[extropy-chat] Aw Nuts! Bush Wins...

[Kevin Freels]

This is similar to a proposal I have been constructing. The problem is not
that gays should be allowed to marry. The problem is that the state should
get out of the marriage business altogether. Churches should marry people,
the state should enforce contract law. Any two people can create a contract.

Of course, This means doing away with the entire "married filing jointly" or
"married filing separately" lines on the 1040. Instead, you get individual
returns only....

But I would rather see a national sales tax which would do away with this as
well. :-)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey at yahoo.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 9:44 AM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Aw Nuts! Bush Wins...


>
> --- Al Brooks <kerry_prez at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Mike, let's look at Bush's anti-gay aspect. Bush knows
> > that those who oppose tobacco are picking on the
> > minority of smokers, yet he cannot admit the millions
> > trying to outlaw gay marriage (and succeeding) are
> > also picking on a minority-- gays. In the past gays
> > wanted affirmative action, the power to force firms to
> > hire them, plus other powers; today the situation is
> > different.
> > You describe the situation from both sides and we'll
> > take it from there.
>
> Marriage licensing is an institution that was founded and steeped in
> bigotry, classism, racism, and superstition. Before the US Civil War,
> here in the US free white persons needed no marriage license. Licensing
> was created to control inter-racial marriage, only inter-racial and
> other freed black couples needed marriage licenses, while the slave
> states also kept records of black breeding to prevent incest.
>
> In other countries, licensing of marriage by the state was created
> under the feudal system to enforce the monarch's right of prima nocti
> (first night) to intercourse with the bride before her groom.
>
> Today the state forces couples who are not even married into common law
> marriage unless they've specifically signed statements before hand that
> they are not. The states do this to control how parents raise their
> kids, to force the kids into public schools, among other things. Just
> as being married to both your spouse and the King under prima nocti,
> state sanctioned marriage is a polygamous relationship with an unjust
> tyrant that would presume to be your superior.
>
> That gays would WANT to subject themselves to this institution
> indicates to those of us who know the facts that they have some
> ulterior motive. That motive is clearly that they want to be able to
> inherit their partners social security benefits, as this is the only
> benefit that cannot be replicated via contract law in the private
> sphere.
>
> I propose a deal with the gay community: you can have gay marriage
> licensing if you agree to let people be lawfully, rather than legally,
> married, outside of state sanction, and that the government won't
> persecute people who stay out of or retract themselves from the Social
> Security System.
>
> =====
> Mike Lorrey
> Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
> "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
> It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
>                                       -William Pitt (1759-1806)
> Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
> www.yahoo.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat