Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There should be an option for suddenly state-marriage hating libertarians where they can enter into a legally binding and enforceable co-habitation contract with the same tax and partner-rights and obligations as state-marriage but where their union or contract doesn't have to be registered with any government agency. People can still have state marriages but there is an opt out for those who oppose it. No need to ban state-marriages outright unless the agenda is just to deny them to gays... oh, wait.....
Exactly! Where were the libertarians and "government needs to get out of marriage" types BEFORE the gays came along looking for what's theirs?
And it's actually not even a libertarian perspective to want the government out of marriage. Just as the government is what creates and maintains the business contract form known as the "corporation" (which has financial, legal and liability implications that automatically attach), so too is the marriage contract nothing more but a form of association between two people for which automatic rights, protections, etc.
There is nothing inherently statist about that. In fact, it's completely compatible with libertarian principles. Unless libertarians now believe we should abolish all government created business forms and associations?
Libertarians do not hate marriage, they don't want the government involved with it because the government ruins things. If state marriage was replaced with a legally binding and enforceable cohabitation contract, how would that deny marriage to gays at all?
They could simply do a marriage ritual outside of marriage and sign their contract... then they would be married with all the benefits government marriages enjoy today... without needing any other person's approval to do so, as long as they are consenting adults.
Cohabitation is why you think government should endorse a "cohabitation contract?" In that case then it applies to anyone living under the same roof as someone else, to include college roommates, friends, and siblings living away from home.
Why would people living together be so vital or important to society that we would demand government be involved?
We already have that cohabitation contract, it is called marriage. You can already have a ceremony, but it means nothing legally without signing the government contract.
Basically you want things to be the way they already are, but change the name. Why waste the time and money to change every law, or government form that says marriage or marital status to say contract A?
Except that marriage is not about cohabitation, otherwise siblings could be married.
We already have that cohabitation contract, it is called marriage. You can already have a ceremony, but it means nothing legally without signing the government contract.
Basically you want things to be the way they already are, but change the name. Why waste the time and money to change every law, or government form that says marriage or marital status to say contract A?
You are so full of it, how dare you tell me what my position is?
Marriage existed before governments, so you are flat out wrong that marriage is a cohabitation contract, seeing how cohabitation contracts had not been conceived at the time marriage was.
You are straight up lying about my position; one, I do not care at all what anyone calls it, hell, I call it marriage. Two; I do NOT want things to stay the same, I want the government to NOT be a party of the cohabitation contract, and they should have NO say in who can sign the contract as long as they are both consenting adults.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7
Exactly! Where were the libertarians and "government needs to get out of marriage" types BEFORE the gays came along looking for what's theirs?
And it's actually not even a libertarian perspective to want the government out of marriage. Just as the government is what creates and maintains the business contract form known as the "corporation" (which has financial, legal and liability implications that automatically attach), so too is the marriage contract nothing more but a form of association between two people for which automatic rights, protections, etc.
There is nothing inherently statist about that. In fact, it's completely compatible with libertarian principles. Unless libertarians now believe we should abolish all government created business forms and associations?
LOL, are you really saying that Libertarians are trying to get rid of marriage just so gays can't have it? That is the MOST twisted representation of pro-liberty beliefs I have ever heard.
Libertarians want a contract that the government has no license over and is not a party of. The courts can still enforce private contracts, without having to approve them. If you took away the governments fictional authority to say who can and who cant get married, AND they were not an entity included in the signers of the contract... EVERYBODY could get married, have the same protections and benefits, and the contracts could still be enforced by the courts system.
Libertarians are not anti-marriage, nor anti-gay marriage, they are anti-government involvement in private relationships.
Cohabitation is why you think government should endorse a "cohabitation contract?" In that case then it applies to anyone living under the same roof as someone else, to include college roommates, friends, and siblings living away from home.
Why would people living together be so vital or important to society that we would demand government be involved?
I do not endorse any government contract, I endorse voluntary private contracts, that the government can not exclude anybody from participating in. I am completely against government involvement in marriage, but I think people should be able to draw up a private contract between themselves with whatever terms are voluntarily agreed to (including siblings and roommates), they should be able to call it what ever they want, and nobody should be excluded from being able to participate by government enforcement.
I do not think the government should be part of the contract at all, but I do believe that the courts must be able to enforce such private contracts.
Last edited by Xander_Crews; 02-19-2014 at 11:37 AM..
LOL, are you really saying that Libertarians are trying to get rid of marriage just so gays can't have it? That is the MOST twisted representation of pro-liberty beliefs I have ever heard.
Perhaps you can show us where libertarians and all the "get government out of marriage types" have been prior to gays showing up on the scene demanding marriage rights?
There are two routes to take if you are actually a pro-liberty person:
1) Support extension of marriage contract rights to gay people;
2) Abolish all government recognized marriage?
Which one is ACTUALLY going to happen, and which one is a juvenile pipe dream?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xander Crews
Libertarians want a contract that the government has no license over and is not a party of. The courts can still enforce private contracts, without having to approve them. If you took away the governments fictional authority to say who can and who cant get married, AND they were not an entity included in the signers of the contract... EVERYBODY could get married, have the same protections and benefits, and the contracts could still be enforced by the courts system.
The government appropriately sets parameters for the types of contracts that it's going to enforce. Frankly, I don't want my government's resources wasted enforcing everybody's "homemade" contracts.
For enforceability to work, there must be consistency. Business confidence requires consistency. Consistency cannot be had without some basic rules being in place.
I take it you have been involved in a contract enforcement action before, and know the importance of same?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xander Crews
Libertarians are not anti-marriage, nor anti-gay marriage, they are anti-government involvement in private relationships.
The marriage contract is not government involvement in private relationship. It is something the government has created over time, for the benefit of those who wish to partake in it. Nobody forces anyone to partake in it, but if you do, certain things happen and are automatic.
Just like entering into a corporation vs. staying a sole proprietor.
However, because the government DOES offer this thing called "marriage," once it opens it up, it must be equal in its application.
Perhaps you can show us where libertarians and all the "get government out of marriage types" have been prior to gays showing up on the scene demanding marriage rights?
There are two routes to take if you are actually a pro-liberty person:
1) Support extension of marriage contract rights to gay people;
2) Abolish all government recognized marriage?
Which one is ACTUALLY going to happen, and which one is a juvenile pipe dream?
The government appropriately sets parameters for the types of contracts that it's going to enforce. Frankly, I don't want my government's resources wasted enforcing everybody's "homemade" contracts.
For enforceability to work, there must be consistency. Business confidence requires consistency. Consistency cannot be had without some basic rules being in place.
I take it you have been involved in a contract enforcement action before, and know the importance of same?
The marriage contract is not government involvement in private relationship. It is something the government has created over time, for the benefit of those who wish to partake in it. Nobody forces anyone to partake in it, but if you do, certain things happen and are automatic.
Just like entering into a corporation vs. staying a sole proprietor.
However, because the government DOES offer this thing called "marriage," once it opens it up, it must be equal in its application.
If you think the court system is wasting money enforcing private contracts, that is absurd. Look at all the spending, and tell me where court administration falls on the list. Should courts stop enforcing pre-nuptials and such because you don't want your tax money spent on private contracts?
Not to mention these "homemade" private contracts already exist and are a majority in comparison to contracts that government are a party to.
Marriage existed before government, before religion... so no, the government does not "offer" marriage, it simply puts restrictions on it.
If you think the court system is wasting money enforcing private contracts, that is absurd. Look at all the spending, and tell me where court administration falls on the list. Should courts stop enforcing pre-nuptials and such because you don't want your tax money spent on private contracts?
I don't think you get it. The government sets the rules for which contracts are enforceable. What constitutes a valid contract vs. invalid contract. Which provisions of a contract are legal, and which are not.
Presently, the government effectively enforces contracts because there is predictability and standards of contract that are followed, in accordance with legal requirements that have developed over hundreds of years.
Without the government regulating these things it would mean unpredictability in enforcement, and HURT business transactions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xznder Crews
Not to mention these "homemade" private contracts already exist and are a majority in comparison to contracts that government are a party to.
The contract must still be LEGAL.
Two guys in Arkansas can enter into a homemade "marriage" contract, but it would be unenforceable in Court. A man and a child can enter into a purchase contract for a house, but it would be unenforceable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xander Crews
Marriage existed before government, before religion... so no, the government does not "offer" marriage, it simply puts restrictions on it.
You are right. But that is irrelevant. The government NOW has created what amounts to a contract scheme/personal association form known as "civil marriage."
It's like how the government regulates the corporate form. You enter into a marriage, you get automatic rights, responsibilities, liabilities and benefits attendant with same. Just as when you enter into a corporate form for your business via registration with the state, you get automatic rights, tax implications, liability implications, etc.
The fact that the government offers these contract schemes - which are beneficial - means they must offer the contract scheme to EVERYONE.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
