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.
Homosexual marriage is a legal absurdity under the common law. A contract for marriage is a legal joining of two family's property rights for the benefit of progeny - the "legitimate" child.
Homosexual couples do not produce offspring, hence there's no legal reason to "marry" for the benefit of progeny.
However, under national socialism, the benefits offered to married couples may make it attractive to homosexual couples.
Other administrative abuses - such as barring "partners" from visitor access in hospitals is a government created barrier, not intrinsic to the contract for marriage.
However, since most Americans were kept ignorant of law, especially the common law, I can see why folks would think that "marriage" was a right. Remember, if it was a "right" you wouldn't need government permission (marriage license).
Before national socialism, and the surrender of one's birthright, free Americans could enter into common law marriages without needing government permission. Nor need a lawyer to sever that common law marriage.
Unfortunately, the PTB will carefully steer the argument into convoluted legal maneuvers so as to hide the real problem... the loss of status at law.
Pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, governments are instituted to :
a) secure rights and
b) govern those who consent.
Rights that preceded the creation of government are not "given" by government, but by one's Creator. That which is given by government is technically a privilege, though misnamed as a right (aka civil or political right or liberty).
So to get a marriage license means that the parties to the compact are NOT exercising inalienable rights, but government granted PRIVILEGES. And a license is for an act that would otherwise be a trespass, a tort or otherwise NOT ALLOWED.
Are you so sure that a government "licensed" marriage is what you want?
What law would you be violating if you didn't get a license?
Whose property rights are you trespassing?
A contract for marriage is a legal joining of two family's property rights for the benefit of progeny - the "legitimate" child.
There's nothing in the marriage laws that says marriage is for the benefit of progeny.
Quote:
Homosexual couples do not produce offspring, hence there's no legal reason to "marry" for the benefit of progeny.
Only about half of opposite-sex couples have children, so if we're to go strictly by what you said, then about half of the marriage licenses granted to opposite-sex couples should be revoked.
Only about half of opposite-sex couples have children, so if we're to go strictly by what you said, then about half of the marriage licenses granted to opposite-sex couples should be revoked.
My heterosexual husband and I don't have any "progeny". Guess we'll have to call it quits now?
Yes, [i]marriage[i], properly defined, is a civil right. Gay marriage fails this definition.
In your opinion. In my opinion the proper definition of marriage should be between two adult persons, with no mention of the gender of the two persons. And I'm heterosexual, so there is nothing 'personal' in it for me, other than the happiness of a few friends who happen to be gay.
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.
