Oklahoma bill suggests removing all marriage from state control
Posted by Maphesdus 10 years, 11 months ago to Legislation
Well, that's one way of going about it...
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
2) Since marriage is not a federal purview, it should be stripped from the taxation system.
3) Oklahomans (and each of the several states) should be able to enact or prohibit whatever they choose.
4) The founders envisioned a nation where differences and variations would be rampant, and saw that as good. That would allow the maximum liberty - you could live where you found the conditions that suited you best.
Here the question is what benefit is it to the children? Does raising children require a marriage license? Absolutely not. Does having a marriage license ensure that children are going to be raised well to be productive members of society? Absolutely not. Does the absence of a marriage license dictate that the children will always turn out to be non-productive members of society? Not so there either.
Yes, the statistics show that "unmarried" households produce children that are non-productive members of society at an astonishingly higher rate than those who are married. But is it the license that makes the difference? No. It is the fact that there is a stable loving family structure, regardless of whether there is a piece of paper that codifies that as a state recognized union.
If a marriage license were the key to successful children, then how the hell did we ever make it to the eighteenth century in the first place, since the marriage license is a state manufactured item used to control interracial marriage (betcha didn't know that part, did you? The marriage license as issued by a government was created originally to prevent some of what you seem to want to encourage).
But let's get back to the poor children. One other argument might be made that marriage encourages the production of children and that is a good thing. One look at our inner cities would seem to drive a stake through the heart of that one pretty quickly. Children seem to be able to be produced at an astonishingly high rate without such a piece of paper.
On the contrary, the marriage license is a detriment to children. It costs something to procure in the first place, thus removing resources from the potential parents. During the course of the state sanctified union the taxes paid by a married couple both having income is greater than it would be for the same amount of income taxed to two separate individuals thus removing more resources that could have been applied to raising the children. If there is an unfortunate dissolution of the union it often entails court proceedings to which resources must be devoted instead of being used for the children. Hell, I'll even go to a particularly sore spot for me - college tuition. A legally married couple suffers a much higher financial burden than does a single mother regardless of whether there is a biological father in the picture or not as long as that biological father was never recorded on a birth certificate or marriage license. Thus, I could father a child and so long as it was not legally recognized anywhere, when that child chose to go to college my financial assets would not be part of the FAFSA equation on how much "aid" that child received - regardless of whether I was a millionaire or not.
So, I can't possibly see any argument that a piece of paper makes a whit of difference in bringing up productive members of society.
Discrimination is not only not bad, it is good. Have you ever hired somebody where there was more than one applicant, then you discriminated. Have you ever had to rank order employees, then you discriminated. Did you ever receive a raise based on performance, then you were the subject of discrimination. There is nothing inherently wrong with discrimination.
By advocating "equal protection" for marriage what you are actually saying is that the state (in this case the federal government) has the right to dictate the terms under which you have a relationship with another human being.
First, I see nothing in the Constitution that identifies that power as residing with the federal government. Thus, if the federal government has no legal authority to create such a law how can it be applied "equally?" This is utter nonsense and shows just how deeply the ACLU indoctrination has permeated our society.
Equal protection = Legal laws applied equally to everyone.
Sadly, too many people don't realize that *this* is what the gay agenda is about. Not simply giving "rights" to a persecuted minority, but destroying the traditional fabric of American society. To destroy marriage by removing its recognition from legislation is as good for them as destroying it by distorting the meaning out of all rational context.
King Solomon was presented with two women who claimed the same baby. Each woman gave her argument, and Solomon proposed divvying up the baby, giving half to each woman (presumably dividing it bilaterally so each woman got a fair share). One woman gave up her claim to the baby in order to preserve the baby. The story delves deeply into fiction when Solomon awards her the baby, recognizing her superior moral claim.
Because in real life, Solomon being represented by our current government, would have negated the woman's offer of surrender, and either divvied up the baby, or given it to the other woman.
In this attempt to protect marriage from being redefined into a perversion of the institution, for the sole purpose of appeasing sick, twisted individuals (some of whom are even homosexual), the baby won't survive.
And that's just fine with the anti-marriage crowd.
That's how it needs to be described, btw. Not "same-sex marrige", not "marriage equality", but "anti-marriage". I'm tired of letting sicko leftists redefine the language to further their agenda.
I'm also curious how the tax code will be changed to reflect it, if the bill is passed.
The rationality for governmental sanction is to encourage marriage for the benefits it brings to society. Calling two homosexuals cohabiting "marriage" does not bring those benefits to society.
The *second* this passes, I'm going to "marry" myself. Or buy a dog and marry her. Or maybe my tv.
As for this bill, personally, I don't think it has any chance of passing whatsoever. It'll be an interesting spectacle to watch, but I fully expect it to be shot down fairly quickly, because it will be opposed by almost everyone. Gay and lesbian couples will oppose it because they view it as an attempt to deny them marriage rights, and straight couples will oppose it because they don't want their marriages to be invalidated. It will be opposed by Democrats, Republicans, liberals, progressives, and conservatives. The only groups who won't likely oppose it are libertarians and anarchists, but they're both too small in number to have any significant impact.
There are also too many ways in which marriage ties into taxes and other matters for the proposed bill to be practical, anyway. It has no chance.
Once the gov't is in the business of something, e.g. marriage, it costs everyone some frustration in that equal rights aren't fully respect or in that it endorses marriages inconsistent with their beliefs. But a few people who benefit from the issue make it their whole livelihoods. They're going to fight very hard to keep the gov't in that business, harder than the rest of us who find it a mild to moderate frustration.