Privatize Marriage:

From what I gather... GOVERNMENT is almighty and defines marriage.

I have no issue with not getting government benefits. I'm a libertarian. I don't agree that it's the government's role to dole out benefits wherein two citizens are viewed differently from another two citizens. However, I believe in private contract.

Essentially... privatized marriage is also much like common law marriage. Which is... a "legal" marriage in some states. No church or government necessary. Courts only needed if the couple can't agree on their dissolution should they divorce.

Limit government. Statists don't get this concept.

Rainman05 said:

Because marriage is a LEGAL act. You can't get married outside of the law and demand that it be recognized legally.

Why should it be recognized legally? For your own protection and for the protection of your children. Benefit from govt programs, insurance in case one dies, benefits for your children, etc.

If you want to keep it private, fine. Go do a "quaker marriage" or whatever that is. See if it makes it official. Go to a woman and say: now we are husband and wife. It won't make it anymore official than saying: I am allowed to park in a no parking zone. Or: I am free to drive without an auto license. It doesn't make it official.
Everything that is official needs to have a paper to register that it is official. Who gives the papers in a SECULAR, CIVILIZED society? The government.
If we were living in a theocracy, then fine, you would just go marry in a Church and be done with it. the rule of the Church would be the rule of the land.

Click to expand...

Marriage isn't a "legal act". Tell me... why didn't George Washington or Abraham Lincoln have government marriage licenses??? All they did was sign their Bibles with their spouses as husband and wife. The family and the church blessed it... and it was done. According to your definition they weren't really married because government had yet to hijack marriage and make it a civil institution.

Marriage licensing only started in the US to prevent blacks and whites from marrying. It's racist in origin.

Aquila said:

Big Government and Big Religion go hand in hand.

Click to expand...

In countries like Iran, and now egypt. And India.
Now in western countries. Where does big religion play in Japan for instance? A thoroughly westernized nation? Nowhere.
Where does it play in europe? nowhere. well, the vatican.

Why does it still play some role in the USA? Evangelicals. They need to go.

Aquila said:

Marriage isn't a "legal act". Tell me... why didn't George Washington or Abraham Lincoln have government marriage licenses??? All they did was sign their Bibles with their spouses as husband and wife. The family and the church blessed it... and it was done. According to your definition they weren't really married because government had yet to hijack marriage and make it a civil institution.

Marriage licensing only started in the US to prevent blacks and whites from marrying. It's racist in origin.

Click to expand...

they were not legally married even if they are recognized by god

Aquila said:

Marriage isn't a "legal act". Tell me... why didn't George Washington or Abraham Lincoln have government marriage licenses??? All they did was sign their Bibles with their spouses as husband and wife. The family and the church blessed it... and it was done. According to your definition they weren't really married because government had yet to hijack marriage and make it a civil institution.

Marriage licensing only started in the US to prevent blacks and whites from marrying. It's racist in origin.

Click to expand...

That was 150 years ago. I would like to think society evolved over those years. I already told you, I am not denying the fact that marriage, in the USA, as in all the western world, was taken wholesale from Christianity and adopted as a government institution. I don't know what the law regarding marriage was in the XIXth century or before.

tell me, where was the last time a civil servant turned an interracial couple away from letting them sign the piece of paper, and how often does it happen? And where is it written into law that interracial couples can't marry? Nowhere.

The govt didn't hijack anything. It is the peoples' institution and it is theirs to do with a they please. And in a secular society, that means its a government institution.

Simple as that. it is why we can have divorce, and why you can divorce even as a catholic. Because the catholic church has no power in government. It cannot say: ban divorce. it can encourage catholics not to divorce, but it has no legal power to prevent it.

Aquila said:

What if the GOVERNMENT suddenly defined marriage as being the legal union between two people with blonde hair and blue eyes. Suddenly millions of couples would no longer be married???

Click to expand...

The American government would never do that, because America is a democracy. You do realize that the government is a collection of elected citizens, correct? There is no BIG GIANT HEAD that maliciously gobbles up freedom. So your scenario is, as great as it is, is about plausible as me using a pogo stick to reach Mars.

I know that's an extreme example. However, my point is... marriage was historically a natural right under common law and governed by individuals and families... not the church... not the government.

Click to expand...

Yet you want the government to settle things when horribly constructed Libertarian marriage contracts go south. No, that wouldn't be as mess and a big f**king waste of tax payer money.

Aquila said:

I don't think you guys are really grasping what I'm saying. I'm asking you a personal question. Would you, or your church, accept them as husband and wife?

Click to expand...

Being legaly married is not the deciding factor for me.

Aquila said:

Do you feel that your thought process is a bit statist?

Why does the GOVERNMENT need to know who I'm married to or even IF I'm married... IF I want that to be private and keep the government out of it???

Click to expand...

Thats fine ... then you don't get tax breaks, and if you're relationship brakes off, you can't sue or have some legal litigation over the property, which may be absolutely fine, point is that is why the state is in marraige.

Aquila said:

From what I gather... GOVERNMENT is almighty and defines marriage.

I have no issue with not getting government benefits. I'm a libertarian. I don't agree that it's the government's role to dole out benefits wherein two citizens are viewed differently from another two citizens. However, I believe in private contract.

Essentially... privatized marriage is also much like common law marriage. Which is... a "legal" marriage in some states. No church or government necessary. Courts only needed if the couple can't agree on their dissolution should they divorce.

Limit government. Statists don't get this concept.

Click to expand...

Ok ... then don't register your marraige .... what's the problem?

Aquila said:

This is the section for discussing the religious aspects of politics is it not??? So, if a couple stands before their fire place and declares themselves husband and wife... do you believe a church should recognize their union, even though they don't want the state involved?

Click to expand...

It depends on the Church, and their view of marriage, there are different principles that come into play, and I'd say it can be argued both ways.

1. Marriage is an institution put in by God and recognition by God is formost (it existed in the begining)
2. Pay Cesars things to cesar and Gods things to God, in subjectino to the authorities, if the state requires you to register your marriage you should.

I actually don't have a firm opinion on this issue. from a political standpoint I don't think the state should be invovled, but that isn't a religious issue at all.

I guess what I'm saying is that I believe it is possible to be married in the eyes of God even if a couple hasn't formally filed their union with the state or even refuse to. In my mind "marriage" is a sacred and natural right. Government cannot prohibit it, regulate it, or redefine it. Sure, for those seeking government benefits it would be necessary to have a "civil marriage". Sadly, I think too many churches take their ques and definitions from the government. Here is a ministry that acknowledges "spiritual marriage":

Home_Page

Aquila said:

I guess what I'm saying is that I believe it is possible to be married in the eyes of God even if a couple hasn't formally filed their union with the state or even refuse to. In my mind "marriage" is a sacred and natural right. Government cannot prohibit it, regulate it, or redefine it. Sure, for those seeking government benefits it would be necessary to have a "civil marriage". Sadly, I think too many churches take their ques and definitions from the government. Here is a ministry that acknowledges "spiritual marriage":

Home_Page

Click to expand...

Changing how the government regulates marriage does not change the church's membership rules.

Aquila said:

So IF government ever determined that the standards of marriage should be such that those standards would disqualify your union from being called "marriage", they'd have that authority??? Or... do you believe the authority to define the relationship between you and your mate is yours alone????

Click to expand...

False dichotomy. I define my relationship. The government defines certain benefits they wish to apply to that relationship. However, the government is more restricted than I am. If they want to recognize those benefits for certain couples and not recognize those benefits for others, they must show an important state interest in making that distinction. Discrimination on the basis of gender does not meat this requirement.

Aquila said:

Because "marriage" was originally a religious term dating back to the most ancient of times.

Click to expand...

No, it was a legal contract involving the sale of property from one family to another. We now call that property a "wife."

Aquila said:

I guess what I'm saying is that I believe it is possible to be married in the eyes of God even if a couple hasn't formally filed their union with the state or even refuse to. In my mind "marriage" is a sacred and natural right. Government cannot prohibit it, regulate it, or redefine it. Sure, for those seeking government benefits it would be necessary to have a "civil marriage". Sadly, I think too many churches take their ques and definitions from the government. Here is a ministry that acknowledges "spiritual marriage":

Home_Page

Click to expand...

Which you have every right to do and nobody has ever tried to stop that. Stand in a church, say all the words you want. Nobody cares. The government isn't prohibiting or regulating that action in any way, and nobody is suggesting that they should. You are under no obligation to go to the county office to let the government know you held that ceremony, because the government has no interest in that ceremony. If that's what you want, go for it. Honest, nobody wants to stop you.

Now, if you want certain tax benefits as a result of this relationship, you have to inform the government that this relationship exists. Because taxes are the domain of governments. Don't worry, the government doesn't have veto power over your relationship.

Aquila said:

From what I gather... GOVERNMENT is almighty and defines marriage.

I have no issue with not getting government benefits. I'm a libertarian. I don't agree that it's the government's role to dole out benefits wherein two citizens are viewed differently from another two citizens. However, I believe in private contract.

Essentially... privatized marriage is also much like common law marriage. Which is... a "legal" marriage in some states. No church or government necessary. Courts only needed if the couple can't agree on their dissolution should they divorce.

Limit government. Statists don't get this concept.

Click to expand...

Everyone is a statist. Libertarians don't understand that it's a continuum, not a binary.