26
Apr
10

Tell Government to Shove Marriage Up Their ***

Over two years ago I wrote a list of five things I thought that the government should not be involved in – marriage, foreign entanglements, education, religion, and child rearing. The post can be found here.

I want to jump back on the first thing on my list – marriage. Why in the world is the government involved with or interested in who we marry? Seriously? As with other things in life, when the government get’s involved, what does it have to gain by doing it? Does it gain money? Does it gain power? Does it gain control? Or does it gain something else?

Every year we hear the politicians screaming and hollering from both sides about how they do or do not support gay marriage. But why is government supporting any marriage anyways? I know. I know. The Republicans have somehow been swept up in this evangelical movement where they want to incorporate church beliefs into their platform. Not only is this wrong, but this is stupid of the Republicans.

I think it is time we stop complaining and arguing about who does and does not get married and start realizing the real problem of the matter – government intervention. What right does the government have to label you married or not?

Let me make this simple. The government wants to control marriage because they want to control you. Yep, that’s right. When you get married and get that certificate of marriage it means nothing to anyone. It certainly means nothing to the government. Ah, but you say, “I get tax reduction as a married person.” Very true, you do. But taxation is a tool of the government so to have a certificate from the government to reduce your government balance is just another way to swindle you into their control. You see, the certificate means nothing for your love. But it means that the government will treat you differently because of it.

What ever happened to equal taxation? Or equal treatment under the law? Why is it that I have to get a piece of paper from the government saying that I want to be treated at a lesser rate than others? Isn’t marriage supposed to be an agreement between two people (and their god, if they believe that). Seriously, if you think about it, the marriage certificate is kind of like some sort of jacked up coupon for people. I have to confess my love for someone and have the government approve it so that I can continue to love that person. Really, that is pretty f’d up if you ask me.

So instead of sitting around and arguing about who has the right to marry via the government and start telling the government that it has no right to tell us who we can and cannot marry – heterosexual or homosexual. Quit using money (taxation) to herd us into a certain moral mentality. This is disgusting and you should think so too.

Advertisements

18 Responses to “Tell Government to Shove Marriage Up Their ***”


  1. 1 Alan Scott
    27 April 2010 at 18:15

    Kyle,

    I have to disagree with you on this . I am a traditionalist. People can be together and call it anything they want, but marriage is a legal condition . It is far more than a religious affair . I cannot marry my dog or a a child . Marriage has a legal history in this country, quite separate from religious concerns .

  2. 28 April 2010 at 00:36

    Alan: You are right. Marriage IS a legal condition, BUT WHY? Why is it a legal issue? Why is it that the government has a right to say who we can or cannot be with?

    How about government separates it’s involvement in people’s personal lives and if there is a legal issue at hand, then deal with it on a separate basis?

    Let me ask you this. What did people do before they had to get permission to marry?

  3. 3 Alan Scott
    29 April 2010 at 14:42

    Kyle,

    ” Let me ask you this. What did people do before they had to get permission to marry? ”

    Depends. Depends on how far back you want to go . Originally they just mated or formed associations with other individuals . I’ve never researched it specifically but marriage in early times would have been for these reasons . Protection for the women and children so that the man could not just abandon them . Protection for the man, in that he was raising his biological offspring and if he were rich that he was leaving his property to those biological offspring . Also legal protection for the man to keep other men away from his wife .

    If you really want to get into the cultures preceding our own.

    http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html

  4. 1 May 2010 at 12:50

    @Alan: OK, so what is the point here?

    Ancient Greece and Rome:
    Marriage was an institution made so that people could mate in monogamy.

    marriage and divorce were always personal, civil agreements between the participants and did not need the stamp of governmental or religious approval

    and had no qualms about homosexual relationships

    Marriage in Ancient Israel:
    Marriage was an institution made so that people could mate and carry on the man’s name.

    Medieval Europe:

    Marriage and divorce continued to be civil and private matters.

    Marriage in Modern Europe and America:
    Marriage was an institution so that people could confess their love for one another.

    So with all that said, the link did not help me understand what you mean when you say there is a “legal history” on this matter. I can see how “marriage” has changed over the years, sure… but I am still not seeing your point…

  5. 5 Alan Scott
    1 May 2010 at 16:21

    Kyle,

    My point is that Marriage has always been a legal contract between a man and a woman . If gays want to live together and form legal bonds they can do it in other ways . Expanding legal marriage rights to gay couples dilutes the value of traditional marriage . It’s like any other value inflation, it weakens the value . Obama weakens our currency by printing money . Liberal Teachers destroy the value of an A by giving it to everybody . When I coached Youth Soccer we devalued our awards by giving trophies to all, instead of to just the Championship teams .

  6. 6 DJ
    2 May 2010 at 17:13

    If I am not mistaken, the Social Security act provided a mechanism for providing benefits to the survivors of dead contributor if proof could be shown that they were married (i.e. a marriage license).

    I also believe that many states wanted to prevent cross-racial marriage (particularly after emancipation), the marriage license was used to allow the state to ensure whites and blacks did not marry, thereby keeping the white race “pure”. Courts have since ruled these types of marriage restrictions unconstitutional (and rightly so, imo).

    I am of the opinion that a “marriage” is a covenant between two people and their God, there is no reason for government at any level to be involved. The legal system provides many mechanisms to protect partners (read spouses) and offspring in the event of a death or a break-up.

  7. 2 May 2010 at 20:24

    @Alan Scott:
    You have provided nothing of the legal contract matter in my opinion. In all those examples people were married either as a contract between the families or a contract between the church and the couple. The only time the law was applicable to the married couple was when there was a divorce. This makes sense – if you are in a partnership with another person and have common interests or property then that needs to be divided. The law provides for these very kinds of divisions without taking marriage into consideration.

    I am not arguing this point over the word “marriage” or who can or cannot be married or the institution of marriage. I think if someone wants to be in a “marriage” then they can do so. However, under the law anyone wanting to be with someone else would be a civil-union.

    Specifically speaking on a topic of adoption I think that this issue should be handled as such – to have the right you have to have the ability. In other words, if you are a gay couple then it doesn’t matter how many times you have sex, you will never procreate. So if you do not have the natural ability to do something then the law should not force it to be possible. This is not to say that gay couples cannot have children. going back to an earlier point, I think that gay couples have every right to contract out a child. That sounds weird so let me provide an example. Homosexual male couple and homosexual female couple get together and form a contract to have some sort of “sex” (IVF, probably) to procreate. They do have that ability and I think they have the right to contract out as well. So, in this case, they can have children… because they can naturally produce offspring this way. This is not the law forcing the issue… it is their natural right to contract that is affording them this opportunity.

    I think all other things are handled, as DJ said, in other legal mechanisms.

    Alan, I have a few more direct questions for you. Do you think that all people should be treated with equality? If not, then what does this say about the American Dream of doing whatever you put your mind to? If so, then how does giving certain (married people) a tax break over other people give us equality?

  8. 8 Alan Scott
    4 May 2010 at 17:02

    Kyle,

    ” Alan, I have a few more direct questions for you. Do you think that all people should be treated with equality? If not, then what does this say about the American Dream of doing whatever you put your mind to? If so, then how does giving certain (married people) a tax break over other people give us equality? ”

    I will be honest with you . I am a little hypocritical on this issue because of my personal history . I was single until I was 30 . When I was working with all of these married guys with large families, I resented the tax breaks they got . I was subsidizing their wives and kids . I also had my working schedules and vacations screwed up because of their family emergencies .

    Later on when I had a wife and kids, I was finally on the receiving end of it . I agree it is not fair . If someone repeals these tax breaks, I will not cry, only because I will soon not be using them . I agree in principle with your argument.

  9. 5 May 2010 at 03:08

    Well, at least you admit that you are a hypocrite and that people should be treated with differing equalities.

  10. 10 Alan Scott
    5 May 2010 at 19:34

    Kyle,

    ” Well, at least you admit that you are a hypocrite and that people should be treated with differing equalities. ”

    I try to be honest with my friends . I find in life it is impossible to not be hypocritical sometimes . The hardest thing is not lying to yourself .

  11. 6 May 2010 at 03:44

    I guess I just don’t see how we can have equality under the law if we make exceptions for certain instances. It seems fundamentally wrong and counter-productive to a blind lady-justice.

  12. 12 Alan Scott
    6 May 2010 at 19:41

    Kyle,

    I agree with you, but you have shifted the focus from gay marriage to marriage tax privileges. I won’t concede on gay marriage just the tax benefits . But you hit on a central point, whenever the government grants special rights, it does so at the expense of other groups . Even though I’m against gay marriage, I concede they have chance of winning because of their organized advocacy . Tax benefits paid for by singles are more unfair and less likely to be changed . The reason is that unmarried and childless people are like smokers . The government can routinely mess with them and they will never stick together and fight .

  13. 7 May 2010 at 11:24

    Alan Scott,
    I still don’t really understand how one can be an advocate for equality and equality under the law but not see something vastly wrong with the government treating someone differently under the law due to them signing a piece of paper with the state.

    How am I shifting the focus from gay marriage to marriage tax privileges? You say that you are not for gay marriage and I say that I believe it to be unfair for the government to say no, and then to promote against it fiscally via taxes.

    I don’t know what you are exactly saying is wrong with “gay marriage.” You have mentioned that there is a legal history but haven’t really provided much on that issue. What do you believe is right about a homosexual couple being denied the right to be together? Can you please elaborate on why you think that it is OK for the government to give certain benefits/special treatment to a specific group of people?

  14. 14 Alan Scott
    7 May 2010 at 17:48

    Kyle,

    I very much like to argue with people on the other side of the isle . I am somewhat surprised to find us on opposite sides . I normally like to go for the jugular in my battles, and do not wish to do that here . However, I chose to comment on your statement so .

    ” What do you believe is right about a homosexual couple being denied the right to be together? ”

    I believe you have misstated the issue . Homosexual couples are not being denied the right to be together . Cohabitation and marriage are different .

    ” I still don’t really understand how one can be an advocate for equality and equality under the law but not see something vastly wrong with the government treating someone differently under the law due to them signing a piece of paper with the state. ”

    I have to admit that the way you frame your questions makes it difficult to give good answers . Let me try this . I separate the Human Being from the action . All Human Beings are equal under the law . A gay person is free to marry a person of the opposite gender, so they have exactly the same rights as a straight person . A straight person cannot marry a same gender partner . A gay person cannot marry a same gender person either . Exactly the same rights under the law .

    Now, the action is different under the law. Marriage between people of different genders is permitted under the law . Same sex marriage is not . Marriage is also regulated by age . We don’t want 40 year old men marrying 13 year old girls . You have not commented on that . Also what if a brother and sister married ? Shouldn’t the government permit that ? What about polygamy ? By your purist interpretation polygamists are being denied their civil rights .

    Explain to me the difference in your eyes between a gay marriage, an incestuous marriage, and a polygamous marriage .

  15. 7 May 2010 at 18:53

    Alan Scott,

    I have to admit that the way you frame your questions makes it difficult to give good answers. Let me try this. I separate the Human Being from the action. All Human Beings are equal under the law . A gay person is free to marry a person of the opposite gender, so they have exactly the same rights as a straight person. A straight person cannot marry a same gender partner. A gay person cannot marry a same gender person either. Exactly the same rights under the law.

    So in other words… you wish to legislate feelings and in an indirect way, morality?

    Now, the action is different under the law. Marriage between people of different genders is permitted under the law. Same sex marriage is not. Marriage is also regulated by age. We don’t want 40 year old men marrying 13 year old girls. You have not commented on that. Also what if a brother and sister married? Shouldn’t the government permit that? What about polygamy? By your purist interpretation polygamists are being denied their civil rights.

    Explain to me the difference in your eyes between a gay marriage, an incestuous marriage, and a polygamous marriage.

    Let me put it this way… where in the Constitution does it permit the government to regulate the union/marriage of its people?

    Answer me that and we will discuss the rest if you want…

  16. 16 Alan Scott
    8 May 2010 at 09:40

    Kyle,

    ” Let me put it this way… where in the Constitution does it permit the government to regulate the union/marriage of its people? ”

    You know very well that regulating Marriage is not in the US Constitution . As far as I know marriage laws are written by individual States . The problem as I see it is that States generally recognize marriages performed in other States . My State of Pennsylvania does not permit gay marriage so why should it be forced to deal with gay couples moving here from States that do permit it ? Again, if another State decides that Polygamy is a great idea and a Polygamous family moves to Pa. , my State cannot enforce it’s own laws against that practice ??

    How about under age marriage ? What may be legal in one State might get you put on a sex offender list in another .

    “Answer me that and we will discuss the rest if you want… ”

    I have answered you . It ain’t in there . Now answer my questions . If Massachusetts wants gay marriage, I don’t care, I don’t foresee ever living there . If you want to talk about national issues , I do not want the Federal Government forcing my State to permit it because other States do .

    Something just occurred to me . The Liberals want to make this a civil rights issue, so let’s compare it to slavery . The original Constitution did not outlaw slavery . It was a State issue . Outlawing slavery was added to the Constitution in the Civil War era. Free States did not have to recognize the status of a slave once the slave crossed into their borders . Although I seem to remember slave States sending kidnappers to get slaves returned from free states as property . Which is why slaves usually went on to Canada .

    I see it as the same pre Civil War condition right now with respect to gay marriage . Until a new Amendment permitting or outlawing same sex marriage is put into the Constitution, the States should make that call .

  17. 8 May 2010 at 10:45

    Alan Scott,
    I know it is not in the Constitution. So if it is a state issue, then where does it say in any state constitution that they are going to regulate marriage or anything else that goes on behind closed doors?

    I have answered you. It ain’t in there. Now answer my questions.

    Again, we are not going to debate other marriages until we figure out where the government is getting this power to regulate in the first place.

    Are you saying that we should have governments operate outside their ceded power?

  18. 18 Alan Scott
    8 May 2010 at 21:11

    Kyle,

    You do not make a distinction between State and Federal Power. I do . In the beginning of the Republic there was a great fight between the two . The States feared the Central Government and limited it’s power . Gradually the Federal Government has grabbed more power . This has caused the States to grab more from the people instead of defending what they had. California bans soda from public schools. I doubt that is in their State Constitution .

    I believe that State’s laws on marriage were probably grandfathered in from Colonial times . I’m guessing that no one has ever mounted a successful legal challenge to the basic right of the States to make marriage laws .

    ” Again, we are not going to debate other marriages until we figure out where the government is getting this power to regulate in the first place. ”

    The government gets it’s power from the people we keep sending to Washington and our State capitals . That includes judges .

    So what is your ultimate goal ? Are you in favor of forcing all of the country to allow gay marriage or would you ban all government recognition of marriage ? No one would have any legal rights and marriage would be strictly a religious fiction . When that happens, all divorce laws become null and void . I never thought of that before . A lot of divorced men paying alimony and splitting community property with their non ex-wives would be happy .


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Quotes:

"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth... For my part, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst; and to provide for it." - Patrick Henry

"Politicians and diapers both need to be changed, and for the same reason." - Anonymous

"Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it." - William Penn

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country" - Hermann Goering

"I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do this I keep on doing." - Romans 7:18-19

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." - Mark Twain

Categories


%d bloggers like this: