More U.S. States Allow Cousin Marriage Than Gay Marriage

[Dianne]

A few years ago I went online at a friend's request, took 30 seconds to become ordained for free, and have legally married three couples since. And I am not even religious. Crazy laws.

They didn't have to pay fees for a marriage license? I love that, gonna get ordained tomorrow )

 

[amy31416]

Why would they need to?

I dunno, but they'd meet the penis/vagina requirement (plus an extra in case something very bad happens.)

 

[specsaregood]

Why would they need to?

^Clearly overlooking the possibilities of them finding another hermaphrodite to marry.

 

[BuddyRey]

A few years ago I went online at a friend's request, took 30 seconds to become ordained for free, and have legally married three couples since. And I am not even religious. Crazy laws.

That's what I think every Ron Paul supporter should do who is of a mind to. Marriage licenses would become widely ignored/obsolete if there was a vibrant "citizen clergy" going around performing non-state marriages.

 

[BuddyRey]

They didn't have to pay fees for a marriage license? I love that, gonna get ordained tomorrow )

Nice!

 

[heavenlyboy34]

That's what I think every Ron Paul supporter should do who is of a mind to. Marriage licenses would become widely ignored/obsolete if there was a vibrant "citizen clergy" going around performing non-state marriages.

That would be awesome. ETA-this site has info on becoming ordained-http://www.ordination.com/ From looking over it, it is a ridiculously easy process. Maybe I'll get ordained someday just so I can marry people.

 

[nicoleeann]

Whenever anyone asks me if i believe in gay marriage i completely suprise them with a simple answer like this: "There should be no government marriage at all. The government should not be rewarding people for getting married. That is discrimination against ugly people." it gets them thinking a bit before i go further into the subject.

 

[Kludge]

Gov't marriage is meaningless. It merely implies both partners submit to the government for approval before acting or are interested in some of the tax/welfare benefits of being married, but it should also be noted there are government and corporate benefits to not being married rather than married, too. It's entirely a non-issue for people uninterested in government recognition of marriage and does not represent the beliefs of the society at large, especially when you consider US voter turnout (of those eligible) for federal elections is ~50-60% on years of presidential elections and otherwise ~40% (in 2010, fwiw, turnout was ~41.6%). If the biggest issues for gays is gov't-recognized marriage (... and being able to join the military and be openly gay), they're apparently pretty happy with the gov't as is.

 

[madfoot]

Marriage is a religious issue
Agree with this

states should issue civil unions universally for tax and inheritance
Disagree with this.

I put other. The state shouldn't be involved at all. I don't think it should issue civil unions.
I think if some combination of individuals who are able to legally consent want to sign some contract stating who gets what in what situation, they should be able to do that. But this should have nothing to do with states recognizing some kind of relationship like a civil union or marriage.

Not that it is relevant but I find less wrong with a cousin marriage than a homosexual marriage, but in the end neither is my business.

I think there's some stuff (not including the tax stuff) that can't currently be dealt with by contracts. I suppose that ought to be changed.

 

[The Moravian]

In the poll, I chose "other" as well.

 

[The Moravian]

Although we would likely all agree neither issue should involve federal government, it is odd that more states allow you to marry your first cousin than marry someone of the same sex. What are your thoughts?

Article from death+taxes

I see that many other members have made this general point, but I also wanted to chime in.

The premise of the OP is off a bit, enough to make the main point untrue.

Before diving into the usual debate, find out what the actual facts are first. Is gay marriage really "not allowed" in more states than cousin marriage is "not allowed"?

We don't currently need a government issued license to get married; gay, straight, cousins, same-sex, opposite-sex, no-sex, whatever. Gay marriage is not banned in any state of the country. It is "allowed" in every state, unless any of the states have and enforce "sodomy laws", which I don't think they have since Lawrence v. Texas several years ago. I don't know if it is the same with cousin marriage in each of those states. Do some states arrest you for having sex with a cousin, even if you have had a public wedding and vows?

However, if you want a state-issued piece of paper that enables you to file taxes together and make every institution treat you as one, only those states on the maps will issue that piece of paper to you. That's what is really shown on the maps, but they are falsely labeled "want to marry your partner" and "want to marry your cousin". It's a typical liberal ploy to make you think that "somone's rights are being repressed", and stir up your emotions instead of your mind. This kind of nonsense is really getting old for me.

Like so many "controversial" subjects, we who understand liberty and the nature of inalienable rights should be able to show that there really is no inevitable conflict here, but only the common assumption of necessary government involvement makes people think there is.

 

[Daamien]

However, if you want a state-issued piece of paper that enables you to file taxes together and make every institution treat you as one, only those states on the maps will issue that piece of paper to you. That's what is really shown on the maps, but they are falsely labeled "want to marry your partner" and "want to marry your cousin". It's a typical liberal ploy to make you think that "somone's rights are being repressed", and stir up your emotions instead of your mind. This kind of nonsense is really getting old for me.

Like so many "controversial" subjects, we who understand liberty and the nature of inalienable rights should be able to show that there really is no inevitable conflict here, but only the common assumption of necessary government involvement makes people think there is.

Money is fungible and any government benefit given exclusively to one group comes at a cost to those who are not able to partake in that benefit. Therefore, states which offer benefits for marriage yet limit recognition of marriages are practicing discrimination. You can get benefits from the state for marrying your cousin while you can't for marrying someone of the same gender. This isn't a liberal ploy. It's hypocrisy given they are both taboo, hence the comparison. Pointing out such discrepancies as hypocritical involves using your brain rather than appealing to emotion.

 

[The Moravian]

-rep.

This is so the antithesis of Liberty it makes me want to puke. This drivel makes me want to release my bowels. You think you've got the moral high ground, but your just as guilty as those murdering mother fuckers at the Pentagon. You think just like them. You promote hate and intolerance.

You don't even know what it means to Love something or someone so much that you would change who you were to improve their life.

You know nothing of what Jesus was or taught. You are evil.

You lost your cool here and it looks like you're sorry for the "outburst". Saying Nate895 is "as guilty as the murdering m*****f***ers at the Pentagon" is ridiculous. I disagree with him that the government should recognize marriage at all. I want government (all gov't, not just federal) completely out of marriage entirely, not "just want the state to respect and honor the truth, which includes that one man and one woman in a lifelong, committed relation is the established Creational norm".

However, the OP is "promot(ing) negativity in collectivist mindsets that view humans as members of groups rather than individuals", by promoting "gay marriage", instead of true individual rights of association. That is as close to "promoting an agenda that counters our Mission Statement" as you think Nate895 is.

"Gay" is a collectivist term which views humans as members of groups rather than individuals. Dr. Paul made that his clear position in the 2007 debates. Further assuming that government action is needed to make people equal is as much "the antithesis of Liberty" as saying that government should not be redefining what marriage means.

Apart from how I want government completely out of marriage, if it is ok to mention "what Jesus taught", I do, however agree with Nate895 that Jesus did teach specifically about marriage that "he who made them in the beginning made them male and female, and for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh". (Matthew 19:4-5)

 

[Daamien]

However, the OP is "promot(ing) negativity in collectivist mindsets that view humans as members of groups rather than individuals", by promoting "gay marriage", instead of true individual rights of association. That is as close to "promoting an agenda that counters our Mission Statement" as you think Nate895 is.

I'm not promoting an agenda or a collectivist mindset. I thought the comparison was interesting to share and clearly it has sparked a great deal of discussion. I don't believe in labels such as gay marriage and straight marriage. Anyone should be able to marry whomever they want and such a consensual and voluntary relationship doesn't have to be religious or sexual. Arguing that tax breaks should be universal if they are applied at all does not equate to supporting the tax breaks and need for state recognition to begin with.

Nice try though at an ad hominem attack and attempting to shut me up.

 

[The Moravian]

Money is fungible and any government benefit given exclusively to one group comes at a cost to those who are not able to partake in that benefit. Therefore, states which offer benefits for marriage yet limit recognition of marriages are practicing discrimination. You can get benefits from the state for marrying your cousin while you can't for marrying someone of the same gender. This isn't a liberal ploy. It's hypocrisy given they are both taboo, hence the comparison. Pointing out such discrepancies as hypocritical involves using your brain rather than appealing to emotion.

I realize that there is monetary benefit to being able to file taxes jointly and a benefit of convenience by making other institutions consider you "joined", that is why I want to end the issuance of any marriage certificates by any government. Perhaps you can tell me about any other monetary benefits given only to holders of state-issued marriage certificates.

However, I still stand by my statement that your original claim that "More U.S. States Allow Cousin Marriage Than Gay Marriage" is not true, and that you are promoting an agenda that views people in groups, rather than as individuals.

 

[Batman]

Although we would likely all agree neither issue should involve federal government, it is odd that more states allow you to marry your first cousin than marry someone of the same sex. What are your thoughts?

Article from death+taxes

Wait a sec. I thought Texas doesn't allow cousin marriages.

 

[The Moravian]

I'm not promoting an agenda or a collectivist mindset. I thought the comparison was interesting to share and clearly it has sparked a great deal of discussion. I don't believe in labels such as gay marriage and straight marriage. Anyone should be able to marry whomever they want and such a consensual and voluntary relationship doesn't have to be religious or sexual. Arguing that tax breaks should be universal if they are applied at all does not equate to supporting the tax breaks and need for state recognition to begin with.

Nice try though at an ad hominem attack and attempting to shut me up.

"Ad hominem" means "against the person". Nate-for-liberty's post to Nate895 is a great example of that. He seems to have apologized for it, which was appropriate to do.

What part of my post is "against the person", instead of pointing out how you are as much in violation of the Mission Statement, as Nate895 is.

If it is ad hominem to point out that an OP is "promoting an agenda that counters our Mission Statement", then I guess it is not ever logical to determine violations of the forum guidelines.

The maps don't merely claim that some people get benefits that others don't, they claim that "gay marriage" is "not allowed" in 45 states, which is not true.

 

[Ranger29860]

You lost your cool here and it looks like you're sorry for the "outburst". Saying Nate895 is "as guilty as the murdering m*****f***ers at the Pentagon" is ridiculous. I disagree with him that the government should recognize marriage at all. I want government (all gov't, not just federal) completely out of marriage entirely, not "just want the state to respect and honor the truth, which includes that one man and one woman in a lifelong, committed relation is the established Creational norm".



Apart from how I want government completely out of marriage, if it is ok to mention "what Jesus taught", I do, however agree with Nate895 that Jesus did teach specifically about marriage that "he who made them in the beginning made them male and female, and for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh". (Matthew 19:4-5)

I can see where his reply to nate stemmed from. Nate did quote the bible saying gays should be killed so i agree with the first reaction. Encouraging and promoting violence is just as bad as actually committing violence. I have seen that passage used to fuel violent hate towards the GLBT community. Openly quoting a passage that says a person deserves death for being gay is dangerous. It saddens me to see that kind of rhetoric on this forum.

Government has no business in marriage at any level.

Even as an atheist i am perfectly fine with other peoples beliefs and i have seen faith help a lot of people out in troubled times so for some i encourage it. But i do not think we should ever allow a religious based position to be implanted into the government for any reason. If we can not get government out of marriage all together then i would want gay marriage to be recognized.

I can not see how some on this forum scream and yell for freedom to do what they want as long as it does not affect others but then turn around and support ideas and positions that would limit the freedoms of others. Gay marriage does NOT affect anyone else besides two consenting adults so why is it any of our business to ban or block it? I hold the same position for cousins. It wont affect me so let them have at it.

Nate do you have any other way to justify your attitude and stance against gay marriage other than your religion? If your belief is all you need for the position thats fine but please think if it is right in a free society to force your belief on others. What if another religion did something similar to you.

 

[Annihilia]

What about defining marriage by what it actually is: A publicly declared male-female sexual union. Nothing else is marriage. They just don't have the parts.

According to you.

The concept of marriage is as old as humanity and has existed in one form or another across multiple cultures worldwide. By what universal edict is marriage limited to such a specific definition?

 

[jmdrake]

I voted other. Those are ridiculous poll options. Issue civil unions for inheritance and tax purposes? And that's on a pro liberty website? Taxes shouldn't at all be affected by who you're sleeping with. In fact no taxes are the best taxes. But if you're going to have a tax make it a consumption tax. And you don't at all need the state involved for inheritance purposes. If the state is involved in your estate then the state of your affairs is screwed up. You should do a will or better yet a trust while you're still alive. If you are going to go through the trouble of going to the state to get a marriage license then why can't you go to a lawyer and get a will or trust set up? Or you can do it for yourself for free. Quit being helpless boobs people!