DennisLeeWilson
2014-July-31 09:49:19 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Click here for my public PGP key   Google Translate   Wikipedia Comparison of Language Translator programs   I use Firefox browser & add-on called "Google Translator for Firefox"
“I like the dreams of the future better than the history of the past.” ~Thomas Jefferson
“Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge has its limitations, while imagination has no limits.” ~Albert Einstein
I love Arizona, I loathe its intrusive governments, especially the City of Phoenix.



Brainstorming!! Give it a try!   Subject Index to my Published Articles
Creative Commons vs Copyright Notice  Disclaimer


Donations? Hell, NO!*

Because robo-spammers outnumber real people by 20 to 1, you MUST register to post AND your membership MUST be approved.
SEND EMAIL with YOUR comments or a posting to Admin (at) DennisLeeWilson.com to prove that you are NOT an automaton.
Sure. It is a bother. But you only have to do it once to become a member. And you don't have to wade thru the spam.
 
   Home   Help Search Gallery Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Do Marriage Licenses Automatically Make You a Slave to Government?  (Read 21272 times)
DennisLeeWilson
Creator of this site
Administrator
Forum/Blog Owner
*****
Posts: 1221


Existence exists & Man's mind can know it.


WWW Email
« on: 2009-July-03 01:16:32 PM »

http://tinyurl.com/MarriageSlave
[2009-07-05] Do Marriage Licenses Automatically Make You a Slave to Government?
http://dennisleewilson.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=318.msg579#msg579      

Read the definition of "slave": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave

We should not [DO NOT!] need the State's permission to marry nor should we grovel before state officials to seek it.

Historically, there was no requirement to obtain a marriage license in colonial America. When you read [BELOW] the laws of the colonies and then the states, you see only two requirements for marriage.
 
Both George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were married without a marriage license. They simply recorded their marriages in their Family Bibles.
 
The marriage license as we know it didn't come into existence until after Lincoln's Unnecessary War and didn't become standard practice in all the states until after 1900, becoming firmly established by 1920.


[See "Marriage Licenses....The Real Truth" in the message following this one for additional important information regarding this!]

See also:
Index to my Articles--Published and unpublished
Love & Marriage - Monogamy & Polyamory - Why is Government Involved?!?

   at  http://dennisleewilson.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=88.msg1342#msg1342


http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2009/tle526-20090705-06.html
Do Marriage Licenses Automatically Make You a Slave to Government?
Questions on the “practicality” of being a free, sovereign individual.
Dennis Lee Wilson
DennisLeeWilson@Yahoo.com

Special to the Libertarian Enterprise*

In an extended discussion on a Yahoo message board regarding the pros and cons of government marriage permits, the following question was raised:



Not satisfied with a simple yes or no, my answer kept growing until it became what you see here.

No, Michael. The implication is not that simplistic. MOST (not all) people in the USA have SINCE BIRTH been enslaved to a multiplicity of governments—federal, state, county, city, parish, school district, etc. Marriage permits are merely the point at which a very long cycle of servitude begins to renew itself.



Consider: MOST people are born in a government regulated and subsidized hospital, delivered by a doctor and staff who are heavily regulated and often subsidized by various government agencies. Before leaving said hospital, the baby is “branded”, that is, issued a federal government SS number (soon to be implanted, of course).

Upon leaving the hospital, MOST babies are transported in a government licensed and regulated (and now subsidized) vehicle upon a government subsidized road to a government financed house, where they are raised into school aged children on government regulated and subsidized food, sleep on government regulated and approved mattresses and pillows, wear government approved and labeled clothing and play with government approved toys.

Eventually MOST children attend government schools where they are taught government approved material by government approved teachers. Following several years of government controlled “education”, most young adults find government regulated jobs, increasingly with the government itself, and—after government taxes are withheld by the government—deposit their government printed money into government controlled banks and pay for things with government approved and regulated credit/debit cards that are tracked and monitored by government agencies.

By this time in their lives, many of them have obtained—in addition to the SS number which is required for most jobs—government issued licenses to do various professional and non-professional work, licenses for their cars and permits to drive them, permits for the dwellings they rent (paying endless property taxes hardly qualifies as ownership) and pay endless taxes on every item they buy and sell and the services they use and provide.

Eventually MOST people apply to some government for permission to live together (marriage) and have children, which starts the cycle all over again. [See "Marriage Licenses....The Real Truth" in the next message for additional important information regarding this!]
                                                         * * *

I submit that MOST people in the USA are government slaves from birth. MOST people.

There are SOME who free themselves at some point in the cycle described above.

To say that any single government rule, regulation, subsidy, permit, license or tax enslaves a person is to trivialize the situation and to be totally, completely, utterly blind to the extent of one’s enslavement.

Furthermore, opposing or avoiding one of the myriad government rules, regulations, subsidies, permits, licenses and/or taxes does not/will not make one free. [But deliberately doing such can be extremely exhilarating--see next paragraph.  Smiley]

There is an old saying that “a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step”. The VERY FIRST STEP on the road to freeing one’s self is ATTITUDE.** If a person thinks like a slave, his own servitude is guaranteed. If a person thinks like a free man there are no guarantees, but the first requirement to being free has been accomplished. When a person realizes the condition of servitude into which most of us are born and unthinkingly live, when that person deliberately chooses to rid himself of his complacent servility and end the dependence and the slavery, that person has taken the first step. Without that attitude change, no journey on the road to freeing one’s self is possible, no individual freedom can ever be achieved.

No, Mike. Marriage licenses do not cause slavery. But, after that first step—that attitude change, the seeking of a non-governmental alternative to marriage could be the second step on the journey by which an individual seeks to free himself.

If you want to BE free, you must do things that MAKE you free.

Dennis Lee Wilson

* This article first appeared on the “blog”/discussion board at http://dennisleewilson.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=318.msg579#msg579 and may continue to be expanded there. Thoughtful comments are welcome and solicited.

** In the second half of my article “Superstate North America vs. Individual Sovereignty” in The Libertarian Enterprise I describe—from personal experience—some of the exhilaration of such a journey.
Expanded version is here: http://tinyurl.com/Individual-Sovereignty



Creative Commons

Attribution, Share Alike

Re: [phoenixobjectivists] Re: Servility to the State
http://dennisleewilson.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=318.msg712#msg712
  • This is the entire reply to the article above, from Mike at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phoenixobjectivists/message/439
    Notice that he is STILL thinking within the narrow box of gay marriage and blind to the wider questions of "Why is the state even involved in marriage" and "Why do 'libertarians' bow down to the state on this issue instead of seeking alternatives."

.
I think it is quite an amazing spectacle to observe the twisted, distorted rationalizations and arbitrary assertions of alleged objectivist & libertarians who claim to be "shut out" of the state marriage/slavery contract and loudly clamor to become part of it, even when workable alternatives--such as those in the following messages--are available.

I am reminded of a quote from Thomas Babington Macaulay (1800–1859):

    These positions are worthy of the silly old fool, who resolved to AVOID the water until he had learned to swim.
    If men are to wait for liberty till they become wise and good in slavery they may indeed wait for ever.


As evidenced by the alternatives below, even non-libertarian Christians have more common sense.
« Last Edit: 2014-March-17 02:55:29 PM by DennisLeeWilson » Logged

Objectivist & Sovereign Individual
Creator of Atlas Shrugged Celebration Day & Artemis Zuna Trading Post
Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent
DennisLeeWilson
Creator of this site
Administrator
Forum/Blog Owner
*****
Posts: 1221


Existence exists & Man's mind can know it.


WWW Email
« Reply #1 on: 2010-January-18 12:15:11 PM »

http://dennisleewilson.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=318.msg708#msg708
Although this article has religious references, it also applies to non-religious people.....dlw

http://www.usavsus.info/MarriageLicenses-TheRealTruth.htm

Marriage Licenses....The Real Truth

Did you know what you got into when you got a marriage license from the
state?  You were "tricked" into signing over your children to the state!
(The fruit of a marriage!)

====================================

Marriage Licenses:

The Real Truth


by Virgil Cooper
ultrac21@whitemtns.com

Enlightening Conversation with a Marriage License Bureau. . . .

About 15 years ago, my former wife of 26 years, filed for divorce. We had seven (7) children: five (5) daughters and two (2) sons.  Our youngest at the time, our second son, was five years old.  At the time, I prepared a counterclaim to the Petition for Dissolution her attorney filed in Domestic Relations (DR) court.

I met one afternoon with the head of the Maricopa County Superior Court, Marriage License Bureau, in downtown Phoenix. The marriage license bureau was headed by a young woman of about age 25.  I asked her to explain to me the general and statutory implications of the marriage license.  She was very cooperative, and called in an Assistant, a tall Black man who at the time was working on an Operations Manual for internal departmental use.

She deferred for most technical explanations to her Assistant. He walked through the technicalities of the marriage license as it operates in Arizona.  He mentioned that marriage licensing is pretty much the same in the other states --but there are differences. One significant difference he mentioned was that Arizona is one of eight western states that are Community Property states.  The other states are Common Law states, including Utah, with the exception of Louisiana which is a Napoleonic Code state.

He then explained some of the technicalities of the marriage license. He said, first of all, the marriage license is Secular Contract between the parties and the State.  The State is the principal party in that Secular Contract.  The husband and wife are secondary or inferior parties.  The Secular Contract is a three-way contract between the State, as Principal, and the husband and wife as the other two legs of the Contract.

He said, in the traditional sense a marriage is a covenant between the husband and wife and God.  But in the Secular Contract with the state, reference to God is a dotted line, and NOT officially considered included in the Secular Contract at all.

He said, if the husband and wife wish to include God as a party in their marriage, that is a "dotted line" they will have to add in their own minds.  The state's marriage license is "strictly secular," he said.  He said further, that what he meant by the relationship to God being a "dotted line" meant that the State regards any mention of God as irrelevant, even meaningless.

In his description of the marriage license contract, the related one other "dotted line."  He said in the traditional religious context, marriage was a covenant between the husband and wife and God with husband and wife joined as one. This is not the case in the secular realm of the state's marriage license contract. The State is the Principal or dominant party.  The husband and wife are merely contractually "joined" as business partners, not in any religious union. They may even be considered, he said, connected to each other by another "dotted line."

The picture he was trying to "paint" was that of a triangle with the State at the top and a solid line extending from the apex, the State, down the left side to the husband, and a separate solid line extending down the right side to the wife, a "dotted line" merely showing that they consider themselves to have entered into a religious union of some sort that is irrelevant to the State.



He further mentioned that this "religious overtone" is recognized by the State by requiring that the marriage must be solemnized either by a state official or by a minister of religion that has been "deputized" by the State to perform the marriage ceremony and make a return of the signed and executed marriage license to the State.

Again, he emphasized that marriage is a strictly secular relationship so far as the State is concerned and because it is looked upon as a "privileged business enterprise" various tax advantages and other political privileges have become attached to the marriage license contract that have nothing at all to do with marriage as a religious covenant or bond between God and a man and a woman.

By way of reference, if you would like to read a legal treatise on marriage, one of the best is "Principles of Community Property," by William Defuniak.  At the outset, he explains that Community Property law descends from Roman Civil Law through the Spanish Codes, 600 A.D., written by the Spanish juris consults.

In the civil law, the marriage is considered to be a for-profit venture or profit-making venture (even though it may never actually produce a profit in operation) and as the wife goes out to the local market to purchase food stuffs and other supplies for the marriage household, she is replenishing the stocks of the business. To restate: In the civil law, the marriage is considered to be a business venture, that is, a for-profit business venture.  Moreover, as children come into the marriage household, the business venture is considered to have "borne fruit."

Now, back to the explanation by the Maricopa County Superior Court, Marriage Bureau's administrative Assistant.  He went on to explain that every contract must have consideration.  The State offers consideration in the form of the actual license itself - the piece of paper, the Certificate of Marriage.  The other part of consideration by the State is "the privilege to be regulated by statute." He added that this privilege to be regulated by statute includes all related statutes, and all court cases as they are ruled on by the courts, and all statutes and regulations into the future in the years following the commencement of the marriage.  He said in a way the marriage license contract is a dynamic or flexible, ever-changing contract as time goes along - even though the husband and wife didn't realize that.

My thought on this is: can it really be considered a true contract as one becomes aware of the failure by the State to make full disclosure of the terms and conditions?  A contract must be entered into knowingly, intelligently, intentionally, and with fully informed consent.  Otherwise, technically there is no contract.

Another way to look as the marriage license contract with the State is as a contract of adhesion, a contract between two disparate, unequal parties. Again, a flawed "contract."  Such a contract with the State is said to be a "specific performance" contract as to the privileges, duties and responsibilities that attach.

Consideration on the part of the husband and wife is the actual fee paid and the implied agreement to be subject to the state's statutes, rules, and regulations and all court cases ruled on related to marriage law, family law, children, and property.  He emphasized that this contractual consideration by the bride and groom places them in a definite and defined-by-law position inferior and subject to the State.  He commented that very few people realize this.

He also said that it is very important to understand that children born to the marriage are considered by law as "the contract bearing fruit" -meaning the children primarily belong to the State, even though the law never comes out and says so in so many words.

In this regard, children born to the contract regarded as "the contract bearing fruit," he said it is vitally important for
parents to understand two doctrines that became established in the United States during the 1930s.  The first is the Doctrine of Parens Patriae.  The second is the Doctrine of In Loco Parentis.

Parens Patriae means literally "the parent of the country" or to state it more bluntly - the State is the undisclosed true parent. Along this line, a 1930s Arizona Supreme Court case states that parents have no property right in their children, and have custody of their children during good behavior at the sufferance of the State. This means that parents may raise their children and maintain custody of their children as long as they don't offend the State, but if they in some manner displease the State, the State can step in at any time and exercise its superior status and take custody and control of its children - the parents are only conditional caretakers. [Thus the Doctrine of In Loco Parentis.]

He also added a few more technical details.  The marriage license is an ongoing contractual relationship with the State.  Technically, the marriage license is a business license allowing the husband and wife, in the name of the marriage, to enter into contracts with third parties and contract mortgages and debts.  They can get car loans, home mortgages, and installment debts in the name of the marriage because it is not only a secular enterprise, but it is looked upon by the State as a privileged business enterprise as well as a for-profit business enterprise.  The marriage contract acquires property through out its existence and over time, it is hoped, increases in value.

Also, the marriage contract "bears fruit" by adding children. If sometime later, the marriage fails, and a "divorce" results the contract continues in existence. The "divorce" is merely a contractual dissolution or amendment of the terms and conditions of the contract.  Jurisdiction of the State over the marriage, over the husband and wife, now separated, continues and continues over all aspects of the marriage, over marital property and over children brought into the marriage.

That is why family law and the Domestic Relations court calls "divorce" a dissolution of the marriage because the contract continues in operation but in amended or modified form.  He also pointed out that the marriage license contract is one of the strongest, most binding contractual relationships the State has on people.

At the end of our hour-long meeting, I somewhat humorously asked if other people had come in and asked the questions I was asking? The Assistant replied that in the several years he had worked there, he was not aware of anyone else asking these questions. He added that he was very glad to see someone interested in the legal implications of the marriage license and the contractual relationship it creates with the State.

His boss, the young woman Marriage Bureau department head stated, "You have to understand that people who come in here to get a marriage license are in heat.  The last thing they want to know is technical, legal and statutory implications of the marriage license."

I hope this is helpful information to anyone interested in getting more familiar with the contractual implications of the
marriage license.  The marriage license as we know it didn't come into existence until after the Civil War and didn't become standard practice in all the states until after 1900, becoming firmly established by 1920.  In effect, the states or governments appropriated or usurped control of marriages in secular form and in the process declared Common Law applicable to marriages "abrogated."

Please pass this information along and share it as widely as possible.

Original message from Virgil Cooper: ultrac21@whitemtns.com

“Essentially, the husband and wife became married to the STATE; anything the two produced became the property and control of the STATE.”- - Jack Slevkoff


Such contacts can be considered void due to non-full disclosure
or can be terminated when full disclosure is realized.

Additional material may be found at http://www.usavsus.info/MarriageLicenses-TheRealTruth.htm

« Last Edit: 2011-December-25 02:01:18 PM by DennisLeeWilson » Logged

Objectivist & Sovereign Individual
Creator of Atlas Shrugged Celebration Day & Artemis Zuna Trading Post
Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent
DennisLeeWilson
Creator of this site
Administrator
Forum/Blog Owner
*****
Posts: 1221


Existence exists & Man's mind can know it.


WWW Email
« Reply #2 on: 2010-January-18 12:45:51 PM »

AN Alternative [to Marriage License]
http://dennisleewilson.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=318.msg709#msg709

Although this article has religious references, it also applies to non-religious people.....dlw

Another great message of Truth:

Pastor Matt Trewhella

The AN Alternative

Do not apply for Marriage license
Make a certificate of Matrimony
and have it signed by two or more witnesses

Here is an example:

Click on image

Sample Certificate

Record the Marriage
and any children from the marriage
in a family bible

If there is a license, terminate the contract with the state
based on not having full disclosure at the time of signing.

More info below:

Common Law Marriage
1. Agreement of the two parties and consent of the father of the bride is all that is really required to be married, and/or
2. Married by a minister or pastor constitutes a marriage, and/or
3. Living together for more than 7 years constitutes a marriage.




A ceremony was optional. The seven years is only encountered when one of the two requirements for common law marriage was missing, presumably the consent of the father. The seven years is the law of Jubilee which is the forgiveness of the obligation to allow the marriage to be lawful.


Both George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were married without a marriage license. They simply recorded their marriages in their Family Bibles.

Certificate of Matrimony (see above)

"Marriage License".
Invokes the Corporate State to be the third party to your union and whatever you conceive is theirs and becomes their offspring (children).
That is why they can take away your children at any time at their discretion. The State leaves them in your custody and care unless or until they find reason not to.

Definitions from
BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, 4th Ed:

"license"
"The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal."

"marriage license"
"A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry."
What if you apply
and the State says "no"?

"Intermarry" is "Miscegenation"

"Miscegenation"
"mixture of races; marriage between persons of different races, as between a white and a Negro."
Some marriage licenses will actually state that its purpose is for interracial marriage.

"marriage certificate"
"An instrument which certifies a marriage, and is executed by the person officiating at the marriage; it is not intended to be signed by the parties, but is evidence of the marriage.
It seems that a certificate would be more appropriate than a license.
"Marriage is a civil contract to which there are three parties-the husband, the wife and the state."
--Van Koten v. Van Koten. 154 N.E. 146.
« Last Edit: 2012-September-23 03:36:02 PM by DennisLeeWilson » Logged

Objectivist & Sovereign Individual
Creator of Atlas Shrugged Celebration Day & Artemis Zuna Trading Post
Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent
DennisLeeWilson
Creator of this site
Administrator
Forum/Blog Owner
*****
Posts: 1221


Existence exists & Man's mind can know it.


WWW Email
« Reply #3 on: 2010-January-18 01:16:40 PM »

5 Reasons Why [People] Should Not Obtain a State Marriage License
http://dennisleewilson.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=318.msg710#msg710

Although this article has religious references, it also applies to non-religious people.....dlw

http://www.usavsus.info/US-MarriageLicense.htm
http://www.mercyseat.net/pamphlets.html

5 Reasons Why Christians [People] Should Not Obtain
a State Marriage License


 by Pastor Matt Trewhella

  Every year thousands of Christians amble down to their local county courthouse and obtain a marriage license from the State in order to marry their future spouse. They do this unquestioningly. They do it because their pastor has told them to go get one, and besides, "everybody else gets one." This pamphlet attempts to answer the question - why should we not get one?

  1. The definition of a "license" demands that we not obtain one to marry. Black's Law Dictionary defines "license" as, "The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal."  We need to ask ourselves- why should it be illegal to marry without the State's permission? More importantly, why should we need the State's permission to participate in something which God instituted (Gen. 2:18-24)? We should not [DO NOT!] need the State's permission to marry nor should we grovel before state officials to seek it. What if you apply and the State says "no"? You must understand that the authority to license implies the power to prohibit. A license by definition "confers a right" to do something. The State cannot grant the right to marry. It is a God-given right.

  2. When you marry with a marriage license, you grant the State jurisdiction over your marriage. When you marry with a marriage license, your marriage is a creature of the State. It is a corporation of the State! Therefore, they have jurisdiction over your marriage including the fruit of your marriage. What is the fruit of your marriage? Your children and every piece of property you own. There is plenty of case law in American jurisprudence which declares this to be true.

  In 1993, parents were upset here in Wisconsin because a test was being administered to their children in the government schools which was very invasive of the family's privacy. When parents complained, they were shocked by the school bureaucrats who informed them that their children were required to take the test by law and that they would have to take the test because they (the government school) had jurisdiction over their children. When parents asked the bureaucrats what gave them jurisdiction, the bureaucrats answered, "your marriage license and their birth certificates." Judicially, and in increasing fashion, practically, your state marriage license has far-reaching implications.

  3. When you marry with a marriage license, you place yourself under a body of law which is immoral. By obtaining a marriage license, you place yourself under the jurisdiction of Family Court which is governed by unbiblical and immoral laws. Under these laws, you can divorce for any reason. Often, the courts side with the spouse who is in rebellion to God, and castigates the spouse who remains faithful by ordering him or her not to speak about the Bible or other matters of faith when present with the children.

  As a minister, I cannot in good conscience perform a marriage which would place people under this immoral body of laws. I also cannot marry someone with a marriage license because to do so I have to act as an agent of the State!  I would have to sign the marriage license, and I would have to mail it into the State. Given the State's demand to usurp the place of God and family regarding marriage, and given it's unbiblical, immoral laws to govern marriage, it would be an act of treason for me to do so.

  4. The marriage license invades and removes God-given parental authority. When you read the Bible, you see that God intended for children to have their father's blessing regarding whom they married. Daughters were to be given in marriage by their fathers (Dt. 22:16; Ex. 22:17; I Cor. 7:38). We have a vestige of this in our culture today in that the father takes his daughter to the front of the altar and the minister asks, "Who gives this woman to be married to this man?"

  Historically, there was no requirement to obtain a marriage license in colonial America. When you read the laws of the colonies and then the states, you see only two requirements for marriage. First, you had to obtain your parents permission to marry, and second, you had to post public notice of the marriage 5-15 days before the ceremony.

  Notice you had to obtain your parents permission. Back then you saw godly government displayed in that the State recognized the parents authority by demanding that the parents permission be obtained. Today, the all-encompassing ungodly State demands that their permission be obtained to marry.

  By issuing marriage licenses, the State is saying, "You don't need your parents permission, you need our permission." If parents are opposed to their child's marrying a certain person and refuse to give their permission, the child can do an end run around the parents authority by obtaining the State's permission, and marry anyway. This is an invasion and removal of God-given parental authority by the State.

  5. When you marry with a marriage license, you are like a polygamist. From the State's point of view, when you marry with a marriage license, you are not just marrying your spouse, but you are also marrying the State.

  The most blatant declaration of this fact that I have ever found is a brochure entitled "With This Ring I Thee Wed." It is found in county courthouses across Ohio where people go to obtain their marriage licenses. It is published by the Ohio State Bar Association. The opening paragraph under the subtitle "Marriage Vows" states, "Actually, when you repeat your marriage vows you enter into a legal contract. There are three parties to that contract. 1.You; 2. Your husband or wife, as the case may be; and 3. the State of Ohio."

  See, the State and the lawyers know that when you marry with a marriage license, you are not just marrying your spouse, you are marrying the State! You are like a polygamist! You are not just making a vow to your spouse, but you are making a vow to the State and your spouse.  You are also giving undue jurisdiction to the State.

  When Does the State Have Jurisdiction Over a Marriage?

  God intended the State to have jurisdiction over a marriage for two reasons - 1). in the case of divorce, and 2). when crimes are committed i.e., adultery, bigamy. etc. Unfortunately, the State now allows divorce for any reason, and it does not prosecute for adultery.

  In either case, divorce or crime, a marriage license is not necessary for the courts to determine whether a marriage existed or not. What is needed are witnesses. This is why you have a best man and a maid of honor.  They should sign the marriage certificate in your family Bible, and the wedding day guest book should be kept.

  Marriage was instituted by God, therefore it is a God-given right. According to Scripture, it is to be governed by the family, and the State only has jurisdiction in the cases of divorce or crime.

  History of Marriage Licenses in America

  George Washington was married without a marriage license.  So, how did we come to this place in America where marriage licenses are issued?

  Historically, all the states in America had laws outlawing the marriage of blacks and whites. In the mid-1800's, certain states began allowing interracial marriages or miscegenation as long as those marrying received a license from the state. In other words they had to receive permission to do an act which without such permission would have been illegal.

  Blacks Law Dictionary points to this historical fact when it defines "marriage license" as, "A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry." "Intermarry" is defined in Black's Law Dictionary as, "Miscegenation; mixed or interracial marriages."

  Give the State an inch and they will take a 100 miles (or as one elderly woman once said to me "10,000 miles.") Not long after these licenses were issued, some states began requiring all people who marry to obtain a marriage license. In 1923, the Federal Government established the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act (they later established the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act). By 1929, every state in the Union had adopted marriage license laws.

  What Should We Do?

  Christian couples should not be marrying with State marriage licenses, nor should ministers be marrying people with State marriage licenses. Some have said to me, "If someone is married without a marriage license, then they aren't really married." Given the fact that states may soon legalize same-sex marriages, we need to ask ourselves, "If a man and a man marry with a State marriage license, and a man and woman marry without a State marriage license - who's really married? Is it the two men with a marriage license, or the man and woman without a marriage license? In reality, this contention that people are not really married unless they obtain a marriage license simply reveals how Statist we are in our thinking. We need to think biblically.

  You should not have to obtain a license from the State to marry someone anymore than you should have to obtain a license from the State to be a parent, which some in academic and legislative circles are currently pushing to be made law.

  When I marry a couple, I always buy them a Family Bible which contains birth and death records, and a marriage certificate. We record the marriage in the Family Bible. What's recorded in a Family Bible will stand up as legal evidence in any court of law in America. Both George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were married without a marriage license. They simply recorded their marriages in their Family Bibles. So should we.

  (Pastor Trewhella has been marrying couples without marriage licenses for ten years. Many other pastors also refuse to marry couples with State marriage licenses.

  This pamphlet is not comprehensive in scope.  Rather, the purpose of this pamphlet is to make you think and give you a starting point to do further study of your own. If you would like an audio sermon regarding this matter, just send a gift of at least five dollars in cash to: Mercy Seat Christian Church 10240 W. National Ave. PMB #129 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53227.

  www.mercyseat.net)
« Last Edit: 2013-April-16 08:34:12 PM by DennisLeeWilson » Logged

Objectivist & Sovereign Individual
Creator of Atlas Shrugged Celebration Day & Artemis Zuna Trading Post
Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent
DennisLeeWilson
Creator of this site
Administrator
Forum/Blog Owner
*****
Posts: 1221


Existence exists & Man's mind can know it.


WWW Email
« Reply #4 on: 2010-January-19 09:59:01 AM »

.
I think it is quite an amazing spectacle to observe the twisted, distorted rationalizations and arbitrary assertions of alleged objectivist/libertarians who claim to be "shut out" of the state marriage/slavery contract and loudly clamor to become part of it, even when workable alternatives--such as those above--are available.

I am reminded of a quote from Thomas Babington Macaulay (1800–1859):

    These positions are worthy of the silly old fool, who resolved to AVOID the water until he had learned to swim.
    If men are to wait for liberty till they become wise and good in slavery they may indeed wait for ever.


As evidenced by the alternatives above, even non-libertarian Christians have more common sense.

« Last Edit: 2010-January-19 11:23:58 AM by DennisLeeWilson » Logged

Objectivist & Sovereign Individual
Creator of Atlas Shrugged Celebration Day & Artemis Zuna Trading Post
Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent
DennisLeeWilson
Creator of this site
Administrator
Forum/Blog Owner
*****
Posts: 1221


Existence exists & Man's mind can know it.


WWW Email
« Reply #5 on: 2010-January-19 10:21:34 AM »

Re: [phoenixobjectivists] Re: Servility to the State
http://dennisleewilson.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=318.msg712#msg712

The following is the entire reply from Mike at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phoenixobjectivists/message/439
Notice that he is STILL thinking within the narrow box of gay marriage and blind to the wider questions of why is the state even involved in marriage and why do "libertarians" bow down to the state on this issue instead of seeking alternatives.



Re: [phoenixobjectivists] Re: Servility to the State

Dennis,
 
 Your article(s) and commentary look good "in theory" but have no basis in fact. Like I said before on this thread:
 
Advocating for legallizing gay marriage is not trying to make any case for the extension of anymore rights except for the ability of gays and lesbians to legally marry.
 
 Like I pointed out in my post quoting Jim [Peron]:
 
 The problems associated with marriage licensing CAN NOT be resolved by private contractual rights. There are secondary issues where a "right" is not involved as well but where an injustice is being done.
 
 You can advocate for marriage/state seperation as much as you want and I would be an ally in doing so. I completely understand where you are coming from. Natural rights come from the nature of human beings and not governments. However, according to your logic, you seem to be implying that it is immoral for people (especially libertarians and Objectivists) who marry to pursure getting marriage licenses.
 
 That being the case, until marriage laws are repealed, it would result in a whole bunch of other messes for people who follow your point of view.
 
 If I followed your logic and got a marriage contract rather than a license then I would not be able to legally claim my union as a marriage and (in terms of inheritance) Monica's pension and assets were she to die would go to the state instead of me.
 
 The same would result with gay couples except they experience a whole host of discriminations sanctioned by governments and that could put institutions (such as hospitals) in legal trouble too.
 
 Jim pointed this and many other eye-opening things in his lecture. You should have been there and made your case. I am sure you would find few (including myself) who would argue with you. But since Objectivism is a philosophy based on reality ONLY reality can control it.
 
 The reality is that marriage is intertwined with a whole host of legal and social things ansd institutions that make refusing to obtain a marriage license for the purpose of marriage literally impossible.
 
 Those who opt for private contracts (like Barry Hess) may end up doing themselves a disservice since (unless they have paid lots of money to an attorney) have implemented wills to their spouses or family members which many people do not consider or may not have the time or money to have done.
 
 Yet even the wills people file can be challenged by family relatives in courts of law. Marriage licenses ensure that the legal union between two adults is recognied and that inhertiance will be assured for a spouse whose husband or wife dies.
 
 Since this is an Objectivist list, I would also point out that I believe Ms. Rand said just because we follow laws that we disagree with does not mean we sanction them.

 Just because I oppose laws on the sale, use or possession of drugs does not mean I sanction them by not using them. The same even applies with laws requiring the usage of seat belts while operating a car, motorcycle helmets while operating a motorcycle or even bans on cell phone use while driving.

On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Dennis Lee Wilson <dennisleewilson@...> wrote:

    

    Since this discussion on this board is "finished", any person interested in further information or discussion on this topic is invited to my forum at

     http://tinyurl.com/yhdct42

    Dennis Lee Wilson
    If you want to BE free, you must do things that MAKE you free.



    --- In phoenixobjectivists@yahoogroups.com, M Renzulli <marenzulli@...> wrote:
    >
    > Alright fine, Dennis, you have made your point and you are preaching to the
    > choir.
    >
    > Now I am going to ask that the discussion on this matter end. If you want to
    > come up with a rebuttal or lecture of your own regarding gay marriage I will
    > be happy to set aside a meeting in which to do so so you can.
    >
    > Otherwise consider this discussion finished.
    >
    > On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Dennis Lee Wilson <
    > dennisleewilson@... wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > --- In phoenixobjectivists@yahoogroups.com, M Renzulli marenzulli@
    > > wrote:
    > > >
    > > > I don't disagree with what you are saying but is that to imply that for
    > > > people who get marriage licenses that they will automatically become
    > > slaves
    > > > to governments that issue them?
    > > >
    > > *No, Michael. The implication is not that simplistic. MOST (not all)
    > > people in the USA have been in slavery to a multiplicity of governments
    > > SINCE BIRTH!
    > >
    > > Marriage permits are merely the point at which a very long cycle of
    > > servitude begins to renews itself.
    > >
    > > Dennis Lee Wilson
    > > If you want to BE free, you must do things that MAKE you free.*

    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Mike Renzulli
    >
    > "Independence is the only gauge of human virtue and value. What a man is and
    > makes of himself; not what he has or hasn't done for others. There is no
    > substitute for personal dignity." -- Ayn Rand
    >
    > Check out my web blog: http://freelibertarian.blogspot.com
    >
« Last Edit: 2012-September-23 03:50:19 PM by DennisLeeWilson » Logged

Objectivist & Sovereign Individual
Creator of Atlas Shrugged Celebration Day & Artemis Zuna Trading Post
Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent
DennisLeeWilson
Creator of this site
Administrator
Forum/Blog Owner
*****
Posts: 1221


Existence exists & Man's mind can know it.


WWW Email
« Reply #6 on: 2011-June-22 08:38:44 PM »

The Racist Origins of Government Marriage in America
http://dennisleewilson.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=318.msg1125#msg1125

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/89927.html
The Racist Origins of Government Marriage in America
Posted by Ryan W. McMaken on June 18, 2011 09:48 PM

A reader sends along this link, [copied-next message] and notes:

  • Marriage licenses came about in the late 19th century to prevent mixed-race marriages. That should be appalling to anyone, and is in my opinion the strongest argument to privatize marriage.

The linked article makes many points similar to those I made in my article from Friday. And it notes that:

  • The American colonies officially required marriages to be registered, but until the mid-19th century, state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. By the later part of that century, however, the United States began to nullify common-law marriages and exert more control over who was allowed to marry.

    By the 1920s, 38 states prohibited whites from marrying blacks, “mulattos,” Japanese, Chinese, Indians, “Mongolians,” “Malays” or Filipinos.
At the heart of it all, predictably, is the urge to control the lives of others. White people might marry black people! Horror of horrors. Therefore, the state must get involved. No doubt these arguments in favor of more government meddling were made with an overlying patina of "freedom." Just as the modern anti-immigration crowd today argues that we must destroy freedom in order to save it*, the old racist proponents of government marriage likely argued that we must abolish freedom in marriage or the "Negro agitatuhs" and their dusky-skinned allies will destroy freedom. Conservative "logic" at its best.


*  http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/89122.html

The ‘Pro-Freedom’ Anti-Immigration Position in a Nutshell
Posted by Ryan W. McMaken on June 1, 2011 12:05 AM

"We must have a police state in this country or immigrants will come here and support the creation of a police state."
« Last Edit: 2012-September-23 03:57:49 PM by DennisLeeWilson » Logged

Objectivist & Sovereign Individual
Creator of Atlas Shrugged Celebration Day & Artemis Zuna Trading Post
Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent
DennisLeeWilson
Creator of this site
Administrator
Forum/Blog Owner
*****
Posts: 1221


Existence exists & Man's mind can know it.


WWW Email
« Reply #7 on: 2011-June-22 08:43:05 PM »

Taking Marriage Private
http://dennisleewilson.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=318.msg1126#msg1126


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/opinion/26coontz.html?pagewanted=all

Op-Ed Contributor
Taking Marriage Private

By STEPHANIE COONTZ
Published: November 26, 2007

Olympia, Wash.


John Korpics

WHY do people — gay or straight — need the state’s permission to marry? For most of Western history, they didn’t, because marriage was a private contract between two families. The parents’ agreement to the match, not the approval of church or state, was what confirmed its validity.

For 16 centuries, Christianity also defined the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s wishes. If two people claimed they had exchanged marital vows — even out alone by the haystack — the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.

In 1215, the church decreed that a “licit” marriage must take place in church. But people who married illictly had the same rights and obligations as a couple married in church: their children were legitimate; the wife had the same inheritance rights; the couple was subject to the same prohibitions against divorce.

Not until the 16th century did European states begin to require that marriages be performed under legal auspices. In part, this was an attempt to prevent unions between young adults whose parents opposed their match.

The American colonies officially required marriages to be registered, but until the mid-19th century, state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. By the later part of that century, however, the United States began to nullify common-law marriages and exert more control over who was allowed to marry.

By the 1920s, 38 states prohibited whites from marrying blacks, “mulattos,” Japanese, Chinese, Indians, “Mongolians,” “Malays” or Filipinos. Twelve states would not issue a marriage license if one partner was a drunk, an addict or a “mental defect.” Eighteen states set barriers to remarriage after divorce.

In the mid-20th century, governments began to get out of the business of deciding which couples were “fit” to marry. Courts invalidated laws against interracial marriage, struck down other barriers and even extended marriage rights to prisoners.

But governments began relying on marriage licenses for a new purpose: as a way of distributing resources to dependents. The Social Security Act provided survivors’ benefits with proof of marriage. Employers used marital status to determine whether they would provide health insurance or pension benefits to employees’ dependents. Courts and hospitals required a marriage license before granting couples the privilege of inheriting from each other or receiving medical information.

In the 1950s, using the marriage license as a shorthand way to distribute benefits and legal privileges made some sense because almost all adults were married. Cohabitation and single parenthood by choice were very rare.

Today, however, possession of a marriage license tells us little about people’s interpersonal responsibilities. Half of all Americans aged 25 to 29 are unmarried, and many of them already have incurred obligations as partners, parents or both. Almost 40 percent of America’s children are born to unmarried parents. Meanwhile, many legally married people are in remarriages where their obligations are spread among several households.

Using the existence of a marriage license to determine when the state should protect interpersonal relationships is increasingly impractical. Society has already recognized this when it comes to children, who can no longer be denied inheritance rights, parental support or legal standing because their parents are not married.

As Nancy Polikoff, an American University law professor, argues, the marriage license no longer draws reasonable dividing lines regarding which adult obligations and rights merit state protection. A woman married to a man for just nine months gets Social Security survivor’s benefits when he dies. But a woman living for 19 years with a man to whom she isn’t married is left without government support, even if her presence helped him hold down a full-time job and pay Social Security taxes. A newly married wife or husband can take leave from work to care for a spouse, or sue for a partner’s wrongful death. But unmarried couples typically cannot, no matter how long they have pooled their resources and how faithfully they have kept their commitments.

Possession of a marriage license is no longer the chief determinant of which obligations a couple must keep, either to their children or to each other. But it still determines which obligations a couple can keep — who gets hospital visitation rights, family leave, health care and survivor’s benefits. This may serve the purpose of some moralists. But it doesn’t serve the public interest of helping individuals meet their care-giving commitments.

Perhaps it’s time to revert to a much older marital tradition. Let churches decide which marriages they deem “licit.” But let couples — gay or straight — decide if they want the legal protections and obligations of a committed relationship.

Stephanie Coontz, a professor of history at Evergreen State College, is the author of “Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage.”
« Last Edit: 2012-September-23 04:00:52 PM by DennisLeeWilson » Logged

Objectivist & Sovereign Individual
Creator of Atlas Shrugged Celebration Day & Artemis Zuna Trading Post
Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent
DennisLeeWilson
Creator of this site
Administrator
Forum/Blog Owner
*****
Posts: 1221


Existence exists & Man's mind can know it.


WWW Email
« Reply #8 on: 2011-June-22 09:09:39 PM »

Privatize Marriage Now
http://dennisleewilson.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=318.msg1127#msg1127

http://lewrockwell.com/mcmaken/mcmaken135.html
Privatize Marriage Now

Reviewed by Ryan McMaken

Recently by Ryan McMaken: Hunter S. Thompson's Last Stand

Ann Coulter, that warmongering demagogue of Conservatism, has declared war on Ron Paul. Naturally, she hates Paul because he stands for peace, free markets and the rule of law. Coulter hates of all of these things since she loves war, the police state, and the destruction of the constitution in pursuit of untrammeled political power for Conservative nationalists. In other words, like most Conservatives, she loves socialism, although she prefers to cloak her socialism in words like "national greatness," "secure borders" and "family values."

In a recent column, Coulter attacks Paul for a variety of his pro-freedom positions. In this column, however, I’ll focus only on her wildly inaccurate claims about how marriage is a "legal construct" and how every good American should insist that government maintain its death grip on the institution. She denounces Ron Paul for his insistence that marriage should not be controlled by government and that people should be free to contract with whomever they choose. Coulter of course insists that marriage should be socialized, regulated and controlled by government.

Coulter counters Paul with a claim that "there are reasons we have laws governing important institutions, such as marriage." Well she’s right there. There is a reason that governments regulate marriage: Governments couldn’t resist the urge to seize control of marriage which was a traditionally religious and non-governmental institution.

Let’s briefly examine the history and nature of marriage in the West and see just why we have laws. By "laws" of course, Coulter means secular civil laws. She’s not talking about Canon Law or Church Law, which is what governed marriage throughout most of the history of Christendom.

Being a sacrament, marriage was traditionally governed by religious law and was a religious matter. The Church recognized that with marriage being a sacrament, the state had no more right to regulate marriage than it had the right to regulate who could be baptized or who could be ordained a priest.

Indeed, in the Catholic Church to this day, a couple may become sacramentally married without even the presence of any clergy, let alone a government agent. If no clergy is available, couples may simply make vows in the presence of lay witnesses. The marriage is then perfectly valid according to the Church’s own law. This further illustrates the traditional, religious status in the West of marriage as a private bond between two persons. There’s certainly no state-sponsored marriage certificate required.

Naturally, marriage, being what it is, did nevertheless impact the distribution and ownership of property. Who were the legitimate heirs of a married couple, for example? Could Bastard Jimmy inherit the property of his father instead of First Born Tom who was the child of both dad and his wife? These considerations attracted the state’s attention.

The state hates it when property changes hands without being taxed and regulated, so the state set its sights on marriage centuries ago. Over time civil governments inserted themselves more and more into the religious institutions of marriage. This was helped along by the Reformation and by defenders of government-controlled marriage like King Henry VIII of England. As nation-states consolidated their monopolies on all law and over all institutions in society, the state finally displaced religious institutions as the final arbiter on marriage.

So yes, Ann, there is a reason that governments control marriage: They couldn’t keep their mitts off it.

The natural outcome of widespread approval of this state of affairs is that governments are now seen as the institution that can legitimately define marriage itself. We now have civil laws deciding what marriage is and what it is not and who can be married and who can not.

For anyone who has an interest in actually defending the historically traditional status of marriage, this power should be viewed as both dangerous and illegitimate. Thanks to the secularizing efforts of Christian reformers and anti-Christian types throughout history, marriage gradually became for many a civil matter only. Many people get "married" in courthouses in totally non-religious ceremonies. Such marriage contracts are in essence no different from run-of-the-mill legal contracts. The fact that we call such unions "marriage" doesn’t make them so. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, marriage is a religious matter. Some government judge can’t make you "married" any more than can your hair dresser. Here, we see that the so-called "traditional" marriage types who nevertheless defend government civil "marriage" (as defined by them) have already sown the seeds of their own defeat. They’ve already removed the institution of marriage from its traditional role and status.

What they should be arguing for is the removal of civil governments from the marriage bond altogether. Couples who wish to marry should approach their religious authorities about it. Then, if they wish they can join into some kind of civil union, which is just a contract. People who wish to have a civil union but no marriage may enter into that arrangement, and those who wish for a marriage with no civil union should be able to do that as well. Marriage, properly understood, should be considered off limits from government meddling. People are welcome to contract, but if the "defenders" of marriage had done their jobs right, there would be no confusion today about what is marriage and what is a government-approved contractual union.

Unfortunately, though, when Conservatives and Christian Right types bemoan the loss of so-called "traditional" marriage yet agitate for more government control of the institution, they really have only themselves to blame since they’re therefore accepting the proposition that government has the legitimate authority to regulate and control marriage. The power to regulate marriage is the power to destroy it.

This fact certainly doesn’t stop Coulter. Coulter is such an authoritarian on marriage, in fact, that she even apparently supports government-mandated blood tests as a means of enhancing government control of the institution:

  • Under [Ron] Paul's plan, siblings could marry one another, perhaps intentionally, but also perhaps unaware that they were fraternal twins separated and sent to different adoptive families at birth – as actually happened in Britain a few years ago after taking the government-mandated blood test for marriage.

Here she is apparently using a one-in-a-billion event to justify the forced government drawing and analysis of blood and, by extension, government regulation of who may or may not marry. I know that many Americans probably consider mandatory medical procedures to be no big deal, but all that tells us is how willingly Americans will approve of even the most invasive government regulations.

Nevertheless, some states in the United States, such as Colorado, do not mandate such things. In Colorado’s case, we have a few vestiges of frontier traditions of freedom left, and we have yet to totally succumb to a traditions of Coulter-esque police-statism.

No blood tests are required, and indeed a couple can become common-law spouses with not much more than a public declaration that the marriage exists. In Coulter’s view, this is pure chaos. How Colorado society manages to function without governments checking up on the health and genetics of our betrothed remains an inscrutable mystery.

And Coulter doesn’t stop there. While a true defense of marriage would consist of putting it back in the hands of private institutions, that certainly doesn’t fly for Coulter who says that "(u)nder Rep. Paul's plan, your legal rights pertaining to marriage will be decided on a case-by-case basis by judges forced to evaluate the legitimacy of your marriage consecrated by a Wiccan priest – or your tennis coach. (And I think I speak for all Americans when I say we're looking for ways to get more pointless litigation into our lives.)"

She seems to think that there are no disagreements about the terms and validity of marriage contracts under the present regime. Well, such disagreements do exist and disagreements over legal contracts are decided on a case-by-case basis right now. So Coulter isn’t doing anything here other than simply exhibiting her ignorance about the status quo. One could also point out that, while Coulter presents this point as some kind of big deal, all she’s really saying is that a more complex and decentralized system would be an inconvenience to some people, and that this therefore justifies more government regulation of our lives. .

Meanwhile, some societies do in fact base marriage decisions on the judgments of religious organizations. Marriage in Israel, for example, is founded on a system in which the validity of marriage is based on whether or not one’s marriage is approved by a religious institution. In other words, this is essentially the system that Coulter says only crazy people would support.

Israel’s system is far from perfect – there’s far too much government involvement – but it is nevertheless a functional and decentralized system.

Why not let your Wiccan "priest" also be considered a legitimate authority for approving marriage? So what? Why is this the state’s business? It certainly has no effect on my views about the validity and -dare I say it? – superiority of my own Roman Catholic marriage. Wiccans will disagree with me, but that’s their business.

Of course, when you’re a Conservative, everything is the state’s business from whom you hire (no foreigners!) to what you smoke in your living room, to what your genitals feel like at the airport.

Coulter grudgingly is forced to admit that "eventually – theoretically – there could be private institutions to handle many of these matters" so we’re forced to assume that she’s unaware that private institutions handled marriage in Western Europe for at least 1,500 years. But this admission also shows that her insistence on government control of marriage isn’t actually necessary. It’s just her personal preference.

As with most Conservatives, Coulter can’t imagine a world in which government isn’t a massive overweening institution that regulates the personal decisions of millions of people every minute of every day. Only crazy people want freedom in her mind, and Coulter will be happy to condemn anyone like Ron Paul who dares challenge the status quo.

June 17, 2011

Ryan McMaken [send him mail] teaches political science in Colorado.

Copyright © 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

« Last Edit: 2012-September-23 04:02:55 PM by DennisLeeWilson » Logged

Objectivist & Sovereign Individual
Creator of Atlas Shrugged Celebration Day & Artemis Zuna Trading Post
Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent
DennisLeeWilson
Creator of this site
Administrator
Forum/Blog Owner
*****
Posts: 1221


Existence exists & Man's mind can know it.


WWW Email
« Reply #9 on: 2011-October-01 07:02:37 PM »

[2011-07-26] Liberty and License by Laurence M. Vance
http://dennisleewilson.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=318.msg1210#msg1210

http://www.fff.org/comment/com1107s.asp

Liberty and License
by Laurence M. Vance, July 26, 2011

Same-sex couples in New York City can now apply for marriage licenses using online forms that feature gender-neutral terminology. This follows the passage of the Marriage Equality Act, the New York law that legalized same-sex marriage. The bill became law on June 24, 2011, and took effect thirty days later. Marriage licenses in New York City cost $35.

The state of New York had already recognized same-sex marriages performed in other states and other countries where such marriages are legal. Other states like Maryland, New Jersey, and Rhode Island do likewise.

New York now joins five other states (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, & Vermont) and the District of Columbia where same-sex marriage is legal.

Same-sex marriage is legal in Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden.

The U.S. government does not recognize same-sex marriages. The Defense of Marriage Act (PL 104-199), enacted in 1996, defines marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman. It also stipulates that no state is required to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state. Numerous lawsuits against the Defense of Marriage Act are pending.

The key issue here has nothing to do with same-sex marriage. Homosexual, heterosexuals, transsexuals, supporters of same-sex marriage, opponents of same-sex marriage, and those that are ambivalent should all be concerned about something far more important.

Why do governments at every level require a license for people to engage in consensual, peaceful activity?

In my state of Florida, a marriage license will cost you a whopping $93.50. There is also a three-day waiting period. However, if a couple takes the state-recommended premarital counseling course, the license will only cost $61 and the waiting period is waived.

In Wisconsin there is a six-day waiting period from the date the application is signed until the license becomes effective and a six-month waiting period for remarriage after a divorce no matter what state the divorce took place in.

In Indiana, there is no waiting period, but non-residents must pay a license fee of $60 instead of the $18 charged Indiana residents.

In Montana, the bride is required to take a blood test for rubella.

In Nebraska, parental consent is needed for the bride or groom if under nineteen. However, there is no waiting period and marriage licenses cost only $15, are valid for one year, and good in any Nebraska county.

And we should not forget that at one time some states had miscegenation laws that forbade interracial marriage.

But it’s not just marriage licenses. Without a state-issued license, no one can practice medicine or law in any state. Contractors and barbers must also be licensed. No one can open a restaurant without getting a license. And even then, a separate liquor license must be obtained to serve alcoholic beverages. In my state of Florida, one cannot even fish in the Atlantic Ocean from the beach unless a shoreline license is obtained. Although one can work as an accountant in any state without being licensed, certification as a CPA is only handled by state boards of accountancy.

Why?

We are not talking about a state requiring a driver’s license to operate a motor vehicle on a state-owned road or a state requiring a lifeguard to have a state-issued license to work at a state park or a city requiring a group to get a permit to hold a demonstration in a city park.

We are talking about people engaging in commerce and other peaceful activities that don’t involve the government in any way.

Consider the issue of licensing lemonade stands. It seems that every year we hear some horror story about kids having their lemonade stand shut down for operating without a license.

Recently it was some girls in Georgia who were told they needed a business license, peddler’s permit, and food permit to operate their lemonade stand. Last year it was a seven-year-old girl in Oregon who failed to get a $120 temporary restaurant license. The year before it was a ten-year-old girl in New York who was fined $50 for operating her lemonade state without a license. Also in 2009, seven kids in Pennsylvania were told by police to close their lemonade stand because they didn’t have a permit — until one officer discovered that selling lemonade is legal in the state for children under sixteen.

When incidents like this happen, Americans typically side with the kids and against the license requirement. But when it comes to most everything else, most Americans side with the license and against liberty. They are never consistent, of course. Fishermen may grumble about having to get a salt-water fishing license. Homeowners may get upset about having to obtain a permit to have a garage sale. But most Americans in general don’t have a problem with license requirements for anything.

Why?

I believe the reason is that most people subscribe to myths about the government.

First is the myth that it is the job of the government to regulate our health, safety, and morals. The only justifiable purpose of government is for the protection of life, liberty, and property from the violence and fraud of others. It is not a legitimate function of government to act as a regulator, a monitor, a supervisor, a guard, an inspector, a parent, or a nanny.

The second myth is that if someone or something is licensed by the government then he or it must be qualified, safe, and trustworthy. Yet, according to some articles in the Journal of the American Medical Association, over 100,000 people die every year from drugs prescribed and administered by physicians. Over two million Americans each year have adverse drug reactions in licensed hospitals while being treated by licensed doctors, nurses, anesthesiologists, and therapists.

The third myth is that if the government didn’t oversee some person, some practice, some industry, or some product, then the free market wouldn’t do it. Those who hold such opinions must not be familiar with Underwriter’s Laboratories, or think it is an agency of the federal government. Headquartered in Northbrook, Illinois, Underwriter’s Laboratories tests for safety thousands of products we use everyday in our home. No company is required to submit its products for testing, but look at the back of your computer monitor or the bottom of your toaster and you will see the symbol “UL” with a circle around it. According to economist Mark Thornton of the Ludwig von Mises Institute: “The Lab was the first to set standards for certifying the safety of pilots and planes before the government intervened. It set the standards for building materials, fire-fighting equipment, air conditioners, and household chemicals.”

Something that most people who support licensing never consider is where it will all end. The more we allow a license to be substituted for liberty, the harder it becomes to check the intrusion of government into our lives. If the government can license our fishing, our hairdressers, and our marriages, then why not our swimming, our waiters, and our bowling teams?

Libertarians oppose government marriage licenses not because they are averse to traditional marriage and the family, but because they prefer liberty to license. It is family, friends, acquaintances, co-workers, and ministers that should have a “compelling interest” in someone’s choice of a marriage partner — anyone but the government.

Laurence M. Vance is a free-lance writer in central Florida. He is the author of The Revolution That Wasn’t. Visit his website: www.vancepublications.com . Send him email.
« Last Edit: 2012-September-23 04:06:40 PM by DennisLeeWilson » Logged

Objectivist & Sovereign Individual
Creator of Atlas Shrugged Celebration Day & Artemis Zuna Trading Post
Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent
DennisLeeWilson
Creator of this site
Administrator
Forum/Blog Owner
*****
Posts: 1221


Existence exists & Man's mind can know it.


WWW Email
« Reply #10 on: 2012-September-09 07:57:05 PM »

Additional material..: Marriage and Monogamy

http://dennisleewilson.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=134.msg298#msg298
Logged

Objectivist & Sovereign Individual
Creator of Atlas Shrugged Celebration Day & Artemis Zuna Trading Post
Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent
DennisLeeWilson
Creator of this site
Administrator
Forum/Blog Owner
*****
Posts: 1221


Existence exists & Man's mind can know it.


WWW Email
« Reply #11 on: 2012-September-23 09:36:58 PM »

Government Marriage for Me, But Not for Thee
http://dennisleewilson.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=318.msg1343#msg1343

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/120834.html

Government Marriage for Me, But Not for Thee
Posted by Ryan W. McMaken on September 12, 2012 09:07 PM

This week, conservative pundit Matt Barber stated the oft-repeated Conservative talking point that government marriages for gay people will make government marriages "inevitable" for polygamists and practitioners of incest.

Last month, Catholic Bishop Hugh Gilbert of Scotland asked “(i)f we really want equality, why does that equality not extend to nieces who genuinely, truly love their uncles?”

Both Gilbert and Barber meant their comments as criticisms of state marriages for gays, of course, and both favor state marriages for heterosexuals only. However, the argument, their intentions notwithstanding, is a good argument. Doesn't the doctrine of political equality require that states grant their writ of "marriage" to anyone who asks for one?

My own position is that the very concept of government marriage diminishes human freedom and is based on the assumption that governments should have the prerogative to meddle in every aspect of our lives. Government marriage, which is a recent invention of Western civilization, should be abolished altogether.

What is most interesting about these recent remarks, however, is the response of some pro-gay-marriage groups. In Scotland, the Equality Network denounced the bishop saying that his comments were "offensive and uncalled for," stating that "We are very disappointed the Bishop of Aberdeen should choose to com­­pare same-sex marriage to polygamy and incest."

My question for the Equality Network: Why? The Equality Network's position, and the position of anyone who wants marriage for gays on equality grounds, but not for polygamists or incestuous couples or groups, is violating their own professed value of political equality. Those who support hetero-sexual marriage only — they don't claim to be in favor of inclusion or equality, so we know where they stand.

But the calls for gay marriage are based, from what I have seen, on calls for equality. So, what is the standard being used by the opponents of incestuous and polygamous unions for their preferred ban on such unions? From what I have seen, no standard has been proffered at all. There is nothing more than the assumption that political rights should extend to gays but not to polygamists or incestuous couples.

This is rank hypocrisy of course, but to point this out is apparently "offensive and uncalled for."

Unlike the Bishop or the right-wing pundits, I'm not bluffing. Since I put no value on government "marriage" and think it should be abolished, it has no effect on me — from a public policy standpoint — if people want 5 spouses or 10 spouses or if consenting adults of blood relations want to do whatever it is they do that I'd rather not think about. Government marriage, after all, unlike real religious marriage, has never been more than a legal contract, in spite of what the alleged defenders of traditional marriage say. The whole point of government marriage is to meddle in domestic arrangements of citizens. In America, it has its origins in racist policies to keep whites from marrying non-whites, and in Europe it is primarily connected to state desires to interfere in Church matters.

For whatever bizarre reason, some people think it's a privilege to have government sanction and meddle in their marriages, but apparently, for some promoters of marriage "equality" all their talk about equality extends only to their interest group and the political rights of polygamists and others be damned.
« Last Edit: 2012-October-11 10:49:34 PM by DennisLeeWilson » Logged

Objectivist & Sovereign Individual
Creator of Atlas Shrugged Celebration Day & Artemis Zuna Trading Post
Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent
DennisLeeWilson
Creator of this site
Administrator
Forum/Blog Owner
*****
Posts: 1221


Existence exists & Man's mind can know it.


WWW Email
« Reply #12 on: 2013-April-16 08:04:55 PM »

Legalize Polygamy!
http://dennisleewilson.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=318.msg1407#msg1407

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/04/legalize_polygamy_marriage_equality_for_all.html

Legalize Polygamy!
No. I am not kidding.

By Jillian Keenan
Posted Monday, April 15, 2013, at 5:35 AM


Sister-wives Valerie, left, and Vicki serve breakfast to their children in their polygamous house in Herriman, Utah, in this file photo from May 30, 2007. Polygamy, once hidden in the shadows of Utah and Arizona, is breaking into the open as fundamentalist Mormons push to decriminalize it on religious grounds, while at the same time stamping out abuses such as forced marriages of underage brides.

Photo by Kamil Krzaczynski/Reuters



Recently, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council reintroduced a tired refrain: Legalized gay marriage could lead to other legal forms of marriage disaster, such as polygamy. Rick Santorum, Bill O’Reilly, and other social conservatives have made similar claims. It’s hardly a new prediction—we’ve been hearing it for years. Gay marriage is a slippery slope! A gateway drug! If we legalize it, then what’s next? Legalized polygamy?

We can only hope.

Yes, really. While the Supreme Court and the rest of us are all focused on the human right of marriage equality, let’s not forget that the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy, too. Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice. More importantly, it would actually help protect, empower, and strengthen women, children, and families.

For decades, the prevailing logic has been that polygamy hurts women and children. That makes sense, since in contemporary American practice that is often the case. In many Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints  polygamous communities, for example, women and underage girls are forced into polygamous unions against their will. Some boys, who represent the surplus of males, are brutally thrown out of their homes and driven into homelessness and poverty at very young ages. All of these stories are tragic, and the criminals involved should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. (That goes without saying, I hope.)

But legalizing consensual adult polygamy wouldn’t legalize rape or child abuse. In fact, it would make those crimes easier to combat.

Right now, all polygamous families, including the healthy, responsible ones, are driven into hiding (notwithstanding the openly polygamous Brown family on TLC’s Sister Wives, that is). In the resulting isolation, crime and abuse can flourish unimpeded. Children in polygamous communities are taught to fear the police and are not likely to report an abusive neighbor if they suspect their own parents might be caught up in a subsequent criminal investigation. In a United States with legalized polygamy, responsible plural families could emerge from the shadows—making it easier for authorities to zero in on the criminals who remain there.

Many people argue that there is no such thing as a “healthy, responsible” polygamous family, particularly for the children born into one. “Children are harmed because they are often set in perennial rivalry with other children and mothers for the affection and attention of the family patriarch,” argued John Witte Jr. in the Washington Post. “Men with lots of children and wives are spread too thin,” agreed Libby Copeland in Slate. The earnestness of these arguments is touching but idealistic. Men in monogamous marriages can’t be spread too thin? Children in monogamous families don’t rival each other for the attentions of their parents? Two-parent families are not the reality for millions of American children. Divorce, remarriage, surrogate parents, extended relatives, and other diverse family arrangements mean families already come in all sizes—why not recognize that legally?

It’s also hard to argue with the constitutional freedom of religious expression that legalized polygamy would preserve. Most polygamous families are motivated by religious faith, such as fundamentalist Mormonism or Islam, and as long as all parties involved are adults, legally able to sign marriage contracts, there is no constitutional reason why they shouldn’t be able to express that faith in their marriages. Legalized polygamous marriage would also be good for immigrant families, some of whom have legally polygamous marriages in their home countries that get ripped apart during the immigration process. (It’s impossible to estimate exactly how many polygamous families live here, since they live their religious and sexual identities in secret. Academics suggest there are 50,000 to 100,000 people engaged in Muslim polygamy in the U.S., and there are thousands of fundamentalist Mormon polygamist families as well.)

Finally, prohibiting polygamy on “feminist” grounds—that these marriages are inherently degrading to the women involved—is misguided. The case for polygamy is, in fact, a feminist one and shows women the respect we deserve. Here’s the thing: As women, we really can make our own choices. We just might choose things people don’t like. If a woman wants to marry a man, that’s great. If she wants to marry another woman, that’s great too. If she wants to marry a hipster, well—I suppose that’s the price of freedom.

And if she wants to marry a man with three other wives, that’s her damn choice.

We have a tendency to dismiss or marginalize people we don’t understand. We see women in polygamous marriages and assume they are victims. “They grew up in an unhealthy environment,” we say. “They didn’t really choose polygamy; they were just born into it.” Without question, that is sometimes true. But it’s also true of many (too many) monogamous marriages. Plenty of women, polygamous or otherwise, are born into unhealthy environments that they repeat later in life. There’s no difference. All marriages deserve access to the support and resources they need to build happy, healthy lives, regardless of how many partners are involved. Arguments about whether a woman’s consensual sexual and romantic choices are “healthy” should have no bearing on the legal process. And while polygamy remains illegal, women who choose this lifestyle don’t have access to the protections and benefits that legal marriage provides.

As a feminist, it’s easy and intuitive to support women who choose education, independence, and careers. It’s not as intuitive to support women who choose values and lifestyles that seem outdated or even sexist, but those women deserve our respect just as much as any others. It’s condescending, not supportive, to minimize them as mere “victims” without considering the possibility that some of them have simply made a different choice.

The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though polygamists are a minority—a tiny minority, in fact—freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us. So let’s fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States—and then let’s keep fighting. We’re not done yet.
« Last Edit: 2013-April-16 08:06:42 PM by DennisLeeWilson » Logged

Objectivist & Sovereign Individual
Creator of Atlas Shrugged Celebration Day & Artemis Zuna Trading Post
Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!