The word lifestyle reminds me of Inspector Grimm on The Thin Blue Line. How brilliant it was to create a character whose main function was to butcher the language. Vis a vis and apropos.

It makes me nervous to hear lifestyle in regards to gays and lesbians, probably because all the right-wing Christian crazies love to talk about “the gay lifestyle” (please imagine whiny voice). It’s as though it’s a choice similar to what color to paint the living room. I actually don’t care if people CHOOSE to be gay or straight, but it would be a choice requiring a little more depth and commitment than paint color. “My lifestyle includes a Southwestern-themed living room.”

Blah.

Oh really Martha? Dig this—

http://vimeo.com/13491562

And you know what you can do with your “lifestyle” crap.

Bigotry against race as the Conservative Republicans EXTREMIST propagandists espouse all the time against President Obama and his family on the Faux (fox) News Network, that is recorded daily by Media Matters For America at http://mediamatters.org/topic/onlyonfox/,  is far different than bigotry against a different type of lifestyle and should not be spoken of in the same context, as man’s race is given by God, while man’s lifestyle is fulfillment of man’s desire.

That means “Separate But Equal.”

And we all know what THAT means.

If you have an easily upset stomach, you won’t want to reach much of the schoolyard crap being foisted on the forum by Fat and David.  There should be a separate for children, and adults who act like them.

What Barry wants is “Separate But Equal.” Whodathink the first Black President would insist on “Separate But Equal” for another minority.

Obama is said to beleive in equal rights for gays, but not in gay marrage, now what does that mean?  So if we just changed the word gay to black, dost one beleive Obama would feel the same way? Hmmmm!

“My question to you is, if you can not properly defend marriage in general, how can you possibly defend gay marriage?”

You act as if they are separate categories. They aren’t.

” But don’t feel bad, I can’t get a good answer from straight Christian Conservatives about marriage in general, either. To them, it’s a form of social engineering.”

There’s nothing I can say that will win acceptance from you on any level whatsoever, Freddy. Your mind is made up

With Hospital Corners.

David Ehrenstein

My question to you is, if you can not properly defend marriage in general, how can you possibly defend gay marriage? But don’t feel bad, I can’t get a good answer from straight Christian Conservatives about marriage in general, either. To them, it’s a form of social engineering.

(who I know personally and loathe.)

You and me both.

Sorry, I don’t know him, but I do loathe him.

I have known a number of drug addicts in my time—the majority of them very noble souls

Not everyone who uses drugs is an addict. Now, who’s stereotyping? Is everyone who drinks an alcoholic? If I like to occasionally drop a few hits of mescaline and frolic through the woods, does that make me an addict?

This is a thread about same-sex marriage. Your attitude towards gays is indifference-bordering-on-open-hostility. You insist on turning this discussion back to your “issues” as a “Libertarian” and away fromthe gay rights movement

No, I merely posed a simple question. Which I still have not received a satisfactory answer. My indifference is towards marriage, not the gay rights movement, which I fully support. I can’t tell you how many friends of mine have gone through nasty divorces. It eludes me to wonder why anyone would want to get married in this day and age. Marriage is antiquated.

(who I know personally and loathe.)

You and me both. I hope you don’t think that he is a Libertarian. I can assure you, he is no where near it. And if you would like verification, I would be happy to point you towards several Libertarian blogs and publications to confirm this. And, that Sociology professor of mine was a flaming liberal. An ex-hippie, in fact.

If you want to do business with the state you need prior authorization and/or
licensing before a contract can be awarded.

Not necessarily. I am a contractor. Although I have never actually done business with the government, I did bid a few government jobs, and even applied for a research grant. The government does place some restrictions on who can bid. There are certain jobs that are set aside for certain minority owned and small businesses. You need to qualify in advance for those specific contracts. Other than that, it’s simply a matter of registering your business with CCR, and you need a D&B D-U-N-S number. You do not need a license, just an EIN/TIN from the IRS, and anyone can get one. Some DoD contracts may require a security clearance. But you have nothing to learn from me, right? It seems you know nothing about doing business with the government. Actually, I was surprised when I found all of this out. I thought for sure that there was more involved in doing government contracts.

You are agreeing that you will live by certain standards and in
return the state will recognize your marriage and provide all the appropriate
benefits.

Are those “standards” enumerated? If you violate those standards, are you in violation? Will the government then revoke your marriage certificate? Will they suspend those “appropriate benefits”? I don’t think that married people should get any benefits. It’s discriminatory against single people. And why would anyone even want to agree to “live by certain standards”? Sounds very conformist to me. And who sets those “standards”? Politicians? Clergy? Community activists? A spaceman? It seems to me, you can not define the “standards” or the “benefits” properly. I oppose “community standards” as a violation of my freedom to live my life the way I choose. As long as I am not violating anyone’s rights. And I oppose any special benefits to those who agree to them.

“You attacked me for using drugs.”

You brought up drug use. I merely pointed out this is what’s behind your pro forma “Libertarian” attack on government. I have known a number of drug addicts in my time—the majority of them very noble souls. None took your positions on government.

“I attacked you for being a liberal. But I guess because I don’t agree with you on other political issues, that must make me anti-gay, or even homophobic.”

This is a thread about same-sex marriage. Your attitude towards gays is indifference-bordering-on-open-hostility. You insist on turning this discussion back to your “issues” as a “Libertarian” and away fromthe gay rights movement—about which you evidence no comprehension or even the desire to comprehend.

” When I was in college, back in the 80s, I had a Sociology professor that said, “I would like to be able to disagree with a Black person without being called a racist”. Same thing here. Can I disagree with you politically without being called homophobic?”

What your Sociology professor demonstrated was as sure a sign of racism there is these days. I went to college in the 60’s. I;‘m black and have met scads of people exactly like your Sociology professor. Question them just a tiny bit more and you’ll find an Andrew Breitbart (who I know personally and loathe.)

And you’re just a demented ‘phobe.

Ahhh, name calling. The last resort of someone who can not win an argument. But we’re not having an argument. All I did was pose a simple question.

“Why should people even need a license to get married?”

But you are correct. I am demented. My two favorite film producers are John Waters and David Lynch. Took you long enough to figure that out. And yes, I am a “phobe”. I fear the government.

I DON’T HAVE A “IFESTYLE”—I HAVE A LIFE!!!!!

We all have a “lifestyle”. You attacked me for using drugs. I never attacked you for being gay. In fact, I said just the opposite. I said I would stand by you and help you fight for your rights. I attacked you for being a liberal. But I guess because I don’t agree with you on other political issues, that must make me anti-gay, or even homophobic. When I was in college, back in the 80s, I had a Sociology professor that said, “I would like to be able to disagree with a Black person without being called a racist”. Same thing here. Can I disagree with you politically without being called homophobic?

I question the entire institution of marriage. It is antiquated. There are many alternative forms of living and loving why should the State endorse only one? Why should the State endorse any?

Well I like three-ways as much as the next Dude. But I prefer the party of the third part to be visible.

When we enter into an intimate relationship with someone (and I don’t mean sexual), what we are committing to is a surrogate relationship that brings us in closer relationship with God; not as a replacement, but allowing our partner to unwittingly become a facilitator for our own healing processes; and we ALL have issues we have to work on ..... everyone. Those that say no, are just in a state of denial. As long as we are human, we have at least some baggage we need to work on and, once aware of it, it becomes a lifelong endeavor; a path.

That path brings us in closer alignment with God (however one choses to observe that concept). Once we are on that path, where we used to see someone as a threat, we may now look at that person as an opportunity for us to see if we’ve been paying attention and are now able to grow beyond our fears and reservations that we might have had.

But related to this topic, it makes no difference at all what genders are involved. That’s totally irrelevant. The purpose of a relationship is for us to use that opportunity with a person to bring us to a higher state of consciousness. Sometimes, these relationships seem too adversarial to be of any benefit, but
upon closer scrutiny, we find those to be the most powerful ones. It shows us where we have the most work to do on ourselves.

This whole fear and control number by the states or the Feds is meaningless except for state sponsored benefits or rights to property, etc. It just goes to show us how spiritually immature the entities we define as states really are. As long as two individuals are agreeing to put themselves in a position to
spiritually grow with one another, who’s business is it, really, but theirs and God’s ........ and I’m not a religious person by any stretch.

I hate to say it, Fat Freddy, but David is absolutely right about marriage and property rights. Do you think serfs had marriage ceremonies? No, they just lived together because there was NO PROPERTY to inherit. Only the upper classes married in the sense we use the term, and though we love to wreathe marriage in romantic candlelight and fragrant blossoms, it is, in essence, a state recognition of property rights.

Your neighbor may not have a license for his sofa, but he has a deed to his property and registration for his car. He is entering into an agreement with the state about the goods he owns.

I have no fondness for the state, but I recognize it’s not going away any time soon, and I think all people should be entitled to its benefits such as marriage. I cannot even imagine what it would be like to live with someone for 20 years, she gets cancer, and her parents exclude me from her hospital room then throw me out of the house that happened to be in her name. Yes, people can draw up lots of contracts to make sure such things don’t happen, but sometimes they don’t do so.

That said, your questions about marriage are thought-provoking and important.

After finding out my spouse and I really had not been married all these years because of some paperwork glitch, this was all of a sudden.  Thus, realizing we had been living in sin all this time, we decided we should have enjoyed it more,..... so we stopped the normal married bickering and arguing and announced to our twelve kids they were a flock of bastards.

Hi Fat Freddie,

I won’t engage in a tit for tat with you, but I did have to address your
completely irrational worldview. You can reply from now until doomsday, but I
won’t reply. I have read all your posts here and am quite confident I have
nothing to learn from you.

“No other contract needs pre-approval from the government, so it is must be
more than a contract.”

If you want to do business with the state you need prior authorization and/or
licensing before a contract can be awarded. This is true of any kind of contract
to which the state is a party. Marriage benefits such as tax deductions make
marriage by definition a contract with the state, not necessarily with person you
are marrying. You are agreeing that you will live by certain standards and in
return the state will recognize your marriage and provide all the appropriate
benefits.

“Typical gay response. Your alternative lifestyle is the only one that matters. Thank you for clearing that up.”

Typical breeder response. I DON’T HAVE A “IFESTYLE”—I HAVE A LIFE!!!!!

“You don’t care about freedom. You only seem to want to be able to stick a gay marriage license in the face of some religious fanatic, and say, “see this asshole? Fuck you, I’m married”.”

And you’re just a demented ‘phobe.

Thanks for clearing that up.

David Ehrenstein,

Aha—a drug addict. Shoulda guessed.

Typical gay response. Your alternative lifestyle is the only one that matters. Thank you for clearing that up.

His verdict on Prop 8 is not that of an “extremist.”

Always, prior to an election gay marriage hits the front page of controversy. If marriage isn’t to be used as an undefined choice to control elections, it seems the definition of marriage would be legislated in Congress as to exactly what marriage is, because that would cut down all controversy in law.

“Known as a conservative with a libertarian streak, Walker was first nominated to the federal bench by Ronald Reagan in 1987. His appointment was stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee, however, because a group of House Democrats—led by Nancy Pelosi—claimed he was insensitive to gays and the poor. George Bush the Elder renewed Walker’s nomination in 1989 and managed to get it through.”

It appears to me Conservatives are playing the gay card to try and make it look like it is only Democratic liberals, but this Judge is a Conservative Republican EXTREMISTS.  There are undoubtedly just as many gays proportionately on the autocratic, Conservative Republican Right as there are on the democratic Left.

Always, prior to an election gay marriage hits the front page of controversy. If marriage isn’t to be used as an undefined choice to control elections, it seems the definition of marriage would be legislated in Congress as to exactly what marriage is, because that would cut down all controversy in law.

You’re in Fugue State Freddy.

“The right to enter into private contract is a Natural, or Negative right, it is not a legal right.”

You can scribble whatever you want to on a piece of paer. It will bear no legal weight as a marriage license. 

“Guess again pal. I was locked up for standing up for my Natural right to put whatever the hell I want in my own body.”

Aha—a drug addict. Shoulda guessed.

” Were you ever locked up for sodomy?”

Were you ever chased by a knife and broken-bottle weilding mob? Didn’t think so.

” So, go cry to somebody else. Been there, done that.”

I’ve been places you’ve naever dreamed of, even in your druggy stupors.

Skag, right?

How can you “take back” what you don’t have?

Wrong, wrong, wrong. You had the right since the day you were born. We all have. We have allowed the government to take them away from us, or freely given them to the government. The right to enter into private contract is a Natural, or Negative right, it is not a legal right.

Back when gays and lesbians were a criminal class my life was controlled by the state IN WAYS THAT A CLUELESS LIBTARD LIKE YOU CANNOT SO MUCH AS BEGIN TO IMAGINE!!!!!

Guess again pal. I was locked up for standing up for my Natural right to put whatever the hell I want in my own body. Were you ever locked up for sodomy? Didn’t think so. So, go cry to somebody else. Been there, done that.

You love to control things more. You imagine you control yourself. You imagine you grant control of me to myself.

Wrong again. I wish I was in control of my own destiny. I wish I could grant you the power for yourself. I will stand by you to fight for that right, but you have to be willing to let go. You seem to still have reservations. I think you are afraid of freedom. I think you like the arms of government wrapped around you, protecting you like a mother protects her young. “She won’t let fly, but she might let you sing”. Fuck you. I want to fly. Do you?

“If they are “stated therein” they are not granted by the State, they are mutually agreed upon by the contracting parties”

They’re RECOGNIZED by the state, Freddy. Do you have so much as the SLIGHTEST idea what rights married persons have in relation to one anohter?

“Google” is your friend.

“Somewhere along the line, people turned their rights to enter into the contract of marriage over to the State.”

Like at the very beginning when marriage was invented.

“Now, we must take what they give us.”

How can you “take back” what you don’t have? You’re utterly delusional! Do you think mena and woman get married all by themselves and by granting them a license which innumerates their rights as married persons the state is taking something away from the?????

” And they do not want to give it to gay people.”
Because until quite recently we haven’t been recognized as anything otehr than a neurotic symptom—categorized as such by a Hungarian journalist named Karoly Benkert (aka. Karl Maria von Kertbeny—he being a confidence man and all.) Read “The Invention of Heterosexuality” by Jonathan Ned Katz for the whole story.

“Don’t try to force the government to give you the right, demand to take it back.”

Again, YOU’RE FUCKING DELUSIONAL!!!!!

“Once you turn over your right to purchase your own healthcare, you will be forced to take what they give you. Your Statism offers nothing but control and coercion. But, I guess, as long as they are controlling and coercing somebody else, it’s OK. Until they try to control you, like denying you a marriage because you are gay. So, just keep on giving more and more of your rights over to the State. They will gladly take them. The government loves to control things.”

You love to control things more. You imagine you control yourself. You imagine you grant control of me to myself.

Back when gays and lesbians were a criminal class my life was controlled by the state IN WAYS THAT A CLUELESS LIBTARD LIKE YOU CANNOT SO MUCH AS BEGIN TO IMAGINE!!!!!

Stonewall was the beginning of our fight back.

You’re against the giovernment you say—are you prepared to fight in the street for it?

Thought not.

Of course it does. Depending on the contract in question they’re all stated therein.

If they are “stated therein” they are not granted by the State, they are mutually agreed upon by the contracting parties.

For free health care? A resounding YES!!!!!!!
That’s what you people will never understand. Your vaunted “freedom” offers nothing.

No. For free legal services. Somewhere along the line, people turned their rights to enter into the contract of marriage over to the State. Now, we must take what they give us. And they do not want to give it to gay people. Don’t try to force the government to give you the right, demand to take it back. Same with healthcare. Once you turn over your right to purchase your own healthcare, you will be forced to take what they give you. Your Statism offers nothing but control and coercion. But, I guess, as long as they are controlling and coercing somebody else, it’s OK. Until they try to control you, like denying you a marriage because you are gay. So, just keep on giving more and more of your rights over to the State. They will gladly take them. The government loves to control things.

“Why not make all contractual marriages civil unions, gay and straight? Why must we get hung up on a word when people’s rights to freely enter into mutual, private contract are being violated?”

Because they don’t want me and mine to have it, that’s why.

It’s more than a “word.” Said “word” has meanign and power.

“Where do these rights and privileges come from? What exactly are they? Does the State grant special rights and privileges to two businesses that merge?”

Of course it does. Depending on the contract in question they’re all stated therein. 

“Then you willingly turn your rights over to the State.”

For free health care? A resounding YES!!!!!!!
That’s what you people will never understand. Your vaunted “freedom” offers nothing.

I don’t follow. It’s a contract recognizing two individuals as being enjoined. Ho does this differ from the state regnizing a business merger?

The state can not deny a business merger, unless it violates anti-trust laws, but that’s another debate. Currently the State is denying people the right of contract of marriage. The State refuses to recognize certain contracts that pertain to the union of two people. The State must recognize the merger of two businesses. Unless, of course, there are exigent circumstances. Like if one of the two parties was coerced into entering the contract. It’s the word “marriage” that has all the religious fanatics up in arms. Why not make all contractual marriages civil unions, gay and straight? Why must we get hung up on a word when people’s rights to freely enter into mutual, private contract are being violated?

with over a thousand rights and privileges to go along with it.

Exactly. Where do these rights and privileges come from? What exactly are they? Does the State grant special rights and privileges to two businesses that merge? I feel that people who enter into marriage should not be granted any special privileges.

And free health care too. But that’s a separate issue from marriage.

Then you willingly turn your rights over to the State.

There simply is no avoiding “state interference” no matter how hard you try to avoid it. Anarchy is not the state of governance of my State.

Well, no. There never will be. There will always be disputes. And it is up to the courts to resolve contractual disputes. But it isn’t always limited to the courts, nor should it be. I was reading an interesting article on restorative justice the other day, but that’s basically limited to minor criminal offenses, not contractual disputes. Contractual disputes can be, and sometimes are, handled by other neutral third parties, or arbiters.

“You want the State to provide you with free legal services?”

And free health care too. But that’s a separate issue from marriage.

“No other contract needs pre-approval from the government, so it is must be more than a contract.”

I don’t follow. It’s a contract recognizing two individuals as being enjoined. Ho does this differ from the state regnizing a business merger?

If you were to marry a woamn tomorrow (and there’s nothing stopping you if you can find a willing female) the state would simply be granting legal recognition. it wouldn’t tell you how to conduct your marriage (provided you and your wife don’t attack or murder each other or any resultant offspring.) You’re free as a bird, really—with over a thousand rights and privileges to go along with it.

Isn’t there some way we can get posters who want to discuss libertarianism to do so somewhere else?

Why? Is this board limited to Statists? It could be worse. I could be a Tea Bagger. In fact, I was a liberal/progressive, until I learned economics and finance. Oh, and how full of shit liberal/progressives really are. Almost as much as conservatives.

As I pointed out (TWICE!) Freddie, the state went in and cleaned out the bank account of a gay couple that had power of attorney.

Then, the state was wrong. The guy sued and won. Good for him, he deserved it. It’s a shame that they put him through the ordeal, though. But justice did prevail, IMHO. Hopefully, that lawsuit will be enough to prevent those assholes from doing that again.

An elderly Guerneville man who sued Sonoma County, claiming his sexual orientation caused social workers to keep him from his dying partner and led them to sell off the couple’s belongings, settled the case on the eve of trial Thursday for $600,000.
Clay Greene, who earlier this year sued the county’s Public Guardian program over his treatment after the death of longtime partner Harold Scull in 2008, will get $275,000. His attorneys will receive $300,000, and Scull’s estate will get the remainder.

The only thing that sucks, is his lawyers got more money than he did. Pricks.

Good. Then you’re in favor of Gay Marriage.

I never said I was opposed to gay marriage. I said, or implied, that I was opposed to all State sanctioned marriage, gay and straight.

As I have pointed out (TWICE!) they DIDn’T invent marriage. They claim they , but as with everything else they’re fucking liars!

OK. I’ll buy that. Ignore my previous little rant.

Sorry things haven’t worked out for you, Freddie.

Don’t feel sorry for me. Feel sorry for the 40-50% of people who get divorced.

Marriage would take all such problems away.

You want the State to provide you with free legal services? Get the fucking State out it. Why should they decide who can be married?

Marriage is a contract.

No other contract needs pre-approval from the government, so it is must be more than a contract.

No need to do that if same-sex marriage is recognized.

Well, I have a feeling that is coming, anyway. Don’t be surprised if they remove the marriage clause, if the surviving spouse has his/her own SS. Along with raising the retirement age, and the wage cap.

Isn’t there some way we can get posters who want to discuss libertarianism to do so somewhere else?

With regards to “religious domination of marriage” that is a red herring. If a religious person “marries” you in Texas before you have signed the legal marriage contract that act is a legally meaningless piece of theater. If that same person would have “married” you after you signed the legal marriage contract it too is a legally meaningless piece of theater. The so-called “sanctity” of the marriage ceremony exists only in the minds of the partners. Here in Texas “marriage” is a 100% civilian exercise. For that very reason you can have an atheist lawyer “marry you” which two of my three sons did.

Fat Freddie: of course you do not have to get a state licensed marriage in Texas. Of course you can make up your own “marriage” contract except that my state will not allow you to write just anything you would want into that contract. I doubt that any lawyer or notary public in Texas will endorse a contract that contains the stipulation that your partner can only leave the house with your permission. Sooner or later the state may get involved with contracts that violate state law. There simply is no avoiding “state interference” no matter how hard you try to avoid it. Anarchy is not the state of governance of my State.
I favor a mixed system in which couples have the option of a “standard state endorsed marriage” and whatever other legal forms of marriage are available.
I do not remember off-hand the number of years that unmarried partners must live together as “man and wife” here after which one of the partners can file that he/she is de-facto married and therefore has all the rights and protections of a legal marriage, meaning among others that his/her partner can no longer legally walk away with 100% of the jointly acquired property.

“I can go to the bank with a Notarized copy of a power of attorney contract and clean out a bank account.”

As I pointed out (TWICE!) Freddie, the state went in and cleaned out the bank account of a gay couple that had power of attorney. It couldn’t have done that if they were married. But because, being gay, marriage was impossible, the state pretended they were merely “roommates.”

“In my never never land, the State does not give special privileges to anyone. “

Good. Then you’re in favor of Gay Marriage.

“You should be fighting for contractual rights, not marriage rights.”

Marriage is a contract.

“Marriage is bullshit.”

Sorry things haven’t worked out for you, Freddie.

” If you continue to fight for marriage rights, the fucking religious whack jobs will continue to beat you down with their fucking Bibles. They invented marriage, and they know it, and they don’t want gays, so fuck ‘em.”

As I have pointed out (TWICE!) they DIDn’T invent marriage. They claim they , but as with everything else they’re fucking liars!

“If you can’t afford $50 to go to an attorney to draft a simple contract, perhaps you have greater problems than not being “allowed” to get married.”

Marriage would take all such problems away.

“If you are worried about your spouse’s Social Security, perhaps you should fight to change the SS laws.”

No need to do that if same-sex marriage is recognized.

Is there an echo in here?

We’re fast approach Fugue State, Freddy!

FiftyGigs

I can go to the bank with a Notarized copy of a power of attorney contract and clean out a bank account. If the bank refuses, I can take them to court. There is no option to have the State’s seal of approval on it. The contract is either valid, or it is not. Which is why I would go to an attorney to cross all the “t"s and dot all the “i"s, first. All attorneys are Notary Publics, at least in my state they are.

There are many basic form type contracts available at any stationary store. I have a pile of pre-printed contracts I use for my business. They are legal documents. I do not need to go to the State to get their seal of approval. The first time I rented an apartment, I signed a pre-printed rental agreement. It was a legal document. Hell, it didn’t even need to be Notarized. If there is a dispute, the Judge looks at it, and asks, “is this your signature? Is this yours?”, and the contract is usually ruled to be valid.

David Ehrenstein

I am not a Randian. I am more of a Rothbardian. But that is neither here nor there. I’m sorry, but I think you are fighting the wrong battle. In my never never land, the State does not give special privileges to anyone. I know there are many people who think that they have a special right to someone else’s property without their permission. You should be fighting for contractual rights, not marriage rights. Marriage is bullshit. If you continue to fight for marriage rights, the fucking religious whack jobs will continue to beat you down with their fucking Bibles. They invented marriage, and they know it, and they don’t want gays, so fuck ‘em. But that’s just my opinion. If you can’t afford $50 to go to an attorney to draft a simple contract, perhaps you have greater problems than not being “allowed” to get married. If you are worried about your spouse’s Social Security, perhaps you should fight to change the SS laws.

“I’m not sure I buy into that. Forgive the crude comment, but I think marriage was likely created when the first humanoids humped.”

Uh, no.

Marriage was created by landowners as a means of exchanging and inheriting property and services (ie. women and children) fromother landowners.

http://www.ehrensteinland.com/htmls/library/marriage.shtml

Religion, always trying to barge its greedy manical way into people’s lives, created a ceremony to preside over the contract signing. It then went on to claim that The Big Invisible Bi-Polar Daddy Who Lives in The Sky “created” marriage.

No you haven’t. Freddie. A bank account is not a marriage license, and neither are other such arrangements as I’ve already pointed out HERE

http://fablog.ehrensteinland.com/2010/07/24/fait-diver-strident-power/

Not that this, or anything anyone else says will stop you from declaring otherwise.

“Marriage was created by religion as a form of control.”

I’m not sure I buy into that. Forgive the crude comment, but I think marriage was likely created when the first humanoids humped.

Fat Freddy,

It appears to me that you’re getting hung up on the mere fact that the State is doing anything. You’re trying to come up with a way to remove the State from the equation.

I think what’s confusing you is that the State (according to liberalism) is just a proxy for “all of us”. For the condition of marriage to have any social meaning, we all have to agree. The State is the vehicle we use to do that, to hold (if you will) our mutual understanding of how marriage works—shared property, guardianship, etc. At least in that small sense. It does NOT define other things, like what you do in your bedroom. We limit the State’s power.

Yes, there’s control involved, but that’s inherent in the definition of “meaning”. You want to control my thinking, because you want to control my understanding of your marriage. It’s all about control, but the point is that WE, through the State, which is US, are in charge, rather than some self-anointed cleric.

And yes, it’s a ruse to get taxes, but hey… a politician needs his BMW.

dihey

A hunch is an opinion, albeit a weak one. And you offered that hunch as a response to my question. Forgive me for assuming that your hunch was not that of your own opinion, but an opinion of what another’s opinion, or reasons might be. And I never accused you of being paranoid. I said “if”. If this, then that. So, do you think that there is some sort of hidden message in the Libertarian Party platform? If so, then you are being paranoid. If not, then ignore it. See how that works?

Regarding the marriage laws in Texas: Why does one need a license to get married in the state of Texas? Why does one need to be “approved” by the State? Why can’t the two parties involved simply go to an attorney, or a Notary Public to make that contractual arrangement? Why must the State be involved? If a woman decides to stay at home, and both parties agree that the assets should be jointly owned, why does the State need to be involved? Does a prenuptial agreement take precedent over the 1/2 ownership law? Is Texas a common law marriage state?

I never claimed that a Libertarian world would be “an ideal world”. Arguing from ideological point of view, and claiming that that particular ideology would be perfect, are two different things. I would argue, though, that it is better than any other form of government.

http://www.lp.org/platform

Hi, Fat Freddy! Good question.

“Why can’t I show you a Notarized contract/agreement to prove that I am married?”

You can, and it would lend more credence to the existence of your relationship that just saying so.

However, all you have is a piece of paper forming a contract between you and your “spouse”. It would only establish binding clauses between the two of you, but wouldn’t carry any authority beyond that.

So one day (perish the thought) you croak. Your spouse rubs her hands greedily having finally gotten rid of you, and runs to the bank to clean out your money. The bank will say, no. She’ll say, but I have notarized contract that says I’m his spouse.

The bank’s high-priced lawyers will point out that the “contract” defines an understanding between you two. But you two never entered into an understanding with the state or anyone else about what marriage (and hence marital rights) means.

Think of it this way. If everybody just wrote up their own pieces of paper, who would decide what rights the OTHER guy’s spouse could claim from you and your business?

Put it to a vote? Okay. So, we vote that the state of Alaska shall consider the condition of marriage to include the right to clean out your spouse’s bank account.

Congratulations. You’ve just created a marriage license.

“You do not need to explain property rights to a Libertarian.”

Apparently I do.

“Libertarians” live in a never-neverland of “Freedom” as defined by Alice Rosenbaum and her noxious doorstop “Atlas Shrugged.”

Mariage is a contract with the stae. PERIOD!

You don’t like mthat ecause you want to be “free”? Fine. Don’t get married. Live like Branglina. If you make the sort of money they do you’ll be just fine. But the rest of us in what’s laughlingly referred to as “the real world” don’t have such options. And those of us who are gay have far fewer options.

But then you don’t know jack shit about that, and show not the slighest interest in learning.

While I agree with the Prop 8 trial court decision, even while I still carry within me some of the prejudice that my upbringing instilled in me, I am afraid it is quite too early to celebrate.  At this point, the decision is one man’s opinion.  It will only become meaningful if it also becomes the opinion of five Supreme Court justices. 

I admit that I have a great fondness for the boy/girl aspect of sex and marriage.  And still have vestiges of my aversion for all male sex (although all female sex is quite arousing), but the less emotional and more objective part of me, the fair minded part of me, has no problem seeing homosexuality as an inherent quality that a person does not invite into his life, and seeing further that it is folly to think that homosexuals can remain celibate while heterosexuals are unable to, and seeing further that encouraging monogamous homosexual relationships is very desirable, for both the homosexuals and society in general.

Fat Freddy: you put lots of opinions into my postings which are not there. With regards to banns, I only volunteered a hunch that this might be one reason why States demand that potential couples take out a marriage license. I never argued that banns are good or necessary. With regards to being paranoid what do you know about that state of mind that you warn me that I might be in it?
Here in the state of Texas one-half of the income of legally married spouses is the property of the other spouse. I am afraid that women in your ideal world who do not work but take care of the children will be saddled with “household money” once again. If I were a woman in your ideal world I would never trust any male ever to be fair with me and believe me I am a male.

“Government doesshould not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.”

Is that better? Forgive me for arguing from an ideological viewpoint. You are a pragmatist, and I can respect that, to a point. That’s part of the reason why Libertarians have a bad rap. We are not willing to sacrifice principles for pragmatism. Yes, it does make things difficult at times.

“Why can’t I go into my next door neightbor’s home and take his sofa and dining room set?”

Does your neighbor need a state sanctioned license to go and buy that sofa and dining room set? How about his house? His car?

Marriage is devolved from Property Rights.

No, it has not. The State has made property rights an issue of marriage, where it should not. You do not need to explain property rights to a Libertarian. Your property is your property. If you wish to share that property, or jointly own it with somebody else, nobody, not even the State, should prevent you from doing so. Nor should it assume that because someone is married, that the property is jointly owned. The State has no business telling people what they can own, and what they can not own. Of course, there are some exceptions to that rule, but that is not pertinent to this discussion.

“Why? Why must it be sanctioned by the state to be “legal”? No other private contract needs to be sanctioned by the state to be “legal”, why does marriage? Why? Why? Why?”

Because it’s a legal contract conferring property rights. You might as well ask “Why can’t I go into my next door neightbor’s home and take his sofa and dining room set?”

Marriage is devolved from Property Rights.

Capiche?

“I can reject religion, but I can not voluntarily reject the power of the State.”

True.

“Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.”

Oh really? Well you’re obviously a clueless straight with no knowledge whatsoever of gay and lesbian history. I suggest you start by putting “Milk” on your Netflix queque.The credit sequence alone will tell you tons that you don’t know—and have never realy been interested in finding out. After that get ahold of a copy of “Rough News—Daring Veiws” by Jim Kepner and “Gay New York” by George Chauncy (whose testimenoy was crucial in Judge Walker’s decision.)

dihey

All laws are subject to judicial review, whether they are passed by local referendums, state legislatures, or Congress. However, I have encountered some on the right that believe, somehow, that local referendum should trump any court decision or ruling. Their arguments are weak, hollow, and without any merit. I suppose they would prefer a “mob rule” system.

The political slogan “States Rights” was odiously born in the 19-th century not merely to preserve chattel slavery of blacks but to permanently engrave in the U. S. Constitution the unalienable right of slave masters to own slaves forever. The outcome of the Civil War permanently demolished this concept of an absolute “States Rights” and made clear that the U. S. Constitution overrides “States Rights” whenever a court rules that to be the case. This is exactly what happened in the California case. Get used to it: that is the way a true democratic Republic operates. Absolute “States Rights” is the foundation of permanent dictatorships which was so clearly illustrated by the case of the CSA.
For me, the mythical political slogan of “States Rights” still emits the vile stench of chattel slavery.

I have a hunch that it has, among others, to do with the banns. After all the purpose of the banns is to enable anyone to raise any canonical or civil legal impediment to the intended marriage. To do that one must not only know who gets married but one must have a reasonable period of time to raise impediments.

And you would be wrong. I am Agnostic and a Libertarian, and I oppose almost all attempts by the Church and the State to place limits, and controls on my freedom. Marriage was created by religion as a form of control. The special privileges given to married couples by the State, is an enticement for people to get married, so they are more easily controlled. I can reject religion, but I can not voluntarily reject the power of the State.

from the Libertarian Party platform:

1.3   Personal Relationships

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.

(my emphasis)

http://www.lp.org/platform

Now, if you think there is some hidden code in there, I can assure you, you are just being paranoid. Libertarians have no desire to force people to love Jesus Christ. And conversely, we have no desire to prevent people from loving Jesus Christ, or a tree in their back yard. Just, do not try to use the power of the State to force your beliefs on others, like enticing people with special privileges.

“I question the entire institution of marriage from a state sanctioned, legal viewpoint.”

Question away, Freddie. Doesn’t mean diddly unless you can find away to actually change the laws.

“This is yet one more case of
the Feds trying to usurp states rights powers, making anyone think that it has
any jurisdiction over the issue at all; it has none. This is strictly an issue of
posturing and intimidation by the Federal Government, and when people
realize this, then the next step is to realize how many other areas of
government the Feds have grossly overstepped their bounds.”

See above.

“The notion that governments sanctify legal marriage is made up out of whole cloth.”

Indedd. The government doesn’t “sanctify” that’s a con game handled by “Organized Religion.”

dihey

States rights are “mystical?” You might want to check into how many of the states
have either already refiled papers of your “mystical” sovereignty with the Feds or
are in preparation of doing so. Obviously, over half the states in the Union didn’t
get the memo you’re so sure you got.

I am greatly puzzled by some of the postings which ask questions or bring up issues that have nothing to do with judge Walker’s ruling such as: “why does one need a marriage license before getting married”? I have a hunch that it has, among others, to do with the banns. After all the purpose of the banns is to enable anyone to raise any canonical or civil legal impediment to the intended marriage. To do that one must not only know who gets married but one must have a reasonable period of time to raise impediments.
The notion that governments sanctify legal marriage is made up out of whole cloth. Sanctification is done within some religious organizations which governments are not.
Nearly all of my friends with whom I discussed this case could not correctly answer the question: “after all the witnesses and lawyers had testified in the case what was the first issue that judge Walker had to rule on”? It was a fundamental one from which everything else flowed namely: “within the context of this case are homosexuals a protected class of citizens, protected by the 14-th amendment that is”? Once judge Walker had ruled that the defendants had not produced “compelling evidence” to the contrary he ruled that homosexuals, again within the confines of this case, are a protected class of citizens hence that the U. S. Constitution overrides the mystical concept of “states rights” and that the State of California must treat homosexuals and heterosexuals equally. The logical derivative is that he ruled Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional but that consideration came at the end, not at the beginning. Those who believe that his process of ruling is unusual, hence that judge Walker overstepped his authority are utterly wrong. What judge Walker did was accepted standard procedure. The Supreme Court may not accept his final conclusions but mark my words the SC will not, will not question judge Walker’s standard procedures.

David Ehrenstein,

At least it is recognized in those states that it is. This is yet one more case of
the Feds trying to usurp states rights powers, making anyone think that it has
any jurisdiction over the issue at all; it has none. This is strictly an issue of
posturing and intimidation by the Federal Government, and when people
realize this, then the next step is to realize how many other areas of
government the Feds have grossly overstepped their bounds.

They don’t want any part of that. They want a dumbed down population that is
only interested in Monday Night Football or American Idol. God forbid that we
actually had engaging topics of Constitutional relevance on prime time TV; not
in legaleze that only the maggot lawyer population can understand, but
subjects that the average person can put their hands around and learn
something.

Unless it’s sanctioned by the state it’s not a legal marriage.

That is exactly what I question. Why? Why must it be sanctioned by the state to be “legal”? No other private contract needs to be sanctioned by the state to be “legal”, why does marriage? Why? Why? Why?

If you tell me it’s because of the special legal privileges afforded to those that are married, in the eyes of the state, I question again, why? Why should these people get special privileges? Why? Why? Why?

David Ehrenstein

Bredders can inherit each other’s Social Security.

That’s a special privilege. Why should it only apply to those who are married? If I live with a woman for 40 years, and we are not married, why shouldn’t she be entitled to my Social Security and vice versa? Perhaps it’s the Social Security law that needs to be changed? From what I understand, many private companies have changed their health insurance rules to include coverage of a life partner, gay or straight.

Like I said, I question the entire institution of marriage from a state sanctioned, legal viewpoint. If two people want to make a vow before their God, pronouncing their eternal, undying love for each other, far be from me to question that private ceremony. But when it comes to the governemnt, that provides special privileges to two people who enter into a private contract, which the government has the power to grant or deny, recognize, or not recognize, I must voice my opposition.

If I wish to enter into a business partnership, the government must recognize a legal, binding contract entered into by two (or more) consulting adults. The state should not be allowed to grant special privileges to a partnership that it does not grant to a sole proprietorship. The state should not impose or imply any provisions of that contract, unless there is a conflict, or breach. In that case, it should be determined by the courts, not the legislature or executive.

Either, all people should be allowed to get married, or no one should be allowed to get married. I prefer the latter.

Unless it’s sanctioned by the state it’s not a legal marriage.

Chruches can perform whatever ceremony they want to. That’s separate from what the stte does which is provide a legal contract signed by both parties. When you sign the contract you’re married. Saying the words is just an extra added attraction.

As for those breeders who “consider thmselves married” that’s just fine.

And meaningless.

Brad and Angelina are not married to each other. They have enough money to create all sorts of documentation about their relationship but it’s as nothing compared to what they would get in exchange for the pittance required to get married.

But Brad is a man and Angelina a woman. They can do that anytime.

I can’t do the same with my lover of 39 years.

a fortiori the fact that gay marriage has been made legal in select U.S. states still doesn’t affect the fact that Federally it’s not recognized. Bredders can inherit each other’s Social Security.

I can’t do that.

Capiche?

Fat Freddy, August 6 at 4:06 pm Link to this comment

“Why should people need a license to get married?”

No one should. It violates a sovereign citizen’s right to freely contract with
another. Now, let’s see how the legislators and the courts try to argue why they
think U.S. citizens should no longer have their sovereign status stripped away.

David Ehrenstein

Yes, that’s a very interesting article. But that still doesn’t answer my question.

Why should people need a license to get married?

And that article begs the question, why should married people be afforded any special rights and privileges over unmarried couples? That, seems to me, to be the underlying problem.

I am not opposed to gay marriage, I am opposed to all state sanctioned marriage.

Here’s why you need marriage “Fat Freddy”:

http://fablog.ehrensteinland.com/2010/07/24/fait-diver-strident-power/

That I’d live to see the day that the first Afircan-Americna President would demand “Separate But Equal” treatment for another minority makes me want to vomit and never stop.

If you read Walker’s decision—and you must—

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20100804_prop8_decision.pdf

you’ll find he makes hash of the notion that “civil Unions” are equivalent to marriage.

Go ahead and read the ruling.

ALL of it.

I’ll wait.

FiftyGigs

Why can’t I show you a Notarized contract/agreement to prove that I am married? That’s all you need for a Will or for power of attorney. Why is marriage different?

On a different note, if conservatives reject Judge Walker’s authority to rule on this matter, then anyone who is a member of organized religion cannot make laws pertaining to gay marriage because of their religious bias.

C. Curtis. Dillon is exactly right.

You don’t “need” a license to get married. You need a license if you want anyone else to recognize that you are married. Without a license, you can tell me that’s your spouse who is entitled to all spousal rights, but I can say no. It’d be your word against mine.

Registration is slightly different in legal character. It pertains to something that is already recognized, so as to record the fact.

C.Curtis.Dillon,

So, are you saying that people should need a license to enter into any private contract, or just certain ones. And if so, who makes that determination? Should I need a license to get a loan from a bank? From a friend? A license is not a prerequisite for filing a breach of contract lawsuit. Why should the state imply or impose any provisions of a private contract? To protect people? From whom? Themselves? Or does it make it easier on the courts if there is a dispute? Or both?

Registering something, and getting a license are two different things. Having to get a license implies that you need permission. A license can be denied. If you register your business as, say, an LLC (limited liability company), it is just a message to creditors saying that you can not be held personally liable for outstanding debts. The creditor can accept or deny that designation. And, you do not need the state to grant that designation, it can be done through a private attorney. In fact, most private contracts are handled by attorneys, and not by the state. Why shouldn’t a contract of marriage be handled by attorneys? Or even a Notary Public?

Guys ...

Because marriage is a legal partnership, just like a business.  It has legal ramifications for the partnership and for the state.  So you have to register you legal partnership, just like you have to when setting up a business.  Say ... when you decide to dissolve the marriage and get a divorce.  You need the legal entity before you can tear it apart.

There is also the church sanctioned part of the marriage but that is a separate issue.  Many marriages, like mine, have no church connection and yet, it is just as legit as any church affiliated one.

Good!  Some things are left to go right!  Er ...
I mean ... well you know what I mean.

Fat Freddy: because the actual marriage contract which must be signed before the piece of theater called “the ceremony”, which is legally irrelevant, takes place is protected and can be enforced by the governments of every State of the Union. Some violations of that contract can land you in court if not in jail.

Interesting subject.. people need license so we can
control it I guess.

Why should people even need a license to get married?