.

Individual (Human) Rights holds priority over States Rights, and then States Rights holds priority over Federal Rights.

Individual > State > Federal

 

[Todd]

A marriage is an exchange of vows... essentially a contract.

The government has no place in it.

What "insurance", "hospital", and "family" reasons?

What compelling need is there for governments to "recognize" and regulate marriage?

This^

The government is in the contract business off all these things for one reason: REVENUE

 

[Elwar]

Marriage is a religious ceremony.

The government should play no role in marriage.

You should not need a certificate from the government in order to spend the rest of your life with the one that you love.

 

[dirtdigger]

This is simplistic. When you get married, you become family. That person becomes your next of kin, with all of the legal rights and obligations. You are also creating one household, with legal rights over the productivity of the household and legal recognition and protection of any children within the marriage. Marriage isn't about getting something from the government -- it is about protecting the legal rights over the fruit of your marriage (be that monetary or children) you have as a spouse.

This is incorrect. If you want to talk contracts, let the two individuals write up a contract and enforce it on each other. It is not obligatory for the rest of us to honor allegedly "implied" contracts. Marriage is not a contract but a relationship based on love and trust.

 

[bill1971]

Yep... Marriage is essentially a contract between two consenting parties. The only role government should play is to make sure that the two parties signed the contract in the absence of coercion or fraud, and to enforce it once the terms are agreed upon, and signed on.

I like it, very brief and to the point.

 

[seeker4sho]

Hey guys, need some liberty related help. I posted something on facebook about how we should privatize marriage and was left this comment




Any good ideas on how to respond?

Marriage is more than a legal contract. Marriage is a commentment between two individuals. Ron Paul says it is a church matter and the government should stay out of it. I could not agree more. Any two individuals entering into a legal contract should have the same rights as any one else entering into a similar contract.

 

[DEGuy]

Somewhat relevant story to this post:

I used to live next to a very nice family were the parents decided not to get legally married, but wore wedding bands, presented themselves as husband/wife to everyone, etc.

They were self-decribed commitment-phobes that decided they were happier signing a 5 year agreement with each other that was effectively the same thing as marriage, but with a detailed escape plan at the end. They were great together, but apparantly the thought of a permanent commitment and the ugliness of divorce turned them off from the traditional route. I'd never heard about something like that at the time, but I figured they were happy, so why not?

When I asked about whether or not they had ever run into legal troubles about posing as a married couple, or not being officially married, they said it had never happened, and the contract granted all the same rights. The only difference was they couldn't put down "married" on any official government form. But, when you think about it, do your family and friends really need to look at your tax returns anyhow?

Point is, I don't think it's a factor if people go around saying they are married even if isn't in a legal document. (Except with polygamy)

 

[jmdrake]

This is incorrect. If you want to talk contracts, let the two individuals write up a contract and enforce it on each other. It is not obligatory for the rest of us to honor allegedly "implied" contracts. Marriage is not a contract but a relationship based on love and trust.

Some contracts allow the contracting party to obligate 3rd parties. Those include powers of attorney, wills etc. Take a will. With it I can obligate a bank to turn over money to whoever I designate at my death even though the bank has no relationship with that person. That person "steps into the shoes" of me. Marriage sets up those relationships in a package deal. But there is no reason those relationships couldn't be done as individual contracts, or that someone couldn't package all of them up into one document without government intervention.

 

[JorgeStevenson]

This is simplistic...

...
It is possible to achieve most of the same legal rights as a marriage with legal contracts, but it requires a lot of effort and expense. The exception is the tax protections. Within a marriage, you are treated as one unit and can pass money and things back and forth freely without incurring any kind of gift or income taxes. Once one spouse dies, you also aren't subject to any estate taxes. No other relationship is treated the same way for obvious reasons. So in order to abolish marriage, we would also first need a libertarian utopia where all of those taxes were gone.

I agree with everything you wrote, but the bolded section is not quite accurate, and could potentially be drastically misleading. I'm a CPA, I graduated #1 in my masters program at one of the top schools, work at one of the big 4 accounting firms, etc. I studied estate taxes in depth during 2010, so unless the law has changed since then, here's how it works -

The estate tax provides for a 100% deduction of anything you leave to your surviving spouse. However, once only one spouse remains, there is no possibility of receiving the "marriage deduction" unless that spouse remarries. Meaning, if you leave $5M to your spouse when you die, and you die first, there will be no estate tax on that $5M upon your death. But, if that spouse doesn't either remarry or find a way to shield the $5M from the estate tax during his/her lifetime, the entire $5M will be subject to the estate tax upon his/her death.

So, the "marriage deduction" is actually a huge trap if you think about it in the way that you literally worded your statement because you can completely screw over your spouse if you leave them too much. But, the marriage deduction, together with special property rights for married couples and double-gifting, basically provides the foundation of a good estate planning strategy.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Curve the argument to a states right issues. The federal government has no authority at the alter or the bedroom. If a state wishes to allow a bonus for a "Legal Marriage" and then sets out to define that marriage, that's fine. Those powers are enumerated to the States. however the federal governments "Marriage tax bonus" is bogus because at its core federal taxs are bogus.

Ron Paul's position is that marriage and government are not, well... married.

I'm not so sure that the states can do that. You would have to look in your state's Constitution to decide if your state is authorized to mix with marriage at all. I don't think it should at all, on any level, and I will fight that in my state. Too bad the federal government is already regulating it.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Clearly you do not work in law, as the government regulates almost all important contracts. Laws governing different types of contracts are essential for society to work and to preserve equality before the law.

Because it does... doesn't mean it should.