Some days I feel like getting my libertarian point of view on governmental rolls through the thick head of liberals is more painful that banging my head against a spiked brick wall. The following conversation is the perfect example:
ME: For some it can be though. And that's okay! Just let then have there version as long add they don't try to define it for anyone else..honestly the only legal anything that should be attached to massage is a binding private contract. No govt or church necessary.
Person #1: It's not a private contract, it's a legal contract. That is the domain of the government, not individuals or churches.
Person #2: I believe we're on the same page Nikki, or rather on compatible ones, even if I didn't understand what a massage has to do with any of this (although now I want one! Sarah Kate, Nichol is a libertarian, so she doesn't believe government should be involved at all. I don't share that, but that's why I said "or rather on compatible ones", since the point here is that she doesn't agree with inequality either.
or at least that's how I'm interpreting this!
ME: Ugh auto correct!
ME: My point is that it shouldn't be the realm of govt. I can join into a private contact for a myriad of different purposes and the only time the govt gets involved is when it needs to be upheld our dissolved. Not at its creation. Marriage should be no different.
ME: And yes Barbara i believe anyone should be able to marry whomever they choose, however they choose. Period.
Person #3: However, IF it was religious, then why does it require a license? AND if it is govt based, why is there a religious ceremony? Now I do realize that not everyone opts for the ceremony, but you get my point....
Person #1: The problem is that marriage is not a contract that is only recognized by and relevant to the two people involved. It's a contract that's recognized by employers, insurance companies, hospitals, schools, courts, social services, and hundreds of other organizations and services that families rely on. The government needs to step up and declare that by law, a marriage between any two consenting adults must be recognized by all of those organizations and services equally. Otherwise, gay couples will have to spend all of their time (as they do now) trying to get these organizations to recognize the personal agreement they've made. And they suffer unbelievable hardships as a result. This is INCREDIBLY different from, for instance, a contract between two people to provide a service for a certain price.
Person #3: I agree. That was kinda my point.
Nichol: See all of that is crazy! The ceremony IMO whatever it looks like is because marriage is special, can be spiritual, and should be celebrated. The license is the govt's way to control and make money. Just my opinion of course
Person #1: How else are hospitals and courts supposed to decide whose opinions they have to take into consideration when it comes to whether or not a sick or dying person gets treatment, or has certain visitors? How else are insurance companies supposed to determine and be held accountable for the number of people they have to insure when they insure a "family"? How else are employers supposed to understand their legal obligations with regard to how pensions and benefits are paid out? How else are lawyers and judges supposed to determine who has a right to reasonably contest a will or settlement, or who has the right to speak on the behalf of a minor child? How else are creditors supposed to determine (and be held accountable for) who they can legally pursue for the repayment of debts? These things are all governed by the definition of family. It's not about a personal agreement, it's an integral part of the fabric of our society, and it needs to be equally applicable. If it was just about a personal agreement, we wouldn't even be having this conversation- it would be a non-issue.
ME: I realize that is the reality, Sarah. I just don't think it should be. I think that everyone would be better served if the government stayed out of they personal lives.
I also understand that at this point in our societal evolution we are dependent upon the govt to make those definitions for us because of the convoluted system of interference we have in place. I find it both sad and frustrating that we even have to have a conversation about who can marry who.
Person #1: You are certainly entitled to that opinion. I happen to think it's unrealistic and rather beside the point, but I certainly have my ideals that are unrealistic also, so who am I to judge?
ME: See i don't think it is "besides the point." I feel it is imperative to have the conversation. How else will things change? The way things are done now is absolute lunacy if you ask me.
We have allowed more and more control and have less and less freedom everyday.
Recognizing a legally binding civil contract of marriage for legal purposes is still the way to go for me. Let the churches do what they will, but if we have to have the govt involved then make it simple and all inclusive.
ME: If it were a system of personal liberty, a private contract of marriage would serve the same purpose that a license serves now with all of the legal ramifications you listed above. In fact, many of those issues could be defined within the contract itself without the need of any civil interference unless one party decides to contest the contact at some point.
I know that isn't easily achieved in our current system. But then I think our current system is horribly unjust, oppressive, and meddlesome.
Person #1: "Recognizing a legally binding civil contract of marriage for legal purposes is still the way to go for me." That's all anyone is asking for. I'm not sure what we're arguing about.
ME: I didn't think we were arguing. i was just stating that I wish it weren't necessary, and that the govt shouldn't need to be involved. They should never have been allowed to have a say in the first place.
Person #1:We were I believe in the necessity of government, and I think this issue clearly demonstrates why it's necessary, but I can move on.
ME: I'm not an anarchist. The government had its roll, but i don't believe that defining marriage is one.
And I'd rather say we were having a discussion. arguing implies heated emotion like anger to me. I didn't feel any of that in your words, and i pray you didn't in mine.
Person #1: What possible role could be more important for the government to have if not to defend civil rights which people will not voluntarily recognize on their own? The ability to define who your family is is at the foundation of our society, of our humanity, of our pursuit of happiness.
ME: See I still think you're missing my point. Other than recognizing a marriage contract entered into by two people of legal age as valid and binding (and by extension requiring all others to recognize it's validity as well) the government doesn't belong in our personal lives.
Yes, protecting our liberties is very much the roll of government! It's most important roll if you ask me. Yet, there are thousands of laws on the books at all levels of government that defile our liberties every day. The Defense of Marriage Act is only one of them. I want to see it struck down, and believe with my whole being that it is unconstitutional.
Person #1: 1) The general scope and complexity of government is a completely different discussion.
2) You can't have it both ways. Either the government is in the business of protecting our civil liberties and should recognize a marriage contract entered into by two consenting adults, or defining marriage is not one of their roles.
ME: /headdesk. Defining marriage as one woman and one man is unconstitutional. Getting out of the way of people and preserving their freedom to enter into what ever contract they choose is the only roll they have here. If then they have to define marriage as a contract between two adults regardless of gender in order to protect that liberty then I guess they have to. I'd rather see them uphold "any contract between two consenting adults" as valid without the need to define what is contained within that contract.
That is what I mean by not defining marriage.
And as for your #1. That IS the whole discussion. Our government is so pervasive and all reaching that it touches nearly every aspect of our lives including who we can or can't marry. That is wrong. It needs to change. Until it does we will continue to see battles like this over basic HUMAN rights.
