5 ms·

I'm the kind of guy who would marry another guy. So, I have standing to have an opinion about Gay Marriage. I don't want the government in marriage AT ALL.

by MCRed 12y ago

I'm the kind of guy who would marry another guy. So, I have standing to have an opinion about Gay Marriage. I don't want the government in marriage AT ALL. Making the laws "more neutral" means getting gender out of the laws. This is a correct first step. Marriage is merely an expression of the right of freedom of association, which all people have. You don't need new laws to make it exist. But you should get rid of laws that violate it. Alas, most gays and lesbians are more leftist and wanted some sort of recognition form the government.... if they had taken the position of getting government out of marriage completely, they would have found many christians (whose ideas of what their marriages should be are regularly infringed upon by government) as allies. I'll take Rand Pauls government out of marriage over Bill Clinton (signed DOMA) and the democrats (3/4 of which voted for DOMA) and Obama (he was anti-gay marriage before he was "for" it) anyday.

natmaster 12y ago
This. Marriage certificates were invented by the government originally to prevent white and black people from marrying. Their only purpose seems to be to oppress.
- GabrielF00 12y ago
  Some googling shows this to be, at best, partially true. While marriage license requirements were used to prevent miscegenation, they were not invented for that purpose and they have been used for other purposes. >Not until the 16th century did European states begin to require that marriages be performed under legal auspices. In part, this was an attempt to prevent unions between young adults whose parents opposed their match. >The American colonies officially required marriages to be registered, but until the mid-19th century, state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. By the later part of that century, however, the United States began to nullify common-law marriages and exert more control over who was allowed to marry. >By the 1920s, 38 states prohibited whites from marrying blacks, “mulattos,” Japanese, Chinese, Indians, “Mongolians,” “Malays” or Filipinos. Twelve states would not issue a marriage license if one partner was a drunk, an addict or a “mental defect.” Eighteen states set barriers to remarriage after divorce. >In the mid-20th century, governments began to get out of the business of deciding which couples were “fit” to marry. Courts invalidated laws against interracial marriage, struck down other barriers and even extended marriage rights to prisoners. >But governments began relying on marriage licenses for a new purpose: as a way of distributing resources to dependents. The Social Security Act provided survivors’ benefits with proof of marriage. Employers used marital status to determine whether they would provide health insurance or pension benefits to employees’ dependents. Courts and hospitals required a marriage license before granting couples the privilege of inheriting from each other or receiving medical information. Source: [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/opinion/26coontz.html http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/opinion/26coontz.html]
  - natmaster 12y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws_in_the_... The context here is United States. I don't know anything about European marriage nor is it relevant to this conversation.
    - GabrielF00 12y ago
      This Yale Law Journal article outlines the arguments made by 19th century state courts on both sides of the common law marriage issue: [http://www.jstor.org/stable/797340 http://www.jstor.org/stable/797340]
- tomjakubowski 12y ago
  > Marriage certificates were invented by the government originally to prevent white and black people from marrying. Their only purpose seems to be to oppress. This is a remarkable claim. Do you have a source backing it up? Bear in mind that marriage certificates exist in many countries which, historically and today, do not have very many black citizens or white citizens.
maratd 12y ago
> I don't want the government in marriage AT ALL. Making the laws "more neutral" means getting gender out of the laws. Why stop there? Take marriage out of the laws completely. If your religious institutions marries men to men, women to women, or hell, men to goats or chairs, I don't see why the government should stick its nose in it.
- Tiksi 12y ago
  While I agree that it's not the government's place to be involved in marriage, I doubt marriage will ever be taken out of the laws. If only for tax reasons alone, most (married or planning to be married) people will be against abolishing the laws that give them a tax break. Plus, marital status is deeply intertwined with many laws/regulations.

by MCRed 12y ago

natmaster 12y ago

This. Marriage certificates were invented by the government originally to prevent white and black people from marrying. Their only purpose seems to be to oppress.

GabrielF00 12y ago
Some googling shows this to be, at best, partially true. While marriage license requirements were used to prevent miscegenation, they were not invented for that purpose and they have been used for other purposes. >Not until the 16th century did European states begin to require that marriages be performed under legal auspices. In part, this was an attempt to prevent unions between young adults whose parents opposed their match. >The American colonies officially required marriages to be registered, but until the mid-19th century, state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. By the later part of that century, however, the United States began to nullify common-law marriages and exert more control over who was allowed to marry. >By the 1920s, 38 states prohibited whites from marrying blacks, “mulattos,” Japanese, Chinese, Indians, “Mongolians,” “Malays” or Filipinos. Twelve states would not issue a marriage license if one partner was a drunk, an addict or a “mental defect.” Eighteen states set barriers to remarriage after divorce. >In the mid-20th century, governments began to get out of the business of deciding which couples were “fit” to marry. Courts invalidated laws against interracial marriage, struck down other barriers and even extended marriage rights to prisoners. >But governments began relying on marriage licenses for a new purpose: as a way of distributing resources to dependents. The Social Security Act provided survivors’ benefits with proof of marriage. Employers used marital status to determine whether they would provide health insurance or pension benefits to employees’ dependents. Courts and hospitals required a marriage license before granting couples the privilege of inheriting from each other or receiving medical information. Source: [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/opinion/26coontz.html http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/opinion/26coontz.html]
- natmaster 12y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws_in_the_... The context here is United States. I don't know anything about European marriage nor is it relevant to this conversation.
  - GabrielF00 12y ago
    This Yale Law Journal article outlines the arguments made by 19th century state courts on both sides of the common law marriage issue: [http://www.jstor.org/stable/797340 http://www.jstor.org/stable/797340]
tomjakubowski 12y ago
> Marriage certificates were invented by the government originally to prevent white and black people from marrying. Their only purpose seems to be to oppress. This is a remarkable claim. Do you have a source backing it up? Bear in mind that marriage certificates exist in many countries which, historically and today, do not have very many black citizens or white citizens.

maratd 12y ago

> I don't want the government in marriage AT ALL. Making the laws "more neutral" means getting gender out of the laws. Why stop there? Take marriage out of the laws completely. If your religious institutions marries men to men, women to women, or hell, men to goats or chairs, I don't see why the government should stick its nose in it.

Tiksi 12y ago
While I agree that it's not the government's place to be involved in marriage, I doubt marriage will ever be taken out of the laws. If only for tax reasons alone, most (married or planning to be married) people will be against abolishing the laws that give them a tax break. Plus, marital status is deeply intertwined with many laws/regulations.