What is Digg?562 Comments
- bratpack8, on 11/27/2007, -54/+399I've been arguing this for years. It is a simple contract between two (or more I suppose) people. If they want the blessing of their church, then they need to abide by the rules set forth by that church and religion. But for the State to say one way or another is the opposite of freedom. And guess which candidate would want the government completely out of this business? RP.
- Berkana, on 11/27/2007, -10/+208The biggest reason, as I understand it, is taxation and its manipulation to create incentives for people to behave certain ways.
- ggnictee, on 11/27/2007, -7/+129I would like to apologize for the following (sometimes the lawyer in my gets all uppity and types on his own)
The reason you need the states permission is because (as the author pointed out in his article, oddly enough) it is no longer a private contract between a man and a woman's father for the sale of the woman. It is a social license (like a driver's license). After you fulfill certain requirements the state issues a license, which carries certain rights and responsibilities.
You don't need the state's permission to get married, any more then you need a driver's license to drive your car on your lawn. It's only when you leave your property that things get sticky.
Good news is If you would like to enter into a contract with your beloved instead of getting a state marriage license: you can hurray! You don't need the states permission to contract away or for anything. So long as it's a bargained for exchange: you have yourself a valid contract. However; if you want to drive on the state's roads you need a state license. I.E. if you want to receive the benefits of a state marriage license you have to play by the state's rules.
Now if you agree or disagree with how the operation works is another issue. Feel free to vote in or out any representative you'd like to get the laws made the way you like them. It is important to remember, however, that the way modern marriages and laws are set up means we will have state issued marriage licenses for some time to come; because they are necessary. Shrug, it's just how the system is built. Someone has to keep track of these things. (note: on the issue of who can marry who, how and when: see the first amendment)
- obliviousfool, on 11/27/2007, -11/+112It isn't so much that they need the state's permission. It's more that they would like the legal benefits of marriage. Having those legal benefits is what you apparently need permission for.
- LordSkywalker, on 11/27/2007, -73/+136This is one of the many reasons I support Ron Paul. He understands the concept of a personal, non-government contract between two consenting adults. It is not only a private contract between two individuals, but also in many cases, a religious practice. These are two legitimate reasons why government has no place being involved in marriage approvals and Ron Paul agrees with me.
- johnhummel, on 11/27/2007, -3/+58By this article, and my own opinion, no.
States shouldn't be involved in marriages. All that "marriage" should be is a simple civil contract - the government can make up a standard one - that says "I [insert name here] share my assets, give power of attorney in the event that I am incapacitated, and leave by belongings to [insert name here]". Same rights as a marriage, but without the government.
It was that way for a long time of the world's history. it changed because some parents were bothered by their kids getting married to rival houses, or religious people at their panties in a bunch over white and blacks marrying, or other "unfit" people getting married without their permission. - nymphetamine, on 11/27/2007, -33/+73I agree, Peter Griffin is hilarious. His retarded antics and hatred towards Meg makes Family Guy the best show out there. Clearly this is why Peter Griffin is the only one for me. He is my Messiah and I want him to be yours too! Join Him and your life will be complete.
- Dested, on 11/27/2007, -12/+47Same reason we need permission to ingest toxins (take drugs). The government obviously knows what you should be doing with your time better than you do. Obviously.
- kooft, on 11/27/2007, -2/+34@baby: There's no difference between two members of the same sex, in a sexual relationship, living together and sharing their lives with one another with or without a marriage certificate. So, do you propose to make homosexuality illegal or alternatively put up obstacles that would stand in the way of these relationships?
Where is the line drawn with respect to perversion? Some would consider a white woman dating a black man to be perversion, so should we deny interracial marriages as well? There are those that would consider rich women dating poor men to be a perversion, so should we deny that too? It really just sounds like people insecure with their own sexuality are trying to dictate to others how to live. - Osmose1000, on 11/27/2007, -18/+50Ron Paul's solution to everything is to take it away from the national government and throw it at the state government instead of doing something about it himself. His entire position is based upon getting into power to throw responsibility at others.
I live in Florida. I do NOT trust the Florida state government to make good decisions. - WilliamDavis, on 11/27/2007, -2/+33Exactly. Politicians would like to continue their role as social engineers.
- kronix2, on 11/27/2007, -13/+44"These are two legitimate reasons why government has no place being involved in marriage approvals and Ron Paul agrees with me."
Just federal government, right? Ron Paul's We the People Act is designed to let individual states "regulate" - i.e. ban - gay marriage. It would do this by *preventing* the Supreme Court from upholding the Constitution, through *banning* the SC from hearing cases regarding gay marriage. It'd also nullify all previous rulings.
Source: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.300 ...
=======
Extract from Paul's bill:
The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--
(1) shall not adjudicate--
(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;
(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and
=====
Aside from gay marriage, Ron Paul's We the People Act is also designed to allow individual states to ban deviant sexual practices, abortion
But please, carry on *****. - pintomp3, on 11/27/2007, -2/+32it's not just about taxes. there are many legal and financial implications that go along with it, like custodial rights and spousal privilege:
http://fogarty.org/tim/gay_issues/marriage_benifit ... - kinghajj, on 11/27/2007, -4/+34Well then perhaps those handouts should end?
- PeppermintPig, on 11/27/2007, -2/+31Churches should not be forced to marry people. Churches should not get any special benefits from the government either.
- canadianbaking, on 11/27/2007, -2/+30Why then does marriage have to between only 2 consenting adults, as opposed to 3 or 4?
- brundlefly76, on 11/27/2007, -3/+30Well the point is that obviously no one needs state permission to marry - you only need state permission to have it recognized by the government as a marriage and realize any government-sponsored benefits.
- MWeather, on 11/27/2007, -4/+31"There is no argument you can give that will legitimize homosexuality. It's simply not natural."
What about the fact that homosexuality exists in nature? Does that not show that it is not unnatural? - glasnostic, on 11/27/2007, -14/+40WRONG!!!!!!!!!
RP thinks the STATE should be able to determine who can and cant marry and that the USSC should not be able to hear cases which would invalidate state control of marriage. which is funny because the USSC is the only body in this country that we can thank for the degradation of obstacles to marriage that have been erected by the state.
Jesus Christ you people.. read a bit about your ***** candidate.. and please.. before you just bury me, look it up..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_the_People_Act - seandaly, on 11/27/2007, -0/+25Watch out for the moral police!
Who says it's perversion? You? You're church? Some ***** that wrote it in a book 1500 years ago? Where do people get the idea that they can be the moral compass for an entire nation?
Homosexuality IS natural... It happens across the animal kingdom. While I'm not a homosexual, I see no reason why two men (or women) should be labeled perverts and not granted the same rights that straight couples would expect just because you think gay sex is gross.
(I'm willing to bet that you're one of those guys who's been raised to believe that gay is the worst thing you could be and subsequently had some sort of attraction to other men, so you compensate for your guilt by slandering all gays... There's plenty of you out there).
It's simple... All they really want is to share the same benefits (tax, insurance, death, etc) that a straight couple would have while the only difference noted is that they happen to be of the same sex. - sonycam, on 11/27/2007, -1/+26In the UK at least, when a British person marries a foreign person, they get the right to stay in the UK. Therefore there's a huge blackmarket where people are paid to marry foreign people to ensure that they can stay here. Not sure if it's the same in the US, but this is a good reason to monitor marriage, for legal abuse.
- Shawn4168, on 11/27/2007, -12/+35Not exactly. RP personally believes that marriage should stay the way it is, between a man and a woman. But his plan is to keep the FEDERAL government out of this business, not the states. http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr09 ...
- rkbabang, on 11/27/2007, -3/+26If the goat can say "I do" and understand the terms of the contract then I'm all for it. Otherwise only sapient beings should be able to enter into binding contracts with one another. If evolution (or science) ever provides us with a sapient goat, however, I have nothing against inter-species relationships in principle. Any contract made between two or more parties who are fully capable of understanding and agreeing to the contract is a binding contract as far as I'm concerned. So if you've got a goat fetish and have found a really smart goat, I won't stand in your way. Go(at) for it.
- parabolee, on 11/27/2007, -10/+33THANK YOU! For saving me the time of pointing out the *****. RP fanboys will argue all sorts of retarded ***** to justify his stances. Face it RP is against a womens right to choose and gay marriage, stop trying to pretend he's a saviour of liberty just because he wants states to take away your rights rather than the federal government.
Smart people demand the federal government protects your rights, not get rid of it's ability to do so. Ron Paul's solution to corporate crime is to get rid of the laws the corporations are breaking. When technically that would work as they wouldn't be breaking any laws anymore.
I'm for gay rights and womens right and everyones rights (except corporations that should not have the same rights as people), and so I could not support RP. I do howvere strongly support Dennis kucinich. - waynetheman, on 11/27/2007, -5/+28And those "benefits" should be carefully scrutinized. What possible excuse could a government give for licensing MARRIAGE other than control--either to limit marriages it doesn't like, or to pressure people who wouldn't normally do it into doing it to get the benefits? What moral argument can one make to give a married citizen a special tax break, but sock a single person for the full amount other than control? (Not that income taxes are themselves moral, but still.)
And don't give me this crap about relation or genetic diseases. Like every state knows you from Adam and checks your geneology when you marry... and even if they do, YOU CAN CHECK THAT ON YOUR OWN, just like you can any genetic issues!
If George Washington, Samuel Adams, and even Lincoln didn't feel the need to beg permission to marry, or to even have such a degrading thing as a marriage license in the first place, why does everyone nowadays rush to get one? - MWeather, on 11/27/2007, -1/+23How about not giving government benefits to people who undertake state-approved religious rituals?
Why should an unmarried couple be treated any differently by the state? - glasnostic, on 11/27/2007, -5/+27There is a species of lizard in I think Arizona that exists only in female form. There are no males in the entire species. The females do have to hump each other in order to impregnate themselves though.
So there you have it. Your god created a gay animal..
Suck on that. - vfho, on 11/27/2007, -6/+28obliviousfool is right. If you want to get married without contacting the government - go right ahead, nobody is stopping you. But obviously there's benefits associated with being married that are only realized if it's identified legally as such.
- inactive, on 11/27/2007, -1/+22"as long as there isnt a clause prohibiting the states from deciding who can marry,"
The 14th amendment covers that in the "due process" clause. That's why the silliness about gay marriage is so pointless. There is no exception for gays in the 14th Amendment.
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." - inactive, on 11/27/2007, -3/+23"the truth of the matter is that the Constitution does not prevent the state from banning or allowing gay marriage"
Fail.
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." - terminal157, on 11/27/2007, -4/+23It needs to be changed whether it's difficult to do so or not.
The IRS employee argument is also somewhat silly. The government's first priority isn't to employ people, it's to govern as efficiently and effectively as possible. If the IRS is ultimately bad for the country, we should keep it anyway because people work there? That's ridiculous. - LuaPron, on 11/27/2007, -1/+20The involvement, both in defining what marriage is and who can participate, as well as applying benefits to it, are totally inappropriate for government to get involved in. It is state interference in private cultural affairs.
This issue has sharply divided the American people. Instead of debating war, the economy, and freedom, our politicians spend huge amounts of time arguing over the definition of marriage. People get more upset than they should over it, and take their resentment to the streets. Rather than questioning whether this should even be an issue, everyone wants the government to come down one way or another.
This is a mere manifestation of a deeper problem in government. For a long time now, the government has been slowly transforming itself from a tool for protection into a tool of oppression. Politicians and activists view government as a vehicle for imposing their views on others. This is why we argue about abortion and gay marriage, fight a lot of wars, restrict personal behavior, and a numerous other issues.
We're becoming a culture that expects the government to either put its stamp of approval on everything we do, or to prohibit and punish what we do not do. This is antithetical to the freedoms our ancestors fought and died for back in the revolution. - asforme, on 11/27/2007, -13/+32The problem is how would we go back? So many organizations (healthcare) have already decided to use the state definition of marriage in their contracts, not to mention our obfusticated tax code. The only way this could work is with a total revamp of the tax code (fairtax) first. Wait, Ron Paul has a plan for that too, too bad for all those IRS employees.
- wild, on 11/27/2007, -1/+19Some people need to understand what it means to "play the devil's advocate"
- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 11/27/2007, -4/+21As long as he is not trying to stop homosexuals from engaging in a lifestayle that harms no one, it doesn't really matter if he thinks its immoral (just like you can think that being religious is stupid - until you persecute him for it).
I think that abusing drugs and alcohol is wrong, but I still fight for the end of the drug war. - Barkingshins, on 11/27/2007, -8/+24In that case, it is up to you and your fellow Floridians to take some responsibility for your situation. Register to vote, learn about ALL the candidates and, most importantly, listen to your conscience when you step into that voting booth. It is, after all, you and your fellow Floridians who elected your mistrustful officials in the first place.
BTW, do you trust the Federal government to make good decisions? - cranium, on 11/27/2007, -2/+16That's no problem. Sign a contract, file it with the county registrar, done, you're legally married. The pieces we need to remove, 1) asking the government's permission and 2) government restrictions, can be easily removed and we can still have a legal definition of marriage.
Divorce can be handled in civil court the same way any contract dispute is handled.
And who gives a ***** what the local Baptist minister thinks? - PeppermintPig, on 11/27/2007, -0/+13And getting government out of marriage will not make traditions like weddings go away.
- masterm1nd, on 11/27/2007, -3/+16I now know, and I'm still gonna go ahead and say underlying problem. Unnecessary government intervention.
- Tawni, on 11/27/2007, -5/+18I'm sorry but anyone of legal age 18 and over should be able to sign up to be miserable and stuck together until you hate each other. If you want to get married and be miserable for the rest of your life more power to you.
- masterm1nd, on 11/27/2007, -7/+19Aren't people eligible to get various handouts from the government according to their marriage status? I don't know but I'm gonna go ahead and say underlying problem.
- cawpin, on 11/27/2007, -7/+19"you will realize that marriage is meaningless"
As a recently married man, I can comfortably say you are full of schitt. Good luck in life and I hope you discover that it isn't meaningless. - PacketPaul, on 11/27/2007, -3/+15Married couples pay lower taxes? I don't think so. Do a search on "marriage tax". If both couples are working, in general they pay higher taxes then if they were single.
The reason for a legal marriage is a property rights issue. If anyone can claim they are married at any time without a formal procedure ... the distribution of property rights will be a mess.
The reason why marriage was simpler in the past was because females had NO property rights! Hence the property rights issue did not exist!
Imagine an informal system of marriage where anyone can declare they are married at any time using whatever procedure they desire. Every time you date someone, you would need to be worried they can claim you were married and demand property rights.
"Judge, he told me when we were in the barn a few weeks ago that we are married .. .I know there were no witnesses but that is what he said."
"No, I said someday we MAY get married"
"No, he said we WERE married ... we even shook hands on it"
"Yes Judge, we did shake hands ... but I had my fingers crossed .."
Hence the reasons for witnesses and formalities.
How will estates be distributed if everyone the deceased ever dated shows up claiming to be a spouse?
The system we have in place is simply a legal mechanism clarifying the marriage process and managing property rights. - kaelyiesta, on 11/27/2007, -12/+24The financial incentives are the only things that would distinguish a 'legal' marriage from just any old contract. If you are unburdened by ***** social dogma, you will realize that marriage is meaningless. The 2000 dollar rock(or whatever the average cost of diamonds are), the 45 dollar license and the same last name is not in any way meaningful. If you want to spend the rest of your life living with someone, you don't need any of those to do it. If you love someone, that is sufficient. This notion that a third party can somehow validate your bond with another is one of the stupidest things we continue to hold onto. An informal declaration amongst your loved ones should be plenty good to get the word out. You don't need a change in w-2 tax status to make some sort of sanctified union.
- s0nicfreak, on 11/27/2007, -1/+12"you are not, however, going to run someone over with your marriage."
I know many divorced people who would disagree... - owlfeathers, on 11/27/2007, -0/+11Yes, actually. There are many societies and cultures that accept same-sex relationships and unions.
- Amablue, on 11/27/2007, -0/+11The goat cannot consent. There are health concerns and genetic problems that arise from incest. There are, however, no problems with homosexuality. We shouldn't ban things based on arbitrary morality. The only things that really ought to be banned are things that infringe upon others' rights.
- cranium, on 11/27/2007, -1/+12There's no reason to be stupid and shallow. You'd see things a lot differently if you had been born gay.
- donte, on 11/27/2007, -0/+11They do get special benefits. Unlike a traditional business, churches aren't taxed on any of their incoming revenue as long as they maintain their 5013c status. They also aren't expected to be forced to uphold any equal protection laws in the country... they're free to exclude anyone they want because they can claim it in the name of religion -- try that at your office sometime and you'll be sued right out of business. I could keep going, but I think it's clear that churches *do* get special treatment.
- vidarino, on 11/27/2007, -4/+14Nor is the right to pick your nose. The constitution isn't a list of everything you're allowed to do.
If marriage was of a purely religious nature, why does it affect taxes, child custory, etc.? -
Show 51 - 100 of 552 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is