What Efforts Have There Been to Get Government Out of Marriage?

[fr33]

What efforts has there been to get government out of marriage?

I ask this because I can't think of any right now besides those of us that just talk about it.

All I can remember of the subject is that government at both the federal and state level has tried to define or redefine what marriage is. None of these efforts attempted to stop marriage licensing. They just try to reinforce marriage licensing.

This is why I support gay marriage. Virtually nobody besides us supports getting govt out of marriage.


How do we get the govt out of marriage? Where is the movement to do this?

 

[CaseyJones]

Oklahoma Lawmakers: Get the government out of marriage

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...-Lawmakers-Get-the-government-out-of-marriage

 

[GunnyFreedom]

What efforts has there been to get government out of marriage?

I ask this because I can't think of any right now besides those of us that just talk about it.

All I can remember of the subject is that government at both the federal and state level has tried to define or redefine what marriage is. None of these efforts attempted to stop marriage licensing. They just try to reinforce marriage licensing.

This is why I support gay marriage. Virtually nobody besides us supports getting govt out of marriage.


How do we get the govt out of marriage? Where is the movement to do this?

I proposed an amendment to the NC State Constitution to ban the State licensure of marriage, and I got 2/3 of the votes I needed to add it to the ballot by picking up nearly the entire Democratic caucus.

 

[fr33]

Oklahoma Lawmakers: Get the government out of marriage

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...-Lawmakers-Get-the-government-out-of-marriage

That's a good argument he makes and I agree with him, but still it's just talking about it like we do here.

 

[fr33]

I proposed an amendment to the NC State Constitution to ban the State licensure of marriage, and I got 2/3 of the votes I needed to add it to the ballot by picking up nearly the entire Democratic caucus.

Boom. Probably the best example I'll find. Would you say that this stance cost you your last election though?

 

[fr33]

In my opinion consenting adults should be able to call marriage whatever they want. It's their relationship, their family, and their household. I wonder if legalizing gay marriage would help the GOP understand why govt licensing should be abolished...

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Boom. Probably the best example I'll find. Would you say that this stance cost you your last election though?

No, the elimination of my district and the selective gerrymander of my only other option is what cost me the election. This stand did make it difficult to wage a GOP primary, however. Though had I made it to a General in 2012 would have clearly dominated by picking up the moderates and the middle-left and minorities like no other Republican can from a base conservative philosophy.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

What hurt me the most in the 2012 Primary, however, was money. I raised $12k to #2's $30k to #1's $90k for the Primary. I couldn't even touch the media they bought.

 

[EBounding]

Getting the government out of marriage would be ideal. But at the same time, I don't see the point of fighting with people who want the State to define it one way or another. The pro/anti gay marriage debate is like arguing whether the welfare threshold should be $30,000 or $20,000. If a state has defined marriage as between a man and a woman, what use of force is being used against people who don't like those qualifications? As far as I know, same-sex couples aren't being arrested for being married in states that don't recognize their marriage, they just don't qualify for the government benefits. Maybe that's why there hasn't been that big of a push to eliminate government marriage?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Getting the government out of marriage would be ideal. But at the same time, I don't see the point of fighting with people who want the State to define it one way or another. The pro/anti gay marriage debate is like arguing whether the welfare threshold should be $30,000 or $20,000. If a state has defined marriage as between a man and a woman, what use of force is being used against people who don't like those qualifications? As far as I know, same-sex couples aren't being arrested for being married in states that don't recognize their marriage, they just don't qualify for the government benefits. Maybe that's why there hasn't been that big of a push to eliminate government marriage?

That's actually about identical to the position I took. I actually took my inspiration for how to deal with this issue from 1 Samuel 8-10; warn them clearly the inevitable harm the policy will cause in the future, while giving them exactly what they asked for anyway. From my reading of scripture, it is really the only way to deal with a whole people who want to remove critical authorities from God.

 

[fr33]

Getting the government out of marriage would be ideal. But at the same time, I don't see the point of fighting with people who want the State to define it one way or another. The pro/anti gay marriage debate is like arguing whether the welfare threshold should be $30,000 or $20,000. If a state has defined marriage as between a man and a woman, what use of force is being used against people who don't like those qualifications? As far as I know, same-sex couples aren't being arrested for being married in states that don't recognize their marriage, they just don't qualify for the government benefits. Maybe that's why there hasn't been that big of a push to eliminate government marriage?

The lack of being rounded up and imprisoned shouldn't be the standard. Not by a long shot.

In some states a "partner" can't be present at a deathbed.

As to "government benefits", how about avoiding taxes? That should be supported by everyone here.

https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-too...-Advantages-of-Getting-Married-/INF17870.html

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Nevertheless, everyone has put their own little spin on it by now a lot of people now think they know things about my position that simply aren't true. I actually had a couple little old ladies running around in 2012 telling people that I wanted gay people to be able to have sex in public. One of the reasons we are having such a difficult time addressing this issue rationally, is because there are a whole lot of people who go completely irrational whenever subjects like these are brought up. They won't even listen to an actual solution that actually solves the problem if it's not part of their already familiar group-think, they would rather hold on to a problem by enforcing the status quo, than to seek a legitimate solution that might remove a hard-hitting talking point from the public discourse.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Nevertheless, everyone has put their own little spin on it by now a lot of people now think they know things about my position that simply aren't true. I actually had a couple little old ladies running around in 2012 telling people that I wanted gay people to be able to have sex in public. One of the reasons we are having such a difficult time addressing this issue rationally, is because there are a whole lot of people who go completely irrational whenever subjects like these are brought up. They won't even listen to an actual solution that actually solves the problem if it's not part of their already familiar group-think, they would rather hold on to a problem by enforcing the status quo, than to seek a legitimate solution that might remove a hard-hitting talking point from the public discourse.

OK, this is something we should probably discuss now because I really don't know how to address it. I mean, the hardcore libertarian position, which I agree with, is to abolish public property. But until that happens, are any regulations on how to use public property REALLY justified? If so, why?

As for getting the government out of marriage and Fr. 33's comments, I'm certainly FOR any activism in that direction, but as far as me personally, its not the top item on my agenda. I'd much rather spend my time railing against war, the FED, economic regulation, the drug war, gun control, and other issues that actually matter rather than getting the government out of marriage, which is both a long way off and comparatively unimportant.

As for gay marriage, I'm opposed to it because government has no right to redefine marriage. I also don't really care, because government is fundamentally anti-God anyway.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

OK, this is something we should probably discuss now because I really don't know how to address it. I mean, the hardcore libertarian position, which I agree with, is to abolish public property. But until that happens, are any regulations on how to use public property REALLY justified? If so, why?

As for getting the government out of marriage and Fr. 33's comments, I'm certainly FOR any activism in that direction, but as far as me personally, its not the top item on my agenda. I'd much rather spend my time railing against war, the FED, economic regulation, the drug war, gun control, and other issues that actually matter rather than getting the government out of marriage, which is both a long way off and comparatively unimportant.

As for gay marriage, I'm opposed to it because government has no right to redefine marriage. I also don't really care, because government is fundamentally anti-God anyway.

Well, I don't operate from libertarian principle, I operate from Article 4 Section 4 'a republican form of government' principle. Philosophically I may be a voluntaryist, but governmentally I am all Constitution all the time.

 

[Ender]

Nevertheless, everyone has put their own little spin on it by now a lot of people now think they know things about my position that simply aren't true. I actually had a couple little old ladies running around in 2012 telling people that I wanted gay people to be able to have sex in public. One of the reasons we are having such a difficult time addressing this issue rationally, is because there are a whole lot of people who go completely irrational whenever subjects like these are brought up. They won't even listen to an actual solution that actually solves the problem if it's not part of their already familiar group-think, they would rather hold on to a problem by enforcing the status quo, than to seek a legitimate solution that might remove a hard-hitting talking point from the public discourse.

I think the answer is to educate others on the reality of why government got into the marriage business in the first place. The purpose was to stop interracial marriages and had nothing to do with gays.

When you are clear with people about how the marriage license came about and that it had nothing to do with gays, people begin to wake up. I have spoken in depth about this to gay friends, who were 100% behind the government allowing them to get married. When they realized that gov did not belong in anyone's private life, they changed their minds.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I think the answer is to educate others on the reality of why government got into the marriage business in the first place. The purpose was to stop interracial marriages and had nothing to do with gays.

When you are clear with people about how the marriage license came about and that it had nothing to do with gays, people begin to wake up. I have spoken in depth about this to gay friends, who were 100% behind the government allowing them to get married. When they realized that gov did not belong in anyone's private life, they changed their minds.

I tried that from day 1. What eventually broke down the attack (it took me until 2013 to articulate it where people finally heard what I was saying) was pointing to the unintended consequences of subjecting marriage to a popular vote with the Millennial Generation about to be completely dominant electorally in another 12-14 years.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Well, I don't operate from libertarian principle, I operate from Article 4 Section 4 'a republican form of government' principle. Philosophically I may be a voluntaryist, but governmentally I am all Constitution all the time.

OK. I certainly don't expect you to go there with your constituents (I'm not sure how the Constitution is relevant here, unless anyone is arguing that this is a Federal issue.) But, I'd like to discuss it here. Most people don't care about logical consistency. I do. My intuition is to say that no, people who have sex in the middle of a public street shouldn't be tolerated. But is that really compatible with voluntarism? I don't think it is. And ultimately, it may be allowing wacky things like that that would be the catalyst toward a private property society anyway, since that sort of thing CERTAINLY wouldn't be allowed on most privately owned "public" places.