President Obama Supports Forcing Gay Marriage on the Entire Country

[marvin martian]

Nonsense.

We all have a relationship with "the state". Citizen is the operative term. If you wish to engage, you recognize "the state". Benjamin Franklin spoke of it, I'm sure you know the quote, grizzled political board denizen that you are.

You have property. State. They platted the land. You bought the land according to the plat. You recognize "the state". Driver's license? Yep...you have one. Passport? You claim to have traveled internationally, so you have one, therefore, you recognize "the state".

That said, recognition does not necessarily mean full obedience to said state. Those little crimes...jaywalking, speeding, toking up...all have a ethos of civil disobedience. That in itself is a recognition of "the state".

I was referring to marriage, not the myriad other ways the government oppresses citizens.

When it comes to marriage, I have no concern what the government thinks of it. I did not beg the government for permission to marry, nor would I ever.

 

[Craig]

I was referring to marriage, not the myriad other ways the government oppresses citizens.

When it comes to marriage, I have no concern what the government thinks of it. I did not beg the government for permission to marry, nor would I ever.

I don't know of anyone who "begged" the government for permission to marry.

I can empathize with the sentiment, but I'd never be dumb enough to make myself a criminal when there's a perfectly serviceable legal alternative to immigrating illegally. My wife and her family did it legally, and they are much better for it, imo.

I'm very interested in your theory that laws I didn't have a role in passing should be meaningless or insignificant to me. Can you expand on that, or does it only apply to illegals?

You say you have a wife. Did you marry her, legally?

 

[marvin martian]

I don't know of anyone who "begged" the government for permission to marry.

Yes you do.

You say you have a wife. Did you marry her, legally?

Yes.

 

[Craig]

Yes you do.



Yes.

No, I don't.

Well...maybe. So...you "begged" for permission...by following the laws of "The State"...that you do not recognize?

 

[marvin martian]

Well...maybe. So...you "begged" for permission...by following the laws of "The State"...that you do not recognize?

No, I told you I didn't. Why can't you understand that?

Do you believe all marriages that existed before the government inserted itself in the process are illegitimate?

 

[Max R.]

No, I told you I didn't. Why can't you understand that?

Do you believe all marriages that existed before the government inserted itself in the process are illegitimate?

Then why did you bother to marry your wife "legally"? Isn't that doing exactly what you are accusing others of doing -- Begging the government for permission?

 

[Craig]

No, I told you I didn't. Why can't you understand that?

Do you believe all marriages that existed before the government inserted itself in the process are illegitimate?

So...you insist I begged for permission to get married to my wife...but you did not beg for permission to get married to your wife. I can't imagine anyone understands that.

I know of no time in our history that government was not "inserted" into marriage. Even in the realm of "common law"...notice...it was law.

 

[marvin martian]

Then why did you bother to marry your wife "legally"? Isn't that doing exactly what you are accusing others of doing -- Begging the government for permission?

If you're asking did I go to beg the government for permission to marry, as I've already said, I didn't. Do I consider myself married? Of course.

I'll ask you the same question. Before the government inserted itself into marriages, were they legitimate?

 

[marvin martian]

So...you insist I begged for permission to get married to my wife...but you did not beg for permission to get married to your wife. I can't imagine anyone understands that.

Why? It seems perfectly straightforward to me. I don't recognize the authority of the government to determine whether or not I'm married. You do. Simple...

 

[Craig]

Why? It seems perfectly straightforward to me. I don't recognize the authority of the government to determine whether or not I'm married. You do. Simple...

Because you got married. Legally. So you say.

If you don't recognize the authority...why did you allow it to make your decision for you?

 

[marvin martian]

If you don't recognize the authority...why did you allow it to make your decision for you?

I didn't. I got married in church. I recognize the authority of the church to declare me married, not the government.

 

[Max R.]

If you're asking did I go to beg the government for permission to marry, as I've already said, I didn't. Do I consider myself married? Of course.

I'll ask you the same question. Before the government inserted itself into marriages, were they legitimate?

You are conflating marriage with legal rights of marriage as has been posted several times here.

Obviously you are trying to get around the "gay marriage" issue by saying they don't need it because you don't need it to be married. That's true. While dating a woman in the mid-90s in Key West, FL I attended a gay wedding. It was officiated by a preacher.

Now, two questions for you:
1. Were they married?

2. Was their marriage legal?

I say yes and no. I expect your answer is no and no. To answer your question, marriages before government were still marriages. Since there was no law, there was no need of legally-recognized marriages.

 

[Craig]

I didn't. I got married in church. I recognize the authority of the church to declare me married, not the government.

No license from the local jurisdiction, El Dorado County...or Amador County etc...? I know of no jurisdictions that do not require a license. Perhaps there are some.

Well...I have no need for any mystical appointee of a cult to recognize my marriage...so...I guess that makes us even.

 

[marvin martian]

You are conflating marriage with legal rights of marriage as has been posted several times here.

Obviously you are trying to get around the "gay marriage" issue by saying they don't need it because you don't need it to be married. That's true. While dating a woman in the mid-90s in Key West, FL I attended a gay wedding. It was officiated by a preacher.

Now, two questions for you:
1. Were they married?

2. Was their marriage legal?

I say yes and no. I expect your answer is no and no. To answer your question, marriages before government were still marriages. Since there was no law, there was no need of legally-recognized marriages.

You have it exactly backwards. I say yes and yes. I have no problem at all with gay people marrying each other. I do have a problem with anyone, gay or straight, being forced to beg the government for permission to marry. That's all I'm saying, and unlike most people, I live this conviction and I did not get a government permit to marry. I still consider myself married, and I have many legal documents, from real estate deeds to living trusts, that name my wife and I as title holders.

 

[marvin martian]

No license from the local jurisdiction, El Dorado County...or Amador County etc...? I know of no jurisdictions that do not require a license. Perhaps there are some.

I'm sure they do "require" a license. For what I have no idea. If they decline an application, does that mean the people can't marry? If your local jurisdiction had declined your permit application, would you have called off your wedding?

Well...I have no need for any mystical appointee of a cult to recognize my marriage...so...I guess that makes us even.

Indeed it does.

 

[Max R.]

You have it exactly backwards. I say yes and yes. I have no problem at all with gay people marrying each other. I do have a problem with anyone, gay or straight, being forced to beg the government for permission to marry. That's all I'm saying, and unlike most people, I live this conviction and I did not get a government permit to marry. I still consider myself married, and I have many legal documents, from real estate deeds to living trusts, that name my wife and I as title holders.

I think we're arguing in circles like a dog chasing it's tail.

In short, the two guys who married didn't have a legal marriage. If one committed a crime the other could be compelled to testify against him. All the other 1138 rights and benefits of marriage would be denied them.

 

[Craig]

I'm sure they do "require" a license. For what I have no idea. If they decline an application, does that mean the people can't marry? If your local jurisdiction had declined your permit application, would you have called off your wedding?



Indeed it does.

They have few reasons for saying no. It's basically for record keeping and descendant property rights. Spouses have legal claim to property et al upon the legal marriage. It's a property law.

Some churches have many more restrictions than my civil/legal world does. Church marriages do not confer legal status to a spouse. As you say...one can manage to get many of the privileges afforded spouses through extraneous legal means. Which of course...means that you recognize "the state" in all facets save this one.

 

[marvin martian]

In short, the two guys who married didn't have a legal marriage. If one committed a crime the other could be compelled to testify against him. All the other 1138 rights and benefits of marriage would be denied them.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just saying it's horseshit that the government needs to validate anyone's marriage. It's a libertarian thing, and certainly not a common view.

 

[marvin martian]

They have few reasons for saying no. It's basically for record keeping and descendant property rights. Spouses have legal claim to property et al upon the legal marriage. It's a property law.

Agreed, so I'll ask you again. If your permit application had been denied, would you have called off your wedding?

Some churches have many more restrictions than my civil/legal world does. Church marriages do not confer legal status to a spouse. As you say...one can manage to get many of the privileges afforded spouses through extraneous legal means. Which of course...means that you recognize "the state" in all facets save this one.

I'm not disagreeing with that.

 

[Craig]

Agreed, so I'll ask you again. If your permit application had been denied, would you have called off your wedding?



I'm not disagreeing with that.

I can't imagine them denying the application. It's two adult people, with full consent, signing a piece of paper saying they are joining in law. Clerk of the Court asked a couple of questions, we answered I do, he signed the form, and we were married. Pretty easy. Maybe too easy for some...

Funny...in old movies...folks were rushing off to Maryland, Elkton, Maryland, in fact, to get married and bypass the restrictions, waiting periods, blood tests etc, that other states enforced before one could marry, to get married. That changed to Vegas...and their 24/7 on the spot marriages.

Part of the national debate began when former Maryland Atty General Doug Gansler said Maryland was bound by law to recognize same sex marriages through Full Faith and Credit considerations.

You merely assent to a different authority...then follow that up with legal maneuverings to acquire some of the same privileges.