ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2019 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, January 26, 2014

Ban government marriage

The State's push to force homogamy on the Church has finally resulted in the realization that the Church should never have accepted the State's encroachment in its affairs in the 19th century:
State lawmakers are considering throwing out marriage in Oklahoma.The idea stems from a bill filed by Rep. Mike Turner (R-Edmond). Turner says it's an attempt to keep same-sex marriage illegal in Oklahoma while satisfying the U.S. Constitution. Critics are calling it a political stunt while supporters say it's what Oklahomans want.

"[My constituents are] willing to have that discussion about whether marriage needs to be regulated by the state at all," Turner said. Other conservative lawmakers feel the same way, according to Turner.
Banning state interference with marriage is the conservative position. Since most people are historical ignoramuses, it will likely surprise many that marriage licenses didn't even exist until 1631. And as I noted in my 2004 WND column entitled Divorcing the State, some State governments didn't interfere with the sacrament until 1958.

All the misguided attempts to accommodate the State have failed. It is time for the American Church to accept the fact that it must now go into the implacable resistance mode that has characterized Christianity for a good part of its historical existence. This may mean persecutions and the falling away of those of weaker faith in time, but then, that is nothing that the Church has not seen or survived before.

Rep. Turner's action is well-advised. Oklahoma would do well to cease recognizing all marriages as would the other States. If they don't, they will find that people will simply cease to bother obtaining marriage licenses as is the case in the majority of the black community and an increasing percentage of the white community as well.

Banning government marriage is the right thing to do on libertarian grounds, on religious grounds, on practical grounds, and on the grounds of sexual fairness. I am pro-marriage but I would not recommend obtaining a marriage license to any unmarried young man or woman these days. And if a woman isn't willing to marry a man without a marriage license, that will serve as sufficient notice that she is already married to the State.

Labels: ,

106 Comments:

Blogger Crude January 26, 2014 8:02 AM  

Rep. Turner's action is well-advised. Oklahoma would do well to cease recognizing all marriages as would the other States. If they don't, they will find that people will simply cease to bother obtaining marriage licenses as is the case in the majority of the black community and an increasing percentage of the white community as well.

I'm not necessarily against your idea - I've thought similarly before - but this one confuses me. Oklahomans should stop recognizing marriages, otherwise no one is going to bother obtaining marriage licenses?

Blogger wrf3 January 26, 2014 8:03 AM  

Based on symmetry, if one doesn't go to the state for marriage, one should also not go to the state for divorce.

Anonymous Gara January 26, 2014 8:07 AM  

Banning state interference with marriage is the conservative position

I would say thats the libertarian position. Traditional conservatives want the government involved in people's personal business as much as liberals do (maybe more). Nowdays marriage is a three-way agreement between a man, a woman, and the government. I agree this is very dumb. Two adults who want to get married should be able to do it in any way the choose, and the government should have absolutely nothing to do with it. If they happen to be worried about finances, or a divorce, or child custody or whatever, they could simply go to attorney and write up any legally binding contract they like. All the government would have to do is to enforce contracts, which is one of the valid functions of government according to libertarianism.

But both liberals and conservatives want the government involved in people's private issues so gay marriage is going to be a debated topic for a long, long time.

Anonymous PhillipGeorge(c)2014 January 26, 2014 8:13 AM  

Good Post, A flag that doesn't fly for Jesus isn't worth saluting. Secularism is a myth. In Australian Jurisprudence the "family law court" has been an unmitigated disaster - a bottomless bucket in containing dysfunctionality in society. Perhaps creating the biggest single drain on a social welfare system.

No faults divorce is costing big time. Parens patriae is a failure.

Not all religions are equal.

Ps. It looks like there are only weeks or even days remaining now.
A pastor with an open vision of people urinating on themselves with fear will be mocked by people who will be urinating on themselves with fear when the event takes place. Russell Crowe's "Noah" is due for release this year. Marking perhaps another "as it was" moment, And its a tetrads year

Blogger LZsays January 26, 2014 8:21 AM  

In principle, banning "government marriage" is absolutely the correct thing to do. What concerns me is the very real possibility that this will produce an authority vacuum into which our loving, caring Federal Government will rush.

Anonymous MikeH January 26, 2014 8:34 AM  

I have been a proponent of removing the state from marriage for a while now. One thing though, it would eliminate a path to citizenship through state recognized marriage. As much as I want to leave the US at this point marrying a foreign woman makes bugging out so much easier for someone of modest means.

Anonymous Roundtine January 26, 2014 8:39 AM  

I'm not necessarily against your idea - I've thought similarly before - but this one confuses me. Oklahomans should stop recognizing marriages, otherwise no one is going to bother obtaining marriage licenses?

How much government cheese do you buy?

Anonymous Roundtine January 26, 2014 8:43 AM  

It makes me optimistic that there is at least one guy with a brain in a state government somewhere, all the moreso that he says he has support from other lawmakers. The logic of his position does not end with marriage licenses, it applies across most of the economy. And this type of thinking is what will get the ball rolling on secession because eventually the Feds will say, "Enough!"

Anonymous MrGreenMan January 26, 2014 8:44 AM  

Don't worry, before long, some self-described conservatives will show up and claim you're advocating for easy divorce. I got in a conversation like this recently and that was their go-to idea they wouldn't let go of - if you don't have the marriage license, it will be even easier for you to divorce, and the poor, abandoned wifey will have no way of forcing you to pay her what you owe her. (Scratch a self-described conservative woman and you just get a totalitarian who thinks, because she wants something to be a certain way, the state must make it so.)

Blogger Crude January 26, 2014 8:45 AM  

How much government cheese do you buy?

My question is, if the goal is 'get the government out of marriage', then why does 'people will stop getting marriage licenses' matter? I'm probably missing something easy, but I want to understand the claim. It's certainly not like I'm opposed to the idea.

Anonymous Godfrey January 26, 2014 8:57 AM  

When did State interference in marriage begin here in the states? Did it begin in the later part of the 19th century? Was marriage licensing here in the states tied to the eugenics movement?

Anonymous VD January 26, 2014 9:00 AM  

My question is, if the goal is 'get the government out of marriage', then why does 'people will stop getting marriage licenses' matter?

Because it shows the pointlessness of government intrusion into marriage. It's not a simple either-or situation.

Anonymous Roundtine January 26, 2014 9:03 AM  

My question is, if the goal is 'get the government out of marriage', then why does 'people will stop getting marriage licenses' matter? I'm probably missing something easy, but I want to understand the claim. It's certainly not like I'm opposed to the idea.

When government recognizes marriage, it cannot help but regulate it (given the reality of modern America). People don't want government marriage, but watch how many people start getting marriage if their contract falls under contract law and mediation by their respective church. I'd consider moving to Oklahoma to get married if this passed.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 January 26, 2014 9:08 AM  

I have always been amazed at the lack of response among Christian conservatives when I point out that I had to take an oath before the State before I took one before God when I got a marriage license. Only the more libertarian ones agreed that it was absurd.

Sadly, I doubt any such laws will pass. The divorce industry is big business these days and having government involved in marriage is very profitable for women and lawyers.

Anonymous Salt January 26, 2014 9:11 AM  

There's that word again, license. "Permission by a competent authority to do that which would otherwise be illegal, a trespass, or a tort." By obtaining a license one admits to the authority of someone or some entity or being incompetent, the equivelent of a child. The state assumes incompetence on the part of people as to marriage. Such is shown false when one does it right.

One can marry without state involvement. It can be done and it is not difficult. The pitfall is that the state becomes not the arbiter of the marriage. That falls upon the contract. A properly written contract and where the elements of a valid contract are met, the modern easy divorce and asset distrubution goes bye bye.

Vox nails it here. "And if a woman isn't willing to marry a man without a marriage license, that will serve as sufficient notice that she is already married to the State."

Anonymous Godfrey January 26, 2014 9:12 AM  

I did a little search on the net. It appears the first instance of marriage licensing here in the states began in the 17th century. Guess where?...Massachusetts. No surprise given that it was a state founded by Puritans and is still run by a form of Puritans...political Puritans.

Massachusetts was also the first state to start and enforce government run "education".

Blogger Tom Kratman January 26, 2014 9:18 AM  

"It's not a simple either-or situation."

Indeed. Actually, it's quite complex in the beginnings, the middles, and the ends. To take the last first, divorce has all kinds of issues that, even with prenups, are ending up in some court, somewhere. Why even with prenups, where, properly done, all the questions should have been answered. A. They're never all answered and B. people getting divorced turn into raging lunatics, completely immune to, and completely deprived of, the faintest glimmering of reason. And then there are the children...

In the middle, there is, at a minimum, the tax advantage. Why do we have tax advantages for marrieds with children? To encourage the latter, to provide future workers, cannon fodder and, most key, taxpayers.

And then there are the beginnings. We already don't need the state involved. If you don't want it to be, simply go to South Carolina and sign into a motel as man and wife. I understand that staying there 24 hours is sufficient. I also am given to understand that you needn't even sign in under your own names, nor even a married name. You are married and the full faith and credit clause makes you married in every state. No license required. Be a good idea to tell the clerk at the hotel that you intend to be husband and wife. Other common law marriage states are a little more involved, but it can still be done. Alabama, for example, requires 181 days, IIRC.

Anonymous ck January 26, 2014 9:29 AM  

the States got involved to prevent Miscegenation. ..

Anonymous Salt January 26, 2014 9:34 AM  

There's a problem there, Tom. Take SC 24 hour rule for instance, is not one accpeting the dictate, and involvement, of the state by claiming marriage according to state law? There may be no presentable license, but because one married according to state law (see your above) the license is deemed issued; state is a party. How would one contest such without a valid contract, doing it right, where the state is not a party?

Blogger JartStar January 26, 2014 9:36 AM  

American Christians don't understand "resistance mode" != defeated. The thinking is binary: that we can either reclaim America and the West for Jesus, or Christianity is completely doomed to be wiped off the face of the Earth.

Anonymous FritzG January 26, 2014 9:53 AM  

It's not a surprise that this might be floated and approved in OK...or even MS or AL or UT. There are still a few "such" states left. But they better get it done quick as the times they are a changing.

In any case, it would be interesting to see this debate happen. Of course, if it did pass, OK would still have to recognize marriages for the sake of adhering to any federal laws that impact to married couples. In addition, I don't think that the state would "de-recognize" those marriages that it already recognized under its law. That would be kind of interesting.

Of course, leaving aside the pretty good arguments that the states not be involved in marriage recognition, the other option for OK at this point is to do the right thing, allow the granting of marriage licenses to same sex couples and get with the program.

Anonymous Samuel Scott January 26, 2014 9:54 AM  

Open questions:

What about civil marriages for people who do not want a marriage of any religious variety?

What will various institutions do such as when hospitals allow only spouses to visit people in certain situations?

Will people, if they choose, be allowed to file taxes jointly?

College aid for students takes into account the size of one's legal family. (I think.)

One's legal status of married or single or whatever has many legal implications. These are just a few. While it may sound idealistic to "get the government out of marriage" for various reasons, I'm not sure anyone has thought the implications all the way through.

Anonymous hygate January 26, 2014 9:59 AM  

Tom, what you are describing is common law marriage and the state is very much involved. I remember a JAG lawyer in Georgia giving a briefing that under GA state law, simply presenting yourself as a married couple was sufficient to be "married."

The example he gave was signing in to a motel with a woman as Mr. and Mrs. Or simply using the same last name. If the woman got a copy of the register (this was back when people still signed registers at hotels) she could use that to come after you for support.

So, presenting yourself as a married couple was, as far as GA was concerned, the same as getting a marriage license.

Anonymous FritzG January 26, 2014 10:10 AM  

"One's legal status of married or single or whatever has many legal implications. These are just a few. While it may sound idealistic to "get the government out of marriage" for various reasons, I'm not sure anyone has thought the implications all the way through."

All true. Of course, if OK goes down this road, I wonder if they will write the law this way: "Neither the state nor any incorporated municipality or count or other jurisdiction in the state shall issue any license for or official document recognizing marriage between two people."

If they don't, what surely will happen is that you will have towns deciding to issue their own marriage licenses.

Blogger IM2L844 January 26, 2014 10:12 AM  

I don't see why the disentanglements need to be arduous.

End all government perks. They're not working. Cohabitation contracts with powers of attorney should range from an EZ-form to intricately detailed and expensive to obtain. Enforcement wouldn't be much different than what we have now. Parental rights doctrine wouldn't need to change. Doesn't the courts already treat marriage as a contract and divorce as contract dissolution? Nothing but a shift in perception that legally does nothing much other than to further instantiate separation of church and state. Isn't that what all the crybabies want anyway?

Anonymous Salt January 26, 2014 10:16 AM  

@ Sam Scott

Take hospital visits. A hospital could find itself impairing a (state excluded) contract. Not wise. Now, look at it from the standpoint of filing jointly. Same thing. Just because one can exclude the state from the marriage does not invalidate the marriage from the viewpoint of the state.

Anonymous Maximo Macaroni January 26, 2014 10:22 AM  

Entering into a contract when you get married, even if you don't have a license, involves the state. Who else would enforce the contract? Even if governments stop recognizing marriages and requiring licenses in a particular form, they are not likely to stop recognizing contracts.

Blogger tz January 26, 2014 10:22 AM  

Government can enfroce contracts. Including one recognizing a "no divorce except for grave fault, and no remarriage". I would suggest the Diosceses of Ok find a lawyer to translate Canon law into Contract - not civil - law.

States recognizing marriages created the loophole for them to warp or (say they) dissolve them.

But what of the Feds? Well, as long as I have the church record, I'm married, though we file taxes as singles, get mutual durable powers of attorney, and not lose half the social security.

This is the other side of the Feds insisting on overriding states, like the Pot Bowl. On too many things the Fedsdepend on the states - why the DHS militarization of the local police? What if every or no citizen of a state was officially a policeman? We've be3n through driver's licenses. The states have the power to nullify if they want.

Blogger Crude January 26, 2014 10:24 AM  

Because it shows the pointlessness of government intrusion into marriage. It's not a simple either-or situation.

Alright, I guess I see what you mean now. Thanks.

Anonymous Salt January 26, 2014 10:24 AM  

Recognizing a contract /= involvement in it.

Blogger tz January 26, 2014 10:30 AM  

As far as civil marriages, find anyone you want to conduct any ceremony you want, and sign whatever external legal documents you want.

In the Catholic Church, the sacrament of matrimony does not require a priest to be valid. The marriage vows between the couple are the sacrament. It is illicit if a priest is available, and it should be in church. But the case of converts in a deep missionary field has come up.

Anonymous Anonymous January 26, 2014 10:34 AM  

Other common law marriage states are a little more involved, but it can still be done. Alabama, for example, requires 181 days, IIRC..

12 days if yer kin.

Anonymous Salt January 26, 2014 10:38 AM  

@TZ

The trick is to file the document(s) (the contract) with the Clerk of Records. This puts the world on NOTICE, which happens to include the state. Right after filing, pull out a few Certified copies.

Wo be to anyone who interferes with your contract.

Blogger tz January 26, 2014 10:38 AM  

Maybe a gay couple should test the common law legal structure.

Jesus said don't give holy things to dogs. It would be an insult to dogs (or swine) to compare them with government. He also said render the things of Caesar (nero, diocletian, stalin, mao, hitler) to Caesar, and render the things of God to God.

The late Bishop Sheen had a short but excellent pamphlet on marriage called "Three to get married" and covers the definitions and implications for both the unbaptized and the baptized.

If you pledge your vows to the no-fault divorce state, you are cohabiting, i.e. living in sin, until the divorce. Only God creates the one flesh - even if he isn't perfectly known by the couple.

Anonymous Stilicho January 26, 2014 10:40 AM  

What about civil marriages for people who do not want a marriage of any religious variety?

What will various institutions do such as when hospitals allow only spouses to visit people in certain situations?

Will people, if they choose, be allowed to file taxes jointly?

College aid for students takes into account the size of one's legal family. (I think.)

One's legal status of married or single or whatever has many legal implications. These are just a few. While it may sound idealistic to "get the government out of marriage" for various reasons, I'm not sure anyone has thought the implications all the way through.


Sam, in order:

1) cohabitate and present yourselves to the world as married. It is the same for a religious couple who simply have a pastor perform a ceremony without a state license.

2) Hospitals are already legally required to allow persons designated on a medical power of attorney (or living will in extreme cases) to have access to a patient. This has been one of the big lies of the lavender mafia..."the evil hetero-normative family won't let us into the hospital room." It simply requires minimal planning... something that one should not be adverse to doing when intentionally bucking the state or social convention.

3) Irrelevant. The fact that there may be tax-related economic considerations is not the point. However, once again, proper planning can solve the issue for you by meeting the requirements for a common-law marriage:
Considered married. You are considered married for the whole year if, on the last day of your tax year, you and your spouse meet any one of the following tests.

You are married and living together.

You are living together in a common law marriage recognized in the state where you now live or in the state where the common law marriage began.
...
The word “state” as used here includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and U.S. territories and possessions. It means any domestic jurisdiction that has the legal authority to sanction marriages. The term “foreign country” means any foreign jurisdiction that has the legal authority to sanction marriages


4) See #3.

5) It is simply a matter of what the gov't recognizes. As noted above, one can generally cause the gov't to recognize the relationship as marriage. Problem is, once the gov't recognizes it, it claims the authority to control it and that is the problem from which escape is sought. Junior's lack of student loans is a small price (and most likely a huge benefit!) when one figures the cost of avoiding the divorce industrial complex. Likewise, loss of marginal benefits from married filing jointly status may be mitigated by financial planning or simply cheerfully accepted as the cost of keeping the gov't as far from that aspect of your life as possible. Moreover, the push described is to not just avoid the gov't it is to actively proscribe the gov'ts ability to interfere with and regulate marriage, including the ways your described.

Blogger IM2L844 January 26, 2014 10:50 AM  

Hey, I'm deeply offended anytime anyone other than theists use the word "marriage" (a metaphysical union) to describe their Godless shacking-up shenanigans. Isn't this how PC is supposed to work?

Anonymous VD January 26, 2014 11:04 AM  

What about civil marriages for people who do not want a marriage of any religious variety?

They aren't getting married anyhow. Calling it "civil marriage" doesn't make it marriage any more than the government declaring the bald eagle a fish does.

What will various institutions do such as when hospitals allow only spouses to visit people in certain situations?

The hospitals will change their policies. Also, who cares?

Will people, if they choose, be allowed to file taxes jointly?

There will be no point. Remove the marriage tax and the marriage benefit.

College aid for students takes into account the size of one's legal family.

Moot point. College aid is about to blow up anyhow.

Anonymous dh January 26, 2014 11:10 AM  

VD, this is where you can be the most persuassive. A decade ago as Republican strategists were trying to use anti-gay marriage amendments to to get a Bush elected and re-elected, the right thing to would have been to pass Constitutional amendments ending the practice of state-selected marriages.

Anonymous Anonymous January 26, 2014 11:37 AM  

Take hospital visits.
No. Advance Directive has nothing to do with relations. Your State MAY vary.
Quiet Title to untaxed asset transfer will certainly raise death tax, and post mortem attachment of "estate" assets death panel issues of course. Because...(actuarially) women, so shut up.
Sure as hell bring about "recent studies show..." interpretation to the (apparently) legal canard "...in the manner to which she has become accustomed...."

CaptDMO

Anonymous farmer Tom January 26, 2014 11:48 AM  

Since I'm not a anarchist/libertarian I scoff at the silliness of the entire concept of ending state involvement in marriage.

Just because all of you hate the very concept of God ordained governments, does not entitle you to ignore the role that government at some level will always play with relation to marriage.

Some examples that Samuel Scott and others did not mention.

What happens with the transfer of property rights in an estate if there is no legal definition of marriage. Can some women who had a one nighter with the deceased "husband" claim spousal privilege and claim all or a portion of the entire estate?

The decedent had as a couple of children from a mistress. Do these children have the same right of inheritance as the children of the decedents "marriage" (sorry I forgot, you don't believe in marriage).

If the decedent had "remarried" (sorry again) after the death of the first wife(that's stupid,you don't believe in marriage so therefore is no such thing as husband and wife) can the decedents second wife(sorry again) claim the entire estate based on their common law relationship? Or does the first marriage(sorry) deserve recognition by the courts(oh sorry that won't work either since the court would require an actual definition of marriage to establish the legality of the marriage).

Maybe you would prefer that the CHURCH be the arbiter of inheritance rights and estate transfers? I'm sure Joel Osteen would be a fair and impartial judge of how an estate should be divided amongst the descendants of said decedent, right. Probably something along the lines of two for me and one for you.

If the church is going to become the enforcement mechanism of estate division and transfer, I'm going to go into a new ministry speciality called "marriage and family estate planning, transfer and distribution."

You guys really are full of it. Marriage IS, it is clearly defined by the Creator, and your attempts to pretend differently will simply see a continued collapse into anarchy and lawlessness.

Grow some stones. Tell the sodomites to go to hell(they are all ready working on it) and treat marriage as an institution ordained by God and adjudicated by the civil magistrates.

Quit being a bunch of spineless pussies and pretending that if we just abolish marriage all together, we'll suddenly have a libertarian utopia.

Anonymous Jill January 26, 2014 11:49 AM  

I couldn't agree more. This was my belief before husband and I purchased our marriage license. Why did we fall for the marriage license bullshit? We capitulated to my family, his family, etc. About the only action to take at this point is a state divorce and a civil remarriage in the church, but pastors would have to be on board for this, and most are not. They believe very strongly in government authority and being compliant.

Blogger tz January 26, 2014 12:03 PM  

@Farmet Tom, it is called a "will". As in "last will and testament".

For probate, the law should say that without a will, a competent person should come up with what would have been the will. There have been more cases where a will left a new wife and family destitute because it left everything to the first, divorced, wife and wasn't changed before the death.

The wills,.medicql powers of attorney, and contracts should be enforced as written, not second-guessed by a state that knows better - even if it think it is doing "God's" work.

Marriage IS defined by God. Not the state. It would be easier to get a Dog to understand marriage than a legislature, and I've already pointed out that one ought not even profane holy things much less desecrate them.

They should require people to personally kill a chicken and promise fealty to the state and sign the state's marriage license in blood. But what does a pinch of incense on the Altar of Caesar matter?

Anonymous Stilicho January 26, 2014 12:37 PM  

Just because all of you hate the very concept of God ordained governments, does not entitle you to ignore the role that government at some level will always play with relation to marriage.

Feel free to show me where God ordained the government of the United States. Not Paul. God.

Anonymous Stilicho January 26, 2014 12:41 PM  

Quit being a bunch of spineless pussies and pretending that if we just abolish marriage all together, we'll suddenly have a libertarian utopia.

Bullshit. Read it again. No one is arguing for the abolition of marriage (except the lavender mafia that is trying to infiltrate and destroy the institution from within). What is being argued for is excluding the state from marriage.

Anonymous VD January 26, 2014 12:46 PM  

Since I'm not a anarchist/libertarian I scoff at the silliness of the entire concept of ending state involvement in marriage.

What part of the fact that the state hasn't been involved in it for nearly half the history of the United States escaped you, Farmer Tom. Was it silly when George and Martha Washington got married without a marriage license?

Anonymous The One January 26, 2014 1:03 PM  

As a foreign resident Vox, don't you feel legal marriage is necessary internationally. For example, a father passing on his citizenship to his children.

Anonymous VD January 26, 2014 1:07 PM  

As a foreign resident Vox, don't you feel legal marriage is necessary internationally. For example, a father passing on his citizenship to his children.

Obviously not. And most countries don't practice birthright citizenship anyhow.

Anonymous Samuel Scott January 26, 2014 1:07 PM  

Stilicho January 26, 2014 10:40 AM

1) cohabitate and present yourselves to the world as married. It is the same for a religious couple who simply have a pastor perform a ceremony without a state license.


A lot of people want some sort of official ceremony and recognition even if it's not in a religious context. Yes, people who are not religious can and do find value in a marriage ceremony that is a public recognition of their love for each other -- even if it does not involve God.

To me, it would be unfair to deny that to them in a country (the United States) that does not officially endorse religion -- either in general or one religion specifically. (Other countries are different -- the Anglican Church is the official religion of the UK and Israel has the Chief Rabbinate, for example.)

Anonymous Anonymous January 26, 2014 1:09 PM  

VD
It is time for the American Church to accept the fact that it must now go into the implacable resistance mode that has characterized Christianity for a good part of its historical existence. This may mean persecutions and the falling away of those of weaker faith in time, but then, that is nothing that the Church has not seen or survived before.

JartStar
American Christians don't understand "resistance mode" != defeated. The thinking is binary: that we can either reclaim America and the West for Jesus, or Christianity is completely doomed to be wiped off the face of the Earth.

Why the passivity? Mathew 5:39?

When the SHTF, are we forbidden to bring the pain to the bastards?



Anonymous Samuel Scott January 26, 2014 1:12 PM  

The One January 26, 2014 1:03 PM

As a foreign resident Vox, don't you feel legal marriage is necessary internationally. For example, a father passing on his citizenship to his children.


Yes, it is.

One example: Israel recognizes all legal marriages performed abroad. In Israel, which does not have civil marriage, a lot of Israelis who do not identify as Jewish, Muslim, or Christian (or Jews who do not want to be -- or cannot be -- married by the Chief Rabbinate) fly to Cyprus and return as legal husband and wife and are recognized by the State of Israel.

Gay Israelis who do the same are also recognized as legally married by the State of Israel upon return even though same-sex weddings are not legal inside Israel.

Much like the U.S. Constitution, international treaty obligates Israel to recognize any marriage that was legally performed in the country of another treaty-signer.

Anonymous The One January 26, 2014 1:14 PM  

Obviously not. And most countries don't practice birthright citizenship anyhow. ~VD

Fair Enough. But because the states step away doesn't mean the Fed won't step in. Cue Canada declaring all cohabiting couples married.

Blogger IM2L844 January 26, 2014 1:16 PM  

Quit being a bunch of spineless pussies and pretending that if we just abolish marriage all together, we'll suddenly have a libertarian utopia.

Who thinks removing the illusory right to quantify marriage from the government's purview would result in a 'libertarian utopia'? Not me. I don't think it would change much of anything. Everyone would continue to do exactly what they are doing today. Enforceable contracts and powers of attorney (call 'em civil unions if it makes you feel better) filed with the court clerk's office instead of what we've become accustom to would have no effect on life as we know it. What makes you think deciding who the rightful beneficiaries to an inheritance are would be any more difficult than it is today? Illegitimate children have become the norm and nobody raises an eyebrow.

The decedent had as a couple of children from a mistress. Do these children have the same right of inheritance as the children of the decedents "marriage" (sorry I forgot, you don't believe in marriage).

This is a question that comes up all the time TODAY. That wouldn't change. Nothing much changes.

Man doesn't have the right to adjudicate God's ordinations no matter how emotionally attached they've become to thinking that they do. Governments and their judicial arm's authorities are limited by laws created by men. Marriage in God's eyes will continue to be what it has always been. Neither governments nor activists can change that.

Anonymous Samuel Scott January 26, 2014 1:23 PM  

IM2L844 January 26, 2014 1:16 PM

Marriage in God's eyes will continue to be what it has always been. Neither governments nor activists can change that.


But here's the rub: Not everyone agrees with you, especially those who do not belief in God. And when you live in a pluralistic, free country like the United States, you cannot make law based solely on a particular religious belief. So, would you advocate? A theocracy?

Anonymous farmer Tom January 26, 2014 1:26 PM  

VD,

Yes, George and Martha got married with out a license.

Yet the institution of marriage was recognized by the civil government when it came time to settle their estate at the time of their death, because that is the role of civil government.

And the government can not do that without there being a legal definition of marriage.

I am not a Hobbesian. I do not for a moment believe that liberty comes before Law. Rather in the traditions of Locke and Blackstone and Cicero before them, I believe that all rights and liberty come from Law.

Marriage IS, by the Laws of Nature and Nature's God.

All we are arguing about is who enforces/has jurisdiction when the assets/properties of an individual marriage are being adjudicated.

Again, I ask, do you want the CHURCH to do it?

Did the CHURCH settle the estate of George Washington? Or did the civil government acknowledge the God ordained institution of marriage, and use that definition of marriage as the legal principle with which it divided the assets/proceeds of the estate of George and Martha Washington.

When the state no longer has any definitive legal definition of marriage, then under law, there can be no concept of marriage.

Law must have fixed definitions for there to be legal principles upon which to determine outcomes.

I thought you guys objected to a "living breathing Constitution" yet you espouse a "living breathing definition of marriage"?

Anonymous Stilicho January 26, 2014 1:30 PM  

A lot of people want some sort of official ceremony and recognition even if it's not in a religious context.

Cut the bullshit, Sam, you are smarter than that. 1) those people are complete idiots if they will only accept a ceremony officiated by the state in some fashion, but if they persist in their stupidity, let them pay a local, judge, mayor, clerk, or dog catcher to perform a "ceremony. No license required; and 2) they can have any sort of ceremony they want without the state.

Anonymous Anonymous January 26, 2014 1:31 PM  

Somewhere on the internet on some gay marriage website is a list of 50-100-1000 'benefits' that come along with marriage. Basically, stuff you get 'for free' for having the government acknowledge your marriage. The gay marriage websites use it as an argument that these are 'rights'.. or really conveniences or benefits, that are denied to gay people.

Some of it is stuff like visitation rights at hospitals. Hospitals naturally let in a spouse, but absent that you need some kind of documentation prior to whatever emergency put you in the hospital to allow for visitation for a non-government-approved spouse. Are there other ways to do this? Of course. The easiest way is to have documentation beforehand, but not everyone is so foresighted, and if you relax that documentation-beforehand rule, you make other problems. Et cetera.

Other things are tax benefits. Some things, like the $250,000 or less capital gains from selling a primary residence can be combined to $500,000 in the case of a married couple. This is an incredible benefit on a huge primary financial transaction for many people, and back when house-flipping was big I knew a couple who got married specifically so that they could merge their house-flipping business together and work on larger homes with greater leveraged profit. These sorts of marriage 'benefits' can't be resolved with contracts because they come directly from the state at the state's whim/desire/convenience.

These are the sorts of problems that come with removing government from marriage. The benefit has to overcome the convenience, in parts like the first, and the bribes, in parts like the second.

Blogger IM2L844 January 26, 2014 1:49 PM  

But here's the rub: Not everyone agrees with you, especially those who do not belief in God. And when you live in a pluralistic, free country like the United States, you cannot make law based solely on a particular religious belief. So, would you advocate? A theocracy?

I don't give a rat's ass if no one agrees with me. That doesn't change a thing. It was a huge mistake to characterize this as a way around the gay marriage issue. I've held this position for 30 years and it has nothing to do with gay marriage. It has to do with getting the government's niggling nose out of our personal business...mine and everybody else's. Secular government has it's place, but this ain't it.

No, I would not advocate for a theocracy and I don't know of a single Christian that would. That's a stupendously idiotic red herring.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 26, 2014 2:46 PM  

"There will be no point. Remove the marriage tax and the marriage benefit."

Actually, there is still a point, though it's not especially common anymore, in the form of the stay at home mom. Either they get to file jointly, which effectively reduces their tax bracket as individuals, or the earner of the couple pays a lot more, which is to say that the family as a whole pays more. Yeah, yeah, "flat tax." We have a nearly flat tax already, actually.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 26, 2014 2:51 PM  

Salt:

"state is a party. How would one contest such without a valid contract, doing it right, where the state is not a party?"

The state's a party by not being a party?

It seems to revolve still around duration and intentions. If two people shack up overnight at a hotel, and neither of them intends that they be married, but sign in under a false Mr and Mrs, they've met every equirement except the key one, intent. Where it gets sticky is where one does intend and the other does not.

You're never getting away from state involvement at some level in some cases, because some are going to end up in court to resolve the civil matter of divorce.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 26, 2014 2:56 PM  

"So, presenting yourself as a married couple was, as far as GA was concerned, the same as getting a marriage license."

Operative word is "was." Georgia did away with common law marriage. I wasn't privy to why they did that....but I wonder if it wasn't because of the divorce issues.

Anonymous Anti-Democracy Activist January 26, 2014 2:59 PM  

"But here's the rub: Not everyone agrees with you, especially those who do not belief in God. And when you live in a pluralistic, free country like the United States, you cannot make law based solely on a particular religious belief. So, would you advocate? A theocracy?"

Not everybody believes in the rightness of democracy or popular sovereignty, either. I certainly don't believe that I should be forced to do something just because 51% of my neighbors think it's a good idea. And yet I am forced to do so. Not everybody believes in universal equality, yet we live in a system that enforces this concept upon everybody via force of law.

The only solution for not forcing some people to live by laws and under systems that they do not believe in is absolute anarchy. If you are not an absolute anarchist, then you believe in forcing some people to live by laws and under systems that they do not believe in. Now it's only a question of which laws, and what system.

Anonymous Revan January 26, 2014 2:59 PM  

One that that stories such as these do for true conservatives is force so-called "conservatives" to reveal their true colors. Alan Keyes felt the need to comment on the article in the link VD provided. I'll post a highlight:

"Without a rubric for marriage, decisions about things like parental authority, obligations of care with respect to children, attendant rights, like the right to "raise up your child in the way that he should go" (Proverbs 22:6) and such like, would be decided a) by judges, administrators etc. on an ad hoc basis; b) on the basis of legislation or regulations unconstrained by the requirement to respect unalienable rights antecedent to government. (BTW, these antecedent rights are specifically protected from abuse on Constitutional grounds by the Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.)"

So you see, the government must be involved in the institution of marriage because children!

Blogger AMDG January 26, 2014 3:19 PM  

Keyes has a point, Revan. Even if you don't get a marriage license, the state is still poised to intervene once either partner elects to file suit for custody of the child. The absence of a marriage license does not bar state intrusion into custody arrangements and parental decision making. Since marriage is oriented toward child bearing and child rearing, I'm not Rep. Turner's idea is much of a solution to anything.

Anonymous Jack Amok January 26, 2014 3:24 PM  

But here's the rub: Not everyone agrees with you, especially those who do not belief in God. And when you live in a pluralistic, free country like the United States, you cannot make law based solely on a particular religious belief. So, would you advocate? A theocracy?

Wow you are myopic. You just don't get the concept at all.

The Mormon church has a bunch of different levels of "priesthood" available to it's members. I forget the exact titles, but I've heard them a few times as I have family members who are LDS. I think one of the m is the "Aaronic Priesthood." So, here's a church, it recognizes members with certain titles, and I gather that these titles bring certain benefits within the church. So what about you and me Sam? We're not Mormons, so how do we get recongized for the "Aaronic Priesthood?" We totally need the governent to provide Aaronic Priesthood licesnses so we can do that too without needing to join the Mormon church.

Plus, I really want to be a deacon, cause I think it would be cool to call myself the Freakin' Deacon. But I don't want some church to tell me what I need to do for that, I wan't to go get a license from the county clerk's office.

Anonymous Noah B. January 26, 2014 3:28 PM  

This is exactly what I believe. My wife and I got married in a church three years ago but we have refused to get a marriage license or receive tax benefits of being married. We both still file as single. We want the state to have as little involvement in our lives as possible.

Many of our friends and family have hassled us at one point or another about "not really being married." My wife has gotten upset about this a couple of times, but when I have explained that we don't feel the need for the state to approve of the way we choose to live our lives, and ask them why they themselves feel the emotional need for the state's loving approval, they have no response other than to change the subject.

Blogger IM2L844 January 26, 2014 3:43 PM  

Now it's only a question of which laws, and what system.

The government has no more business telling me who is married and who isn't than they do telling me who is going to heaven and who isn't. Now, if the government wants to recognize people who dance around a maypole naked chanting some Vaishnava mantra as being married that's fine. Just don't force anyone else to sacrifice their money or personal integrity to celebrate or honor it as a universally acceptable marriage no matter how indirectly. It would make things much simpler and less controversial for everyone concerned if government simply refused to define marriage. Grown-ups can make whatever legal or religious arrangements they want. Forcing the conflation of the metaphysical with the material isn't working for anyone.

Anonymous Steve Goldstein January 26, 2014 4:38 PM  

The Jews do not have civil marriage in Israel, Marriage is purely confessional, with one exception: Israelis can get married overseas and enforce their marriage back in Israel under some UN treaty that requires the reciprocal enforcement of marriages conducted in foreign countries. By some estimates 25% of Jews get married in Malta/overseas and then take their marriage (and license) back to Israel.

Each confessional community controls the granting of marriages and the enforcement of marital rights, including child custody and (I believe) spousal support and inheritance.

In effect, Israel continues to operate on the Ottoman system of individual tribes/nations/confessions regulating family law and family relations. The Chief Rabbinate controls all Jewish marriages, thus the Reform Jews or Reconstructionist Jews in Israel cannot be married by their own preachers. They have to hire an Orthdox rabbi to marry them, and he checks their breeding papers to make sure they can be married under Jewish law.

There area bunch of weirdnesses that result. A militant atheist Jew can only be married by an Orthodox rabbi. The Orthodox rabbi will happily marry him to another militant atheist Jew with no problem. On the other hand, if he wants to marry a devout Jew who has impure blood or to a gentile it cannot happen.

To be married to a Jew in Israel, the Jew with impure blood or gentile would have to convert to Orthodoxy: they would have to spend a year or two learning all the Jewish law and pretending to believe in the Jewish God, as well as perhaps suffering snap inspections to insure they are keep kosher (separate sets of dishes, no mixing of meat and dairy, no sex or physical contact around menstruation times , etc.).

Even if the potential gentile spouse believed all that stuff, the 100% pure-blooded Jewish atheist would have to pretend to believe it as well for practical reasons.

But there are dangers to the conversion route: if you are the militant atheist Jewish guy, you may wind up with a female who (after 1-2 years of indoctrination and dissembling) turns into a super-Jew.

In fact there are many gentile girls who start out just having fun with a hip, cool, wiseacre Jewish dude and then go way overboard when they convert for marriage, often driving their more casual Jewish husbands crazy (Hi, Kathy and Steve!).

Study Israel. It is a good test case of what happens when you have confessional marriages and not civil marriages in a modern Western culture.

Blogger Rseven Rocket January 26, 2014 5:48 PM  

Farmer Tom is your typical phony Churchian. Note that he ignores the entire modern divorce industry and is ignorant of the fact that state marriage is a modern concept.

Anonymous FritzG January 26, 2014 5:54 PM  

"The government has no more business telling me who is married and who isn't than they do telling me who is going to heaven and who isn't."

Well, the government can easily find an interest in defining what marriage is for the purposes of carrying out any number of policies where the state of marriage may impact those policy choices.

Just as important, marriage can quite easily be defined as a legal state of arrangement, such as is done in the case of a corporation or partnership. In this case, there is nothing really metaphysical any more than a corporation is metaphysical.

Blogger Rseven Rocket January 26, 2014 5:55 PM  

Still no mention of the divorce industry from churchian farmer tom.

Anonymous FritzG January 26, 2014 5:57 PM  

"Not everybody believes in the rightness of democracy or popular sovereignty, either. I certainly don't believe that I should be forced to do something just because 51% of my neighbors think it's a good idea. And yet I am forced to do so"

Well, you certainly liked it just enough to stay living under these rules and laws.

Blogger AMDG January 26, 2014 6:05 PM  

Farmer Tom is also incorrect as a matter of law if his claim is that marriage must exist to enable the state to divide assets belonging to the estate of the deceased spouse.

Blogger Rseven Rocket January 26, 2014 6:24 PM  

FritzG said:
Well, you certainly liked it just enough to stay living under these rules and laws.

You don't know where Anti-Democracy Activist lives. Speaking of such rules and laws, would you prefer to live in Egypt when Morsi was democratically elected under such rules and laws?

Anonymous FritzG January 26, 2014 6:46 PM  

"You don't know where Anti-Democracy Activist lives. Speaking of such rules and laws, would you prefer to live in Egypt when Morsi was democratically elected under such rules and laws?"

That's true. I don't know exactly where he lives. We do know that he doesn't "believe that I should be forced to do something just because 51% of my neighbors think it's a good idea", yet he is "forced to do so".

I for Egypt, I couldn't say. I know to little of the actual living conditions in Egypt for someone like myself. Would I be able to transfer the totality of my current net wealth in either circumstance?

Blogger Tom Kratman January 26, 2014 8:00 PM  

"ignorant of the fact that state marriage is a modern concept."

Well...somebody's being ignorant.

What's actually new is the idea of separation of church and state. IOW, an old time religious marriage was usually _inherently_ also a state marriage, because there was usually no distinction between the two.

Hmmm...I'd be interested in seeing a timeline showing growth in state marriage requirements matched against the gradual disestablishment of state churches. (No, it didn't happen immediately with the adoption of the Constitution.)

Anonymous farmer Tom January 26, 2014 8:14 PM  

So you think I'm going to defend the divorce industry?

Not gon'na happen.

I wonder though, are you suggesting the your anarchist utopia is not going to have any divorce in it? Funny thing. If you can't define marriage, then divorce will be even easier to obtain right, since after all, in your anarchist system, there is no law.

Tell me something. In your system which can not define marriage, how does that system define private property?
If you undermine the Natural Law definition of marriage, what standard are you going to use to define private property.

And the argument I was making about estates/inheritance is directly related to property rights.

If you knew Biblical Law, you would also know the the inheritance/divorce/property rights issues were not taken before the priest, but before the civil authority/city leaders.

God ordained the institution of marriage. When that Holy illustration of the relationship between Christ and His (bride) the Church ends, it is not done by the (Church) religious system but by the secular government system, because divorce is a defilement of God's original plan.

Blogger Rseven Rocket January 26, 2014 8:26 PM  

FritzG said:
I for Egypt, I couldn't say. I know to little of the actual living conditions in Egypt for someone like myself. Would I be able to transfer the totality of my current net wealth in either circumstance?

I assume you support "rules and laws that have the 51% suppress the 49%" since you apparently disagree with those who oppose such rules. So why not Morsi's Egypt?

Blogger Rseven Rocket January 26, 2014 8:41 PM  

farmer Tom said:
I wonder though, are you suggesting the your anarchist utopia is not going to have any divorce in it? Funny thing. If you can't define marriage, then divorce will be even easier to obtain right, since after all, in your anarchist system, there is no law.

The Middle Ages didn't have divorce, and it wasn't an "anarchist utopia". And to add, the divorce industry and the utterly predictable marriage strike by men that resulted from it is the very reason why this discussion is taking place.

If you knew Biblical Law, you would also know the the inheritance/divorce/property rights issues were not taken before the priest, but before the civil authority/city leaders. God ordained the institution of marriage. When that Holy illustration of the relationship between Christ and His (bride) the Church ends, it is not done by the (Church) religious system but by the secular government system, because divorce is a defilement of God's original plan.

The American Churchian starts prattling about biblical law. So Churchian, should women be allowed to file for divorce? Should divorces be filed for other reasons other than adultery (when I mean "adultery" I don't mean the Focus on the Family's bullshit definition)?

Anonymous What Would Lodi Do? January 26, 2014 8:44 PM  

As a foreign resident Vox, don't you feel legal marriage is necessary internationally. For example, a father passing on his citizenship to his children.

It wasn't a problem in my case. My European wife & I don't have a license (have a purely religious marriage) yet had no real difficulty getting our child my wife's foreign citizenship. The only bump was some wariness by officials over the child having my last name rather than the mother's, but that was easily cleared up. YMMV, of course.

also, had no problem during my recent extended hospitalization thanks to a Durable Power of Attorney for Medical Decisions. Most staff insisted on calling my wife my "girlfriend," but I didn't give a damn, knowing the truth.

Blogger Feather Blade January 26, 2014 9:44 PM  

Removing the governmental licensing of marriages would remove a source of revenue for local governments and would necessitate a change in record-keeping practices.

Before governments started issuing marriage licenses, record-keeping was done by the church parish itself. Now in this era of amorphous and constantly shifting congregations, which sprout up like mushrooms after a rain and disappear as quickly, what would happen to the records of marriages if the government license were not present?

There would be none, which if a man were not properly submitting himself to the leadership of his church, would make bigamy and/or spousal abandonment quite easy.

Perhaps the solution would be to do away with the license (which is, in effect, asking the state for permission to marry), and substitute a different form that could be filed with one's county clerk, notifying the state that a marriage has taken place.

Or, I suppose, all the churches could be on a massive email list-serv, by which they can notify each other of marriages that have taken place. Faster than newspaper notifications, at any rate.
Or! this could give meaning to newspapers again, make the newspapers and libraries the record keepers for the community...

Anonymous farmer Tom January 26, 2014 10:40 PM  

Rseven Rocket,

No women should not be allowed to file for divorce.

Although if you physically abuse your wife, she has a pre-existing right to self defence and has every moral right to shoot your ass.

According to my understanding of Biblical divorce, adultery is not the only legitimate reason for divorce,

I quote from Deuteronomy 24,

"if it comes to pass that she finds no favour in his eyes, because he has found some uncleanness in her,"

that's more open ended than just adultery,

and most importantly "putting away" is an unGodly and immoral action which causes both the husband and the wife to commit adultery,

Now, back the original topic of this post. The state is going to pretend to throw out their interest is what constitutes marriage. Anarchy will ensue.

Anonymous PhillipGeorge(c)2014 January 26, 2014 11:19 PM  

farmer Tom,

I've watched anarchy at a beach. There were no police anywhere. Hundreds of people shared the space, sat themselves down with clear distances between each other. No fighting, no courts, no drama.

It might be hard for you to believe but this scene doesn't require legislators, lawyers, police, politicians :-

A picture paints a million word essay.

All that is required is people with a basic sense of 'civility' - something i couldn't teach a modern secularist is the proverbial pink fit Western World of liberals giggling their way to self destruction.

Why anarchy can and does work well among people fit for it

Anonymous A Visitor January 26, 2014 11:23 PM  

In the Catholic Church, the sacrament of matrimony does not require a priest to be valid. The marriage vows between the couple are the sacrament. It is illicit if a priest is available, and it should be in church. But the case of converts in a deep missionary field has come up.

It appears, parts 1620, 1630, and 1631 of the Catechism refute that.

State sanctioned marriage needs to be abolished. I was a groomsman in a friend's wedding last May. They got married in the Church but signed their legal marriage certificate before the wedding. Absurd. If OK and other states do manage to pull this off, bet on a pair of homos or non-religious folk taking it to SCOTUS and claiming their violating their Constitutional rights. The state would not give up such a meausre easily on the federal level (i.e. income taxes). It's rarely found a form of control that it doesn't like. To think, up until the 1950's the IRS provided free tax preparation. *sigh*

Blogger Rseven Rocket January 26, 2014 11:27 PM  

Farmer Tom said:
No women should not be allowed to file for divorce.
Although if you physically abuse your wife, she has a pre-existing right to self defence and has every moral right to shoot your ass.


So you think women should be allowed to file for divorce?

I quote from Deuteronomy 24, "if it comes to pass that she finds no favour in his eyes, because he has found some uncleanness in her," that's more open ended than just adultery, and most importantly "putting away" is an unGodly and immoral action which causes both the husband and the wife to commit adultery,

Shouldn't you be quoting what Jesus said about divorce? Looks like you're trying to find excuses for women to divorce if they're unhaaaapy. And speaking of the bible, do think the men who wrote the books of the bible believe that women should be allowed to divorce?

No wonder that men are leaving the modern church. It's so much easier to bitch about the gays isn't it? It's as if you're just following the Cathedral's restrictions on which speech is "socially acceptable". It's still "socially acceptable" to complain about the gay "marriage" but it is not "socially acceptable" to demand that Marriage 2.0 be abolished. And here you are, demanding that those who oppose Marriage 2.0 should "man up" and play the state Marriage 2.0 game.

Anonymous FritzG January 26, 2014 11:45 PM  

"Now, back the original topic of this post. The state is going to pretend to throw out their interest is what constitutes marriage. Anarchy will ensue. "

I don't think anarchy is going to ensue over this issue because this issue will be gone in a wee or two. At this very moment, the OK representative's colleagues are rolling their eyes and thinking to themselves, "carry on.".

No The circuit court will rule that indeed the anti gay marriage law is unconstitutional and this will of course a few christians on edge, but then all will be fine.

Blogger Tim January 26, 2014 11:52 PM  

Wow… awesome post. Thank you for saying this!

Blogger Rseven Rocket January 26, 2014 11:53 PM  

And FritzG continues his Prudentius impersonation

Anonymous FritzG January 27, 2014 12:04 AM  

"And FritzG continues his Prudentius impersonation"

Maybe, and in addition his status as the only one who get it right.

Blogger Rseven Rocket January 27, 2014 12:07 AM  

Maybe, and in addition his status as the only one who get it right.

Do you even know who Prudentius is?

Anonymous Anti-Democracy Activist January 27, 2014 12:22 AM  

"Well, you certainly liked it just enough to stay living under these rules and laws."

Ooh, you got me. I should have thought of the simple option, if I don't like the way my own country is being run, of uprooting my entire life, quitting my job, abandoning every possession I couldn't carry or fit in a shipping box, leaving all my friends and family behind, getting visas and work permits for a foreign country, learning their language fluently, finding a job there with someone who'll hire me over a native-born citizen, and relocating. That's *after* I find a country run on Christian, Neo-Reactionary principles. Obviously, my failure to take this quick, easy, and uncomplicated step marks me as a total hypocrite.

Either that, or you're a total fucking idiot.

Blogger Joseph Dooley January 27, 2014 12:47 AM  

Why we need most civil laws is that in a multicultural paradise we must preserve right & wrong. Libertarians' solution of "getting the gubmint out of marriage" means unleashing the chaos that multiculturalism logically devolves to.

Anonymous FritzG January 27, 2014 12:53 AM  

"Do you even know who Prudentius is?"

Do you really care? All that really matter is that I get it right.

Anonymous FritzG January 27, 2014 12:57 AM  

"Either that, or you're a total fucking idiot."

I'm just saying....Your complaint isn't THAT important to you...relative to most other things....and why it ought to be taken with a very small grain of salt.

Anonymous Anti-Democracy Activist January 27, 2014 1:05 AM  

"No The circuit court will rule that indeed the anti gay marriage law is unconstitutional and this will of course a few christians on edge, but then all will be fine."

Oh, and the idea that you might be able to get an unelected, unaccountable star chamber of geriatric ambulance chasers in Hogwarts outfits to overturn thousands of years of human tradition, the teachings of every major religious faith, and the will of the vast majority of the citizens of Oklahoma may indeed be correct, but it is hardly anything to brag about.

Do not ever, ever claim here again that you respect democracy or the will of the people, because you have just proven that you don't. Like all liberals, you have no principles, only ideology. You will do anything to win - anything - no matter what the cost.

And if you don't think that there will be a cost, then you're even more of a fool than I already took you for.

Anonymous Anti-Democracy Activist January 27, 2014 1:15 AM  

"I'm just saying....Your complaint isn't THAT important to you...relative to most other things....and why it ought to be taken with a very small grain of salt."

What shocks me most is that you actually seem to think that the "America - love it or leave it" argument has been around for a century or so now (at least since the first Red Scare, circa 1919) and that nobody has ever thought of the flaws in it. Or maybe you honestly think that you came up with that argument all by yourself. How disappointing it must be to find out that you aren't the philosophical genius you believed yourself to be!

Anonymous FritzG January 27, 2014 1:21 AM  

"Do not ever, ever claim here again that you respect democracy or the will of the people, because you have just proven that you don't. Like all liberals, you have no principles, only ideology. You will do anything to win - anything - no matter what the cost. "

Hey, if you don't understand how the American system of government works nor how legal issues are adjudicated all you need to do is read a little.

Pretty soon you'll be saying that as long as a majority of people vote for it, that ought to override the constitution.

You are so clearly a political idiot. And in the short time I've encountered you I've quickly realized you are so easily pegged as an unaccomplished, uneducated, loony toon who tends to bring a broken whistle to a knife fight.

Anonymous FritzG January 27, 2014 1:24 AM  

"Or maybe you honestly think that you came up with that argument all by yourself. How disappointing it must be to find out that you aren't the philosophical genius you believed yourself to be!"

No. What I honestly believe is that you keep bringing A tickets to E-ticket rides. Please, saying something of value. Offer some semblance of intellect. You just keep spewing nonsense.

Anonymous Anti-Democracy Activist January 27, 2014 1:58 AM  

"Hey, if you don't understand how the American system of government works nor how legal issues are adjudicated all you need to do is read a little."

I understand all too well how it works. What does that have to do with anything? I'm not arguing about how things are. The American system of government is a broken, corrupt mess based on premises that were laughably unlikely in the first place, and that has only gotten worse as ideological and moneyed interests have, over the course of a couple of centuries, figured out how to game the system.

Long story short: "It's right because America" isn't an argument that will work on me.

"Pretty soon you'll be saying that as long as a majority of people vote for it, that ought to override the constitution."

Hey, if you don't understand how democracy or the will of the people works, all you need to do is read a little.

As for the Constitution, the United States functionally doesn't have one. The unlimited power to "interpret" the Constitution is functionally identical to the unlimited power to rewrite the Constitution, so what the United States actually has are the biases, agendas, and personal preferences of nine withered lawyers in Zorro costumes. The Constitution simply says whatever they say it does. If they decide that the Third Amendment means that all citizens have to wear yellow hats on Tuesdays, then that's what it says. There is no recourse beyond this.

As such, as Fred Reed has pointed out, the United States suffers from a complete lack of Constitutionality. This is not the same as the lack of a Constitution. North Korea has a Constitution that guarantees every human right imaginable - but it is simply ignored, and in practice, the North Korean Constitution is whatever Kim Jong-un says it is. Lack of Constitutionality: it's not just for dismal Third-World dictatorships anymore.

"You are so clearly a political idiot. And in the short time I've encountered you I've quickly realized you are so easily pegged as an unaccomplished, uneducated, loony toon who tends to bring a broken whistle to a knife fight."

"No. What I honestly believe is that you keep bringing A tickets to E-ticket rides. Please, saying something of value. Offer some semblance of intellect. You just keep spewing nonsense."


Ad hominem snark. Meaningless, and pointless to respond to.

Speaking of which, this is the last time I'm going to bother responding to you. As Moldbug once said, the problem that Neo-Reactionaries face right now is not having a better class of critic. You're not a good enough critic for it to be worth my time to bother with you.

Anonymous farmer Tom January 27, 2014 7:44 AM  

Rseven Rocket,

Now you're just being a dumb ass.

I told you in very specific terms, NO, WOMEN SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO FILE FOR DIVORCE

And then I quoted to you the LAW,

Jesus kept the Law!

I am not what you are trying to portray me as being.

I just happen to believe in God ordained government and The Laws of Nature and Nature's God.

Anonymous Luke January 27, 2014 7:57 AM  

Gara January 26, 2014 8:07 AM

" Two adults who want to get married should be able to do it in any way the[y] choose"

Not exactly correct. Actually, it's two near-adults of opposite sex who are mentally competent and sincere who can legitimately marry. (I would prefer to restore banning miscegenation laws as well, but that's another subject.)

Anonymous Luke January 27, 2014 8:02 AM  

What Would Lodi Do? January 26, 2014 8:44 PM

"My European wife & I don't have a license (have a purely religious marriage) yet had no real difficulty getting our child my wife's foreign citizenship. The only bump was some wariness by officials over the child having my last name rather than the mother's,"

Why in Hades did you marry and not have your wife take your last name? That's typically having one foot out the door (and a running shoe on the other foot) on the woman's part. Are you a feminist, simply massively dominated by your wife, or is your marriage fraudulent in intent?

Anonymous FritzG January 27, 2014 8:53 AM  

"As for the Constitution, the United States functionally doesn't have one..."

This is where I stop reading your comment.because it makes clear you don't understand what you are talking are about, and you are typing just for the sake of typing.

You remind me of the 4 year old boy who keeps yanking at the dinner guest's shirt saying, "Mister, Mister, Mister, Mister, Mister..." while the grown up are talking and when the guest does finally look down at the little boy and says, "Yes, little boy?, he looks up and say, "I went Poo!!", giggles and runs off.

You're statement on the constitution is akin to "I went poo!".

Anonymous E. PERLINE January 27, 2014 9:17 AM  

Marriage is not a civil union or a religious union or a legal union. It requires deeper emotional maturity than that. Marriage is a sharing of resources. It is a partnership of survival. It is a biological union, enhanced with human forgiveness and love.

Blogger AMDG January 27, 2014 3:45 PM  

Even though the respect associated with being married has disappeared, the shame of intruding on another woman's turf has not (h/t Drudge):

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2014/01/27/call-kurtis-getting-off-website-shaming-cheaters/

As long as the taboo exists, it would appear that civilization does not need a piece of paper from the town clerk to deter crossing the line - just sunlight.

Blogger JCclimber January 27, 2014 3:57 PM  

Nothing quite like kicking the conservative hornet's nest.

Next stop, removing the marriage tax benefits of selling your home! As if paying the capital gains tax on the excess profit above $250,000 freakin' dollars is going to absolutely kill you forever. Boo hoo.

Anonymous Phalluster January 29, 2014 11:15 PM  

It's babble like this that reminds me never to trust the wisdom of some goon who spends his time writing elf romance novellas. The family is the most productive economic unit in human history; the union of man and woman is the basis of European tradition and theology. A traditional, conservative government is entirely justified in promoting stable, child-rearing pairings. The 'marriage tax' is overblown in the minds of libertarian neckbeards, since most marriages with children end up with a breadwinner in the hierarchy.

Insurance companies long ago figured out that marriage indicated responsibility and stability. Not to hang a hat on their wisdom, but removing this crucial classification from our multicultural society (just so papists don't have to wed a few faggots) is a step into Orwellian non-think, and as culturally marxist as Europid equality with the mudskin leech races.

Ahh, but the dwarves did not declare marriages!

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts