What is your problem with state and federal governments staying out of marriages? Why should we tolerate having to ask permission and pay money for a license just to get married? Eliminate the licenses and fees would allow anybody to get married to whoever they desire.
Which is EXACTLY why nationally protecting that right would solve it. Just to clarify, since you claim to be anti-authoritarian, why do you hold a position that would allow authorities to outright ban gay marriage? Just curious.
What are you talking about? I'm saying to get the state and federal governments our of marriage. Why do you want them all up in your bedroom?
State/federally recognized marriage is mostly about the tax benefits, and everybody should have access to that.
You need to learn a little nuance. This is not necessarily the case in the modern day and age, as corporations jump at the chance to privatize the functions of government which are underfunded. This leads to oligarchy, which is about as authoritarian as it gets.
And if the states grant it, they can also take it away from themselves. Which is why the national level is just better at that point.
You can still filed married as you can show proof that you are married. You don't need a federally issued marriage license. We could also eliminate federal income tax, but what would those 87,000 armed agents do?
You will literally argue pro-federal government control in any argument because you hate that we are a republic and not a straight democracy.
Hmm, so, that's not an actual argument as to why equal marriage rights nationwide is a bad thing. Care to answer?
First of all, I never said equal marriage is a bad thing. So you are starting off with a false premise. I'd ask you to quote me where I said that, but you've already been caught altering my words in the past, so I'll skip that part.
So your proposal is a state-issued license? That's no different in practice. And lol @ paranoia about armed IRS agents. We have a lot of other agencies to come knocking on your door if you're suspected of committing a felony.
I was arguing against the notion that less government automatically equals less authoritarianism. With marriage specifically people don't have to have it recognized by the state, they want to for the tax benefits, as I said previously.
Okay? And one of the first places you would want to present that proof would be...at the tax office. If we're getting all philosophical about it, religion doesn't need to be involved in marriage either, but most people choose to involve it.
IRS agents don't typically carry guns, they're about as nerdy as federal agents get. And part of the inflation reduction act was an order for the IRS to start auditing more high-income individuals and corporations, as they were granted more funding to do so. A lot of what you're parroting is paranoia from the wealthy elites.
If you want to file your taxes married, then yes, you would have to show the IRS that you are married. The 1st Amendment disagrees with you. Weddings have been officiated in churches, synagogues, and mosques for centuries.
The first amendment agrees with me that people have both freedom of religion and freedom from religion.
Of course not. They could easily recover $4 million+ from one tax dodging big fish, as opposed to recovering it $500 at a time from the poor.
I just think it's funny that you get this pressed about a constitutionally supported marriage right. Why?
You do know that there are alternatives from religious weddings, right?
Looking thru the Constitution trying to find the right to marriage, but only finding the 10th Amendment.
Great, so then you wouldn't have any problem with a theoretical amendment that ratifies equal marriage into law!
Go ahead and pass it. Guess what, you need 3/4th's of the evil states to ratify it.
Do you think those states should be allowed to prevent people from getting married? That is, after all, government intervention.
@
BigOnYa:
@
BigOnYa:
