Real, Honest-to-God Marriage: A Libertarian Definition of Marriage and How Gay...

[shanek]

Real, Honest-to-God Marriage: A Libertarian Definition of Marriage and How Gay People Can Have It NOW

http://www.libertyforall.net/2003/archive/april12/marriage.html

Marriage is not dependent on governments or mainstream churches for validation. Because, in spite of what else marriage may have become, it has always been the right of free and responsible individuals to create Family where none existed before.

Marriage commitments happen every day with only their own mutual approval to validate their existence. These marriages were once acknowledged in law as Common Law Marriages. But fearing that gays would use them as the basis of claiming legal marriage status most states have rewritten their law to exclude us, or have done away with these laws altogether.

Facts to keep in mind: We already have the right to marry even if no one else acknowledges it. There is value in the fact that so many gay and lesbian marriages have succeeded without a license and without the perks that legal marriage gives to straights. And finally, the fact of not having marriage as a legal option is undeniably a part of what is now rightfully called Gay (or Queer) Culture.

In other words, if gay marriage were legalized tomorrow I believe a surprisingly low percentage of gays and lesbians would actually take advantage of it. However, the legalization movement has merit and is worthy of support because it will make legal marriage available to those who want it.

I believe, as does the Libertarian Party, that the perfect solution would be for the government to get out of marriage completely, no licensing, no special legal privileges. But that won't happen until Libertarians are elected in much larger numbers.

Democrats say they want to equalize access to legal marriage for all. But that won't happen until their actions start matching their rhetoric.

Conservative Republicans want to make marriage illegal for everyone but themselves. But their dominance over marriage will not last much longer.

One thing is clear, government needs to apply the marriage laws equally or abolish those laws. Because the institutions of marriage and family are actually made stronger in an environment of freedom where each marriage or family decides for themselves the parameters of their relationships.

If you and your spouse (or spouses, for that matter) have made marriage-like commitments to each other, if you have exchanged vows, or if you are in a "tried and true" relationship; I challenge you to call it what it is. Defy all those who would deny you your right, claim it, until society recognizes your relationship for what it is... Marriage. Not some fake shadow of marriage; but a Real, Honest-to-God MARRIAGE.

[GrapeJ713]

I think it's kind of cool that gay people might just bring The Church down to the cult status it was long ago. Since the xian cult book has the silly thing about homosexuals being bad. And now that gays are more mainstream ('Will and Grace' is a hit show) and more and more people realize that gays deserve the same basic human rights as everyone else. I think The Church will become more and more irrelevant year after year. People will still believe wierd stuff, probably move over to eastern religions, wicca, gaea, or make up thier own.
By the way, I am a confident heterosexual that appreciates most gay people, mainly because thier very existance pisses off most xians.

[Troll]

Originally posted by GrapeJ713
I think it's kind of cool that gay people might just bring The Church down to the cult status it was long ago. Since the xian cult book has the silly thing about homosexuals being bad. And now that gays are more mainstream ('Will and Grace' is a hit show) and more and more people realize that gays deserve the same basic human rights as everyone else. I think The Church will become more and more irrelevant year after year. People will still believe wierd stuff, probably move over to eastern religions, wicca, gaea, or make up thier own.
By the way, I am a confident heterosexual that appreciates most gay people, mainly because thier very existance pisses off most xians.

so homosexuality is cool to you because it pisses off some as opposed to it being an individuals right?

[corplinx]

Freedom of Association is one of the most misunderstood freedoms. The freedom to choose someone to share you fortune (or lack thereof) with falls under this.

I am all for civil unions that allow you pass on your fortune to a lover, friend, or whatever. Your civil union could be a marriage performed by a church or some other religious body. The government then recognizes it as form of civil union. If a gay couple finds a church that allows gay marriage, then guess what? They can be married.

However, legal unions are done at the state level. In my state, getting legally "married" is hard to do unless your friends with a justice of the peace. They simply dont have the time for this sort of thing anymore. I think people who are concerned should lobby their states to take the BS out of a rite of heirship. You should be able to go down to your country clerk's office, show your and the other parties ID, fill out a form, and voila; you now have a civil union. It should be called something legal though, like a "legal kinship" or some such. To break this union? One form filled out by either party. Leave the messy details to the civil courts.

Government is too involved with "marriage" and "divorce" as it is.

[Fade]

Marriage here is all about filling out a few pieces of paper (a type of contract) that puts you in a lawful civil union. Marriage is just a ceremony celebrating that.


Also, I -really- wish people would stop picturing churches when they think of weddings.

The church has -no- say in marriage in the US. None at all.

[hammegk]

Hmmm --dare I say say it -- those are queer ideas. :eek:

[shanek]

Marriage should be treated by the government as a contract and nothing more (although marriage itself is considerably more than just a contract). Therefore, the government has no business saying who can enter into such a contract and who cannot. As long as all parties involved are informed and consenting adults, the government should be forced to recognize the legitimace of the contract as they do all contracts.

[GrapeJ713]

Originally posted by Troll

so homosexuality is cool to you because it pisses off some as opposed to it being an individuals right?

Yes, that's the main reason I think it's cool now.
There are still places in the world where it isn't cool to be gay and down right dangerous some times, but I think it's getting better all the time. And I think the more gays are accepted the more church doctrine looks hateful and cruel.

Personally I just don't understand most gay people. I don't see how a man would choose another man over a woman. I can understand lesbians a bit more, but then a lot of lesbians try to look like men. If a woman finds other women attractive, why would she want one that looks like a man? That is the great thing about women to me, they are different then men. I don't think I'll ever understand, other than the obvious, I don't think gay people are that much different than straights. I have known nice gay people, and losers that just happen to be gay.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by corplinx
[B]
I am all for civil unions that allow you pass on your fortune to a lover, friend, or whatever. Your civil union could be a marriage performed by a church or some other religious body. The government then recognizes it as form of civil union. If a gay couple finds a church that allows gay marriage, then guess what? They can be married.


I agree. Marriage is nothing more than a legal instrument. Apart from gays there is also an issue with couples ( heterosexuals) who live together and they don't want to get married. In Europe, married couples enjoy many- many privilegies ( social or even TAX privilegies) that unmarried couples can't enjoy.

Something must be done about that. Societies don't collapse by the unmarried couples...

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Something must be done about that. Societies don't collapse by the unmarried couples...

Yeah, it's more a single mother problem. Do you think 2 moms would fix it?

[Cleopatra]

Can you elaborate this complicated, therefore, terribly brilliant for my narrow mind to get it, thought of yours?

What do you mean by that?
Yeah, it's more a single mother problem.Do you think 2 moms would fix it?

What do you want me to say ?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Can you elaborate this complicated, therefore, terribly brilliant for my narrow mind to get it, thought of yours?


Testing for understanding without the sarcasm often yields better results.

Whatever. :rolleyes: :D


One way cultures decline is by failing to educate the children to the point where the culture is maintained. Interesting that jewish culture continues, and at high levels of success.

I may be out of touch, but child rearing worked best as I recall with a father, and a mother. To protect and encourage that state of affairs, cultures have used "the marriage ritual". It often had little to do with love or attraction, rather to do with suitable breeding & offspring being afforded the best chance for successful continuance of the culture by the offspring.

The US in particular is plagued by single parent families, most of them female. I only note that 2 moms are probably no better than one, albeit better imo than 2 dads. Capische?

[Cleopatra]

It was terribly complicated indeed, because I could have never thought that you were reffering to parents...

Parents, or single parents were totally absent from my post. I talked about unmarried couples ( even the childless) in Europe that enjoy tax privileges for example.

As for the other matter, when societies decline, families have an important role to play, I agree, but in my opinion is not the only factor in the progress or the decline of a society.

Societies decline when they fail to satisfy the needs of their members. At least this is what I think.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
...
Societies decline when they fail to satisfy the needs of their members. At least this is what I think.

I agree. Now, who has a better chance to define what future societal needs should be?

History has rewarded people whose education is from mom & dad, like thinking relatives, and clan. If mass media raise the child we get what we are getting all over the world. Is that 'necessarily' bad? In my mind, yes, but well meaning people can certainly disagree.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by hammegk


I agree. Now, who has a better chance to define what future societal needs should be?

History has rewarded people whose education is from mom & dad, like thinking relatives, and clan. If mass media raise the child we get what we are getting all over the world. Is that 'necessarily' bad? In my mind, yes, but well meaning people can certainly disagree.


This is a very big but interesting discussion. I grew-up in a country where family values counted most of all.

Maybe you have seen the film "My Big Fat Greek Wedding". Comedies exaggerate of course but the film has traces of truth. The bonds of family that they never have to break, the "one for all and all for one", children living next to their perents home, even after their marriage etc etc etc.

This type of family was the result of very special social needs. It was the result of extremely difficult economical and social situations.In this typical families, they have grown very special children, indeed.

The problem is that nowadays those situations don't exist anymore but the family structure in Greece hasn't changed yet and now it causes nothing but problems...

Otherwise, I believe too, that children need heterosexual families to grow up normally and I am afraid that none can persuade me on the contrary. It's this narrow mind of mine that has problems in perceiving things... :)

[RandFan]

bump

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
This is a very big but interesting discussion. I grew-up in a country where family values counted most of all.

Maybe you have seen the film "My Big Fat Greek Wedding". Comedies exaggerate of course but the film has traces of truth. The bonds of family that they never have to break, the "one for all and all for one", children living next to their perents home, even after their marriage etc etc etc.

This type of family was the result of very special social needs. It was the result of extremely difficult economical and social situations.In this typical families, they have grown very special children, indeed.

The problem is that nowadays those situations don't exist anymore but the family structure in Greece hasn't changed yet and now it causes nothing but problems...

Otherwise, I believe too, that children need heterosexual families to grow up normally and I am afraid that none can persuade me on the contrary. It's this narrow mind of mine that has problems in perceiving things... :) I just saw the movie last night. It was interesting because I was raised Mormon but I recognized much of the same behaviors in my family. We had large families and talked allot and ate allot.

I think that statistically children are better off with a mother and father. There is some evidence that supports this. I don't think this can justify not allowing lesbians and gays to not be able to raise children.

There are some other studies to suggest that gays and lesbians are more socially conscious, civically minded and are more affluent so it might just be a wash anyway.

[Fade]

There are some other studies to suggest that gays and lesbians are more socially conscious, civically minded and are more affluent so it might just be a wash anyway.

I think their social and civic conscious comes from constantly being reminded that we lack many of the rights that straight people take for granted. It's easy, for me, to see how a gay couple would raise a more socially minded child, on average.

However, the affluence that homosexuals enjoy generally traces itself to their lack of children. Schooling yourself, getting a career, keeping that career, and doing all the things necessary to advance yourself are much easier if you don't have to also take care of children. So, it's not really a fair comparison in that sense.

I am also of the opinion that a child doesn't in any sense require two parents. The problem with a single parent is that that parents can BE a parent while another is out supporting them. For most of western culture, the father figure has -always- been emotionally absent. We are raised primarily by our mothers. Fathers are outside making a living while everyone is holding down the homestead. The idea that we require two parents (much less one of each gender) is proposterous. It's a classic case of correlation and causality. A child raised by a single parent will, statistically, be less educated and make less money.

It's also easy to see that our society doesn't really care what is best for the child when it comes to adoption. Often times it comes down to a homosexual adopting the child, or nobody adopting the child. I would think the majority of americans at this point in time would rather NOBODY adopt, than a gay man or woman!

Anyway, I have yet to see any argument against gay marriage, adoption, children, etc, that wasn't thinly veiled homophobia. It's so thoroughly entrenched in our culture that it will take a century to expunge it.