why do we even have laws?!?!?
Bingo. Honestly, a "marriage" as we know it now, needs to become two separate items (it sort of is now, but the line is very blurry).
1) Marriage is a religious ceremony to completed by your deity's representative of choice. Congratulations.
2) Civil Union. The legal binding of two willing individuals for the legal purpose of 'death and taxes', i.e. dependents, automatic power of attorney, and death benefits, etc.
If we separate these two items, the issue goes away. Those that object to something can continue to object and the legal crap can be put to rest.
I personally think that somewhere along the line, we went WAY beyond ensuring public order and simply criminalized things we would find offensive if we learned about them, even if no one was harmed and there was no breach of the public peace. That's something we need to get a handle on, before we all crack from the stress of pleasing everyone, all the time.
Who really wants to live that way?
GTG is dead on here too. This is way beyond the scope of 'protection'. If we take the same argument and apply it to something else, it becomes clear just how wrong we are by having this as a legal issue.
I hate the condiment yellow mustard. I cannot emphasize enough how much I truly despise the stuff to the deepest center of my core. If it were up to me, we would launch the crap into the sun and never produce another drop.
But, I realize that there are some twisted people in the world that like the taste of that vile, disgusting sauce. I, for one, feel it should be left in it's natural, rightful state: as a plant. Nevertheless, I have to respect that other people may choose, or even be compelled to consume this abhorrent yellow goo. Who the hell am I to say, in spite of what I believe or feel, that they should be denied such?
Ever fiber of my body is revolted by it, but I am not the one committing the act of consumption of said condiment, so why right to I have to legislate my feelings, my beliefs onto others?
I don't.
Mustard is my litmus test.
Gentlemen,
Lots of things are arbitrary - all we can do is try to minimize them and have a rational if not totally consistent (because it never will be totally consistent) basis. Look at minimum ages for example...
Minimum ages for various things are typically arbitrary. 18 is the "normal" minimum for voting and military service but some other rights kick-in at 21, as with drinking in most States, why aren't those numbers the same? And if the same should they be 21, 18, 25? Why not 17, when you can start military service with parental permission? Why not use as soon as you can procreate as the marriage age? And, logically, since you can have a family, you should be able to serve in the military, well then you should be able to vote as well, etc., etc. Or one could argue that the voting patterns of 18-21 year olds demonstrate such volatility, apathy, and such obvious sensitivity to manipulation that we should raise the voting age to preserve the integrity of the electoral system - especially in this time of delayed "start" in life for so many young adults, i.e. if you are going to act like a dependent then you will be treated as same.
Some things require a decision, like ages for voting eligibility, others need not and at this point I would rather see the government opt out of defining marriage since the definition is rapidly becoming meaningless and will further change as more and more groups demand the "right" that their preference be recognized too.
This won't remove the need for some governmental or legal decisions about children, property rights, etc. but ever since "palimony" was granted to Lee Marvin's girlfriend (anyone remember that?) - adults who had chosen not to marry presumably to avoid such legal entaglements as alimony - it seems we have been steadily dismantling the basis for recognizing marriage as a unique institution, rooted in human history and natural rights and replacing it it with an arbitrary and shifting patchwork of pressure group preferences. If, as a practical matter, our society no longer agrees upon a special place for male-female, child rearing oriented relationships then let us end the farce.
Don't worry though we will have lots of other interesting issues to squabble over - like adoption rights for homosexual couples and married "groups", and so forth. Again a good reason to allow private adoption firms, under health and safety regulations only, that will only place children with those whom they believe they should. Rather than get that argument started my point is that more private citzens/firms doing thengs supported by peoples' willingness to work with them, and less of governmental juggernauts forcing people to deal with them through law and threat of arrest or ruinous legal entanglements.
Lots of things are arbitrary - all we can do is try to minimize them and have a rational if not totally consistent (because it never will be totally consistent) basis. Look at minimum ages for example...
Minimum ages for various things are typically arbitrary. 18 is the "normal" minimum for voting and military service but some other rights kick-in at 21, as with drinking in most States, why aren't those numbers the same? And if the same should they be 21, 18, 25? Why not 17, when you can start military service with parental permission? Why not use as soon as you can procreate as the marriage age? And, logically, since you can have a family, you should be able to serve in the military, well then you should be able to vote as well, etc., etc. Or one could argue that the voting patterns of 18-21 year olds demonstrate such volatility, apathy, and such obvious sensitivity to manipulation that we should raise the voting age to preserve the integrity of the electoral system - especially in this time of delayed "start" in life for so many young adults, i.e. if you are going to act like a dependent then you will be treated as same.
Some things require a decision, like ages for voting eligibility, others need not and at this point I would rather see the government opt out of defining marriage since the definition is rapidly becoming meaningless and will further change as more and more groups demand the "right" that their preference be recognized too.
This won't remove the need for some governmental or legal decisions about children, property rights, etc. but ever since "palimony" was granted to Lee Marvin's girlfriend (anyone remember that?) - adults who had chosen not to marry presumably to avoid such legal entaglements as alimony - it seems we have been steadily dismantling the basis for recognizing marriage as a unique institution, rooted in human history and natural rights and replacing it it with an arbitrary and shifting patchwork of pressure group preferences. If, as a practical matter, our society no longer agrees upon a special place for male-female, child rearing oriented relationships then let us end the farce.
Don't worry though we will have lots of other interesting issues to squabble over - like adoption rights for homosexual couples and married "groups", and so forth. Again a good reason to allow private adoption firms, under health and safety regulations only, that will only place children with those whom they believe they should. Rather than get that argument started my point is that more private citzens/firms doing thengs supported by peoples' willingness to work with them, and less of governmental juggernauts forcing people to deal with them through law and threat of arrest or ruinous legal entanglements.
They ironic thing about marriage, if conservatives and libertarians had there way the "construct" of what a marriage is in a legal sense would be very small.
Remove the death tax, and allow people freely give the things they own (and already paid for) to whomever they want.
Make it easier for someone to create a shared power of attorney so that someone other then yourself can conduct legally binding business on your behalf.
Make it easier to assign parental rights in the event of ones death.
Create an insurance market that is driven by an individuals free market choice rather then focusing on a market driven by employer driven insurance options.
Make it easier to have someone be a medical proxy for you when needed.
Expand the definition and acceptance of emergency contact(s) to allow whomever you want to be a resource and support mechanism for you in an emergency medical situation.
Less government, means less responsibility for the government to define what marriage should mean.
Remove the death tax, and allow people freely give the things they own (and already paid for) to whomever they want.
Make it easier for someone to create a shared power of attorney so that someone other then yourself can conduct legally binding business on your behalf.
Make it easier to assign parental rights in the event of ones death.
Create an insurance market that is driven by an individuals free market choice rather then focusing on a market driven by employer driven insurance options.
Make it easier to have someone be a medical proxy for you when needed.
Expand the definition and acceptance of emergency contact(s) to allow whomever you want to be a resource and support mechanism for you in an emergency medical situation.
Less government, means less responsibility for the government to define what marriage should mean.
They ironic thing about marriage, if conservatives and libertarians had there way the "construct" of what a marriage is in a legal sense would be very small.
Remove the death tax, and allow people freely give the things they own (and already paid for) to whomever they want.
Make it easier for someone to create a shared power of attorney so that someone other then yourself can conduct legally binding business on your behalf.
Make it easier to assign parental rights in the event of ones death.
Create an insurance market that is driven by an individuals free market choice rather then focusing on a market driven by employer driven insurance options.
Make it easier to have someone be a medical proxy for you when needed.
Expand the definition and acceptance of emergency contact(s) to allow whomever you want to be a resource and support mechanism for you in an emergency medical situation.
Less government, means less responsibility for the government to define what marriage should mean.
Remove the death tax, and allow people freely give the things they own (and already paid for) to whomever they want.
Make it easier for someone to create a shared power of attorney so that someone other then yourself can conduct legally binding business on your behalf.
Make it easier to assign parental rights in the event of ones death.
Create an insurance market that is driven by an individuals free market choice rather then focusing on a market driven by employer driven insurance options.
Make it easier to have someone be a medical proxy for you when needed.
Expand the definition and acceptance of emergency contact(s) to allow whomever you want to be a resource and support mechanism for you in an emergency medical situation.
Less government, means less responsibility for the government to define what marriage should mean.
I think I like this less government idea. Where do I sign up?
Already there, my friend!
Well, their lobbying efforts have proven fruitless, that's why.
Similar threads
