- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Rogan and Shapiro agree: get government out of marriage
Posted on 4/4/19 at 1:48 pm to xiv
Posted on 4/4/19 at 1:48 pm to xiv
quote:
This is a point I used to make on here years ago, but it’s a point that doesn’t make sense. The areligious have the right to marry; who, therefore, is to witness, enforce, and govern the marriage rights of these people?
I'm not clear here. Do you agree with them or not?
Oh. And honestly, there is zero need for govt in marriage
0
Posted on 4/4/19 at 1:48 pm to xiv
quote:Explain
Very well, but getting government out of marriage violates the rights of the areligious,
Posted on 4/4/19 at 1:49 pm to TbirdSpur2010
(no message)
This post was edited on 5/26/23 at 3:17 pm
Posted on 4/4/19 at 1:49 pm to xiv
quote:But what does this have to do with a need to GOVERN those marriages?
This isn’t true. The basic human right to marry is established and referenced numerous times by SCOTUS. No link; have at it.
Posted on 4/4/19 at 1:50 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
But what does this have to do with a need to GOVERN those marriages?
Legal recognition =/= "governance"
Posted on 4/4/19 at 1:51 pm to Nguyener
The theory, though is that the state has an interest in the orderly disposition and succession of property. The State also has an interest in the children produced by procreation. Don’t blame me. This goes back for centuries
Posted on 4/4/19 at 1:51 pm to ShortyRob
Two atheists with no friends nearby have the right to marry.
Two people who are the only people in their area who practice their religion have the right to marry.
It isn’t incumbent on these parties to go and find someone who will accept their wishes to be married. This is a function of their government.
Two people who are the only people in their area who practice their religion have the right to marry.
It isn’t incumbent on these parties to go and find someone who will accept their wishes to be married. This is a function of their government.
Posted on 4/4/19 at 1:51 pm to xiv
quote:
but the government isn’t getting out of marriage, and the idea is absurd on its face.
I submit that if there had never in history been marriage licenses and you proposed today that after people chose a spouse, they had to apply to the state and pay it money in order to get married, like 99% of people would oppose such silliness
Posted on 4/4/19 at 1:52 pm to xiv
Hypothetical example...
Dirtbag father of three with his high paying job leaves his stay at home wife to run off with his secretary.
Under your example if the federal government is completely out of the marriage game then this stay at home mom will receive nothing from the father to care for his children, correct?
Dirtbag father of three with his high paying job leaves his stay at home wife to run off with his secretary.
Under your example if the federal government is completely out of the marriage game then this stay at home mom will receive nothing from the father to care for his children, correct?
Posted on 4/4/19 at 1:53 pm to xiv
quote:
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit are also fundamental
Which govt agency requires I buy a "pursuit of happiness" license?
Posted on 4/4/19 at 1:54 pm to ShortyRob
(no message)
This post was edited on 5/26/23 at 3:17 pm
Posted on 4/4/19 at 1:54 pm to CivilTiger83
quote:Why would you believe this?
Under your example if the federal government is completely out of the marriage game then this stay at home mom will receive nothing from the father to care for his children, correct?
Are you under the impression that if you father 3 children with your live in girlfriend that she can't go to court for child support if you dump her?
Posted on 4/4/19 at 1:54 pm to xiv
quote:
You said that since marriage is a fundamental and not constitutionally-granted right, the government should not be involved.
Correct. The government should only be involved in protecting or enforcing things that we the people have empowered it to do so. Marriage is not a right that falls into that catagory.
quote:
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit are also fundamental and not constitutional. Therefore, your argument is silly.
Wrong. "life" or: security and protection of yourself, your life, and your home are rights expressed in the constitution as well as fundamental human rights.
Liberty, or the freedom from government intrusions and demanded government protections of certain acts are also enumerated in our constitution and thus constitutional rights.
Rights can be either or both fundamental or constitutional. The right to be secure in your home for instance is something that is both a fundamental human right and an American Constitutional right.
Fundamental Human Rights are generally agreed upon as rights which are fundamental to humans. Constitutional rights are completely different. They are rights were the people contract with a government. These are not the same.
The right to marry someone may be a fundamental human right but it is not an American Constitutional Right. Therefore, I believe that you can go marry whoever you want and define that marriage however you wish, but the government should have nothing to do with it unless you and your marriage partner enter into a private contract asking the government to be involved.
The reason our government should only be involved in enforcing and protecting only the rights we have expressly given and withheld from it is because that keeps the government in check and it keeps our Constitutional Republic honest.
The assertion that the government should have the power to decide to be involved with things the people have not expressly granted it the power to be involved in goes against the principles of freedom and the very nature of the contract which binds American people to its government.
The fact that you do not understand this, tells me that your civics class failed you. I feel sorry for you. The education system that you went through failed you. And that is a shame.
This post was edited on 4/4/19 at 2:07 pm
Posted on 4/4/19 at 1:57 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
Why would you believe this?
Are you under the impression that if you father 3 children with your live in girlfriend that she can't go to court for child support if you dump her?
The process is much more cumbersome without a marriage license. Your ideal will essentially require an INCREASED government involvement in a lot of instances. Marriage licenses create presumptions that help alleviate such things.
Posted on 4/4/19 at 1:59 pm to ShortyRob
quote:Not realistic. Homo sapiens would not be civilized if not for enforced monogamy.
if there had never in history been marriage licenses and you proposed today that after people chose a spouse
Posted on 4/4/19 at 2:02 pm to xiv
quote:
get government out of marriage
Get the govt out of marriage?
Cool, should we get the govt out of divorce, matrimony, and child support too?
This post was edited on 4/4/19 at 2:04 pm
Posted on 4/4/19 at 2:03 pm to ShortyRob
quote:If you do liberty or pursue happiness by buying property or starting a business, the government will be involved. If you do liberty pursue happiness by getting married, the government will be involved.
Which govt agency requires I buy a "pursuit of happiness" license?
This can’t be the first time you’ve had a discussion like this.
Posted on 4/4/19 at 2:04 pm to i am dan
(no message)
This post was edited on 5/26/23 at 3:17 pm
Posted on 4/4/19 at 2:04 pm to xiv
quote:
Homo sapiens would not be civilized if not for enforced monogamy.
So Muslims aren't civilized since Islam allows a man to have 4 wives.
Posted on 4/4/19 at 2:05 pm to CivilTiger83
quote:
Under your example if the federal government is completely out of the marriage game then this stay at home mom will receive nothing from the father to care for his children, correct?
The stay at home mom has two options: before having children, she could enter into a private contract with the man that guarantees her certain rights which all people should be able to do regardless or sexual orientation (yes this is very simalir to marriage however it should be a private contract between the two people not a government run bureaucracy) or sue the father for child support.
Child support orders are made every day in this country without marriage entering into the equation.
Page 3 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News