Rogan and Shapiro agree: get government out of marriage

Completely agree with both of them.

quote:

---

The areligious have the right to marry;

---

You have the right to free association

quote:

---

The areligious have the right to marry; who, therefore, is to witness, enforce, and govern the marriage rights of these people

---

There's no such thing as marriage rights.

The government can enforce any contract you enter freely through our court system.

I watched his recent episode with Shapiro.
at joe trying to convince Ben that religion was created by people tripping and thinking they were experiencing God. Which makes total sense

quote:

---

You have the right to free association

---

This isn’t relevant. Associating with a group who approves of your marriage isn’t a requirement of marriage.

quote:

---

There's no such thing as marriage rights.

---

This isn’t true. The basic human right to marry is established and referenced numerous times by SCOTUS. No link; have at it.

I agree completely that the government should get out of marriage. The government's default position ought to be that it has no role in how consenting adults choose to organize their private lives. It has always struck me as odd that the position of proponents of gay marriage really amounts to an argument that their relationships and love for each other have more meaning if they are approved by the government. Odd in a free society that the value of their private relationship depends on the government stamp of approval.

As for whether the "areligious" have the "right" to marry. They have the right to enter into contracts like anyone else, and the government can be used enforce those contractual commitments. Whether the government should grant certain privileges or benefits to married couples (which seems to be the gist of the argument that gay marriage proponents used in their equal protection angle in arguing for gay marriage), those privileges and benefits are not privileges and benefits for marriage per se, but are incentives designed to advance the government's interest in procreation and child rearing (where else is that next generation of taxpayers going to come from). The government can still find ways to advance those interests without marriage.

quote:

---

The basic human right to marry is established and referenced numerous times by SCOTUS

---

As always you fundamentally misunderstand the references in Supreme Court decisions and are either cherry picking random lines or parroting a talking point.

I assure you that you have absolutely no legally granted constitutional right to marry. If you disagree please show me where I am wrong and please don't be a lazy jackass and tell me to Google it. The burden of proof rests with the person who asserts an argument.

quote:

---

I assure you that you have absolutely no constitutional right to marry.

---

Correct. It’s a fundamental human right that exists with or without the constitution.

quote:

---

It’s a fundamental human right that exists with or without the constitution.

---

So it's a fundamental right, not a government granted right, and thus the government should not be involved.

Marriage may be a fundamental non-governmental right. So the government should stay out of them.

If two people wish to enter a contract legally binding their property, fortunes, etc. Then that's fine and the government should enforce the contract

quote:

---

So it's a fundamental right, not a government granted right, and thus the government should not be involved.

---

How about Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness? Get the government out of the business of protecting those, too?

If the government does not protect marriage, the government does not protect liberty.

Why not? I wouldn't bet against government getting out of the marriage game. Again, what legitimate role is there for the government in what is otherwise a private decision about how individuals choose to organize their lives?