Political Crossfire Forums

ikari · Joined: 24 Sep 2004 Posts: 7111 Location: Colorado

That is right, we are talking about a license. And where did the government get the power to issue such a license? How is it that we have to ask the government's permission to enter into this specific contract? It's an interesting story of bigotry and intolerance. Once upon a time, there was no such thing as a marriage license. The government was not involved at all. The founding fathers had to ask no one for permission to marry, they were free to enter into the contract as they deemed fit. Then came the civil war, and an interesting fall out. Now the slaves were free, we acknowledged the slaves were actually human (go figure). Then some people started thinking what it meant for them to be free, what they would be allowed to do. And then they got scared about something. A white person marrying a white person was ok, no need to ask the government for permission there. A black person marrying a black person was also ok, no problem there. But uh oh, what happens if a white person wishes to marry a black person. Why this is unacceptable, there must be a way for the government to regulate this A way to stop this abomination of interracial marriage. Thus the marriage license was born. And it only applied to interracial marriage. A white person marrying a white person or a black person marrying a black person required no marriage license, but a white person marrying a black person did require the newly invented marriage license. Now the government had the power to regulate certain marriages, and they could prevent interracial marriages. Then people came to their senses. There was no reason to require a marriage license specifically for interracial marriage. And did we do the right thing? No, we did the exact opposite of that. Instead of removing the restriction of the marriage license upon interracial marriage, we subjugated every marriage to it. So instead of making people free, we subjugated everyone. Which goes to show that discrimination is ok so long as everyone is being discriminated against equally. The marriage license is an unconstitutional requirement imposed by the government when it usurped part of our unlimited right to contract.

Melchior · Joined: 02 Oct 2004 Posts: 9499 Location: Palm Beach

EDIT: Holy crap, go Ikari! 8)

SavannahMan wrote: I dont support making wholesale changes to the institution of marriage like that to satisfy less than 1% of the population.

We are talking about constitutional law and natural right. f**k the percentages and the majority. We are living in a constitutional republic and the majority cannot trump on the rights of the minority.

SavannahMan wrote: No one is suggesting that one group is superior to another group.

If one group has rights that another group does not, than the former group is superior and has special rights.

SavannahMan · Joined: 09 Jun 2004 Posts: 1307

A natural right? That is the same rhetoric that pedophiles and poligamists use.

There is no "right" to marriage - no matter how many times you want to incorrectly state that there is.

As for the diatribe on the history of marriage licensing - interesting if true - but if it were all about inter-racial marriage I wonder why every state in the union adopted such measures. In any case I think there needs to be some control over who enters into such contracts. Would you support two brothers getting "married", or a man "marrying" 100 women?

ikari · Joined: 24 Sep 2004 Posts: 7111 Location: Colorado

it's most true. Pick up a book and read about it one day. The states had no choice in the matter, the federal government instituted this and then used the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to expand the license to subjugate all marriages.

As for your other claims, what concern is that of mine?

SavannahMan · Joined: 09 Jun 2004 Posts: 1307

What claims did I make? I asked questions.

You seem to be arguing that the government should have no restriction on who can enter in to a contract of marriage. Sadly, that opinion won't hold up to any scrutiny at all. The government must have restrictions on it since marriage is now tied to so many things - from health insurance to taxes.

ikari · Joined: 24 Sep 2004 Posts: 7111 Location: Colorado

Perhaps I should clarify with your hypothetical questions.

Other than that, I want the removal of the federal government from marriage, like it used to be, like it should be. Taxes shouldn't come into play, that would be done away with. Health Insurance is up to the employer, there are already companies that extend benefits to significant others. The government can't enforce restrictions on conditions of contracts because they don't like the terms. As a citizen of the free and sovereign states, I have the unlimited right to contract and the government can't do anything about it.

SavannahMan · Joined: 09 Jun 2004 Posts: 1307

I feel you are ignoring the complications that would be created by removing the government from the equation.

Just in the health insurance part - could employers decide which "married" parties would be eligible to have thier partner(s) covered? Lawsuits galore. What would stop an entire frat house from becoming "married" so that they can all enjoy the health care coverage that one member of the frat house was afforded from his employer.

Your suggestion is to remove all restrictions on the "contract" of marriage. This sort of thinking would only exacerbate the need for a constitutional amendment.

ikari · Joined: 24 Sep 2004 Posts: 7111 Location: Colorado

There is no need for any sort of amendment, just return the full rights to the people. You are making some absurd claims to try to push your point. But if an employer allowed members of a fraternity to claim to be "married" and offer all of them health insurance, that is their prerogative.

SavannahMan · Joined: 09 Jun 2004 Posts: 1307

You completely miss the point.

You advocate removing all restrictions from marriage contracts.

So what you consider to be an absurd marriage would still be a marriage and if an employer was offering benefits to the spouse of a traditional marriage the frat house would certainly have a court case that they be granted the same benefits.

What you dont understand is that while you consider my examples to be "absurd marriages" the vast majority of Americans consider same-sex marriages to be absurd also.

ikari · Joined: 24 Sep 2004 Posts: 7111 Location: Colorado

And they can keep thinking it absurd, that's fine. They can't do anything about it. I answered your silly little hypothetical. I didn't call the marriage absurd, I called your hypothetical absurd. I'm sorry that you are so clearly aligned against freedom, but I stand firmly for it; and I will gladly accept the consequences and results that come from being free.

SavannahMan · Joined: 09 Jun 2004 Posts: 1307

Oh what flowery rhetoric....too bad its empty.

Let me guess - following your logic that the government doesnt have the right to issue licenses, they should get out of the driver's license and hunting license business too?

Attention passengers: We seem to be approaching tin foil hat territory

eXploiTeD · Joined: 05 Nov 2004 Posts: 7998

SavannahMan wrote: Oh what flowery rhetoric....too bad its empty.

Let me guess - following your logic that the government doesnt have the right to issue licenses, they should get out of the driver's license and hunting license business too?

Attention passengers: We seem to be approaching tin foil hat territory

The US government is constitutionally allowed to issue driving licenses, since roads are (1) publically owned, publically maintained grounds, thus subject to public overview, (2) they deal with interstate commerce and (3) regulation of roads is in line with the maintenance of civil infrastructure, otherwise known as the second mandate of the State.

The government should not be issuing hunting licenses, except in the case where one wishes to hunt on public land, in which case the government can feel free to set game limits, limit who hunts, etc. Otherwise, who hunts what and when should be up to the property owner.

On the other hand, a marriage license is a personal contract between two consenting adults, and thus should not be regulated by government, since people have the right to unlimited contract. Nice attempt at confusing the issue though.

SavannahMan · Joined: 09 Jun 2004 Posts: 1307

And a marriage has tax and legal implications...

The tin hats have arrived.

Look lets at least try to keep this debate based in reality. The government is not getting out of the marriage regulation business. So who is really trying to confuse the issue?

eXploiTeD · Joined: 05 Nov 2004 Posts: 7998

SavannahMan wrote: And a marriage has tax and legal implications...

The tin hats have arrived.

Look lets at least try to keep this debate based in reality. The government is not getting out of the marriage regulation business. So who is really trying to confuse the issue?

Marriage only has tax and legal implications because the government got involved in the first place. Give me one important consequence of marriage that could not be handled by the private sector. Just one, and I'll secede your point.

This debate is based in reality... unfortunately, you seem to be off someplace else, demolishing the argument by saying "Gee, it's not going to happen."

F'losrix · Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 5:02 pm Post subject:

SavannahMan wrote: I feel you are ignoring the complications that would be created by removing the government from the equation.

Just in the health insurance part - could employers decide which "married" parties would be eligible to have thier partner(s) covered? Lawsuits galore. What would stop an entire frat house from becoming "married" so that they can all enjoy the health care coverage that one member of the frat house was afforded from his employer.

Your suggestion is to remove all restrictions on the "contract" of marriage. This sort of thinking would only exacerbate the need for a constitutional amendment.
If the government has no involvement in marriage there are now complications. There would be no grounds for lawsuits because there would be no law they could point to in seeking equal protection.

eXploiTeD · Joined: 05 Nov 2004 Posts: 7998

I'm interested to see if he'll be able to name one thing that cannot be taken care of by the private sector... If he can't, he's clearly lost this debate.

Protostar · Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 5:13 pm Post subject:

Would it be okay for me to come out and say that I have changed my arguement as far as gay marriage is concerned? Based on Ikari's arguement I've come to the conclusion that the gov't should have no say in marriage whatsoever. I know I'm going to get alot of flak for this considering my previous arguements but this is something I just had to say.

Jay2014 · Joined: 31 May 2005 Posts: 1243

SavannahMan wrote: And a marriage has tax and legal implications...

The tin hats have arrived.

Look lets at least try to keep this debate based in reality. The government is not getting out of the marriage regulation business. So who is really trying to confuse the issue?

well, the main point is the government needs to get out of the marrige regulation business.
all the tax and legal implications should be done away with, and would be by default if the government got out of marrige.

eXploiTeD · Joined: 05 Nov 2004 Posts: 7998

Protostar wrote: Would it be okay for me to come out and say that I have changed my arguement as far as gay marriage is concerned? Based on Ikari's arguement I've come to the conclusion that the gov't should have no say in marriage whatsoever. I know I'm going to get alot of flak for this considering my previous arguements but this is something I just had to say.

Flak? You'll get no flak from me.

:tu:

Well done Ikari!

Jay2014 · Joined: 31 May 2005 Posts: 1243

Protostar wrote: Would it be okay for me to come out and say that I have changed my arguement as far as gay marriage is concerned? Based on Ikari's arguement I've come to the conclusion that the gov't should have no say in marriage whatsoever. I know I'm going to get alot of flak for this considering my previous arguements but this is something I just had to say.

that is the point of having rational debate. if no one ever reevaluated their opinions, there would be no need to discuss any of them.