Saturday, December 02, 2017

Privatizing Marriage

I always wondered why the government has ANY say in marriage whatsoever.  I'm sure it has to do with women needing men with guns to force men who banged them to pay money forever because, well marriage is essentially a very complicated and expensive version of prostitution. 

BUT!!!

In an adult real world, theoretical place where intellectual honesty reigned supreme and we could have serious and adult conversation, I always wondered "what if I just got married privately and told the government to fuck off because it wasn't the public's business and I don't need no stupid fucking license."

15 comments:

kurt9 said...

Its a day late and a buck short for the social conservatives to promote privatization of marriage now. They should have pushed this around 2003. If they had, the same sex marriage issue would never have shown up in SCOTUS and religious liberty for religious institutions would have remained protected. Now that SCOTUS has ruled in favor of same sex marriage, religious institutions are now forced to accept it with their own communities.

Anonymous said...

My wife and I married privately. The only reason we filed government marriage forms (a month later) was because Obamacare was about to rape one of us for daring to not be a slave employee for a short period of time.

heresolong said...

I've argued frequently that the government has no business being in the business of regulating marriage.

http://heresolong-voices.blogspot.com/search?q=marriage

Anonymous said...

Private marriage with real contract rights has been illegal since the 1830's when married women's property acts were adopted. They didn't even need unelected judges to impose the new order. Democracy is inherently hostile towards family life even if women don't have the vote.

The "culture war" actually began in 1800-1810 or so, with the second great awakening. Libertarians are full of **** for making pointless theoretical models of utopian family law that will never be implemented (they're worse than communists in this area), and the reactionaries were always right.

I have no idea how so few people have noticed that elected conservatives haven't honored their promises in literally centuries, while leftists always get what they want sooner or later. Monarchism is still a fringe ideology for some reason, even if it's the only consistently proven ideology which defends family life.

The closest thing to private marriage might have existed in the era when the Church commanded more power and wealth than the state, and libertarians are suddenly nowhere to be found if you try to bring this up with them. They're controlled opposition.

Anonymous said...

I had a conversation with my sisters and several women and basically told them what you've just articulated. As long as Uncle Sam is involved, I'm out. If it was just the Church involved, I'd consider that. Big government for the epic loss.

A Texan said...

Marriage licenses were created so you guys like you would not breed with the black women or vice versa.

Until the 19th century, it was more of a church function, but in the 20th century with wimminz rights it has become a legal nightmare as you well know.

Albert said...

The government's business was recognition of stuff like joint property, inheritance, power of attorney, etc.

All stuff that could be handled as customized marriage contracts, and probably ought to be. And at that point religions could have standard marriage contracts dialed into their understanding of how marriages ought to work, which even between congregations of the same sect can vary.

liberranter said...

In an adult real world, theoretical place where intellectual honesty reigned supreme and we could have serious and adult conversation

You seriously think such a world could exist with women in it?

Anonymous said...

A license shouldn't be needed, but given the recognition of the rights between those married, there does need to be a public recording. But really nothing more than that, similar to how deeds are recorded.

Licensing came about mostly to control close genetic relations and miscegenation. The former, these days, has little to do with marriage. And the latter came to prevalence during the early 20th century and is no longer something the state is permitted to control.

David Reynolds said...

I used to envy gays and lesbians when they couldn't legally marry. I used to envy and marvel at the fact a gay or lesbian couple could get together and do whatever they want to with each other behind closed doors without being expected to get "tie the knot". You don't know how many times I would go to family and friend get-togethers where all the women would shame me for being a single man in his 40's. You also don't know how many times I have been tempted in the past to claim that I am gayer than a cock in the ass whenever they try and use shaming language because I am single.

Gays and lesbians had it made when it was illegal for them to marry. They really didn't need permission from church and state to get with each other. If the only price that they paid was being shamed for being gays and lesbians, then I would imagine that is a very small price to pay in comparison to being subject to divorce/family courts should one party decide they aren't happy and wants out.

What isn't talked about is who the real winners are in the legalization of gay marriage. It surely wasn't the gays and lesbians. I would personally contend that they were the biggest losers unless those who decide not to get married regardless. The real winners of gay marriage legalization is the marriage and divorce industries.

The gay and marriage industries need new bodies now marriage has been on the decline for some time. If fewer straight people are getting married, then that is few people throwing down $25,000+ on a wedding with all the trappings. With fewer marriages means fewer divorces.

Now that we have gay marriages will soon come gay divorces. Right now in the US, the divorce industry is a $50 billion per year industry. Gay divorces is only going to open up a new market for divorce courts, lawyers and others that profit from the break up of marriages and families.

Glen Filthie said...

Good lord.

And you wonder why women hate men these days. Aaron what's wrong with you? Are you going off the deep end? The quality of your work has taken a sharp nose dive lately.

If marriage means nothing, then family means nothing. If family means nothing, community means nothing. If community means nothing, states mean nothing. If states mean nothing, nations mean nothing. Long story short - civilization folds and we are at the mercy of whatever comes next.

YOU enjoy the decline, kid. As for me I'm prepping like mad for it and that calls for a traditional marriage where we can pool resources and divide labour and approach our circumstances as a team. Mush heads like you are on your own.

Tucanae Services said...

Marriage was a tool for royalty back in the day. It assured line of succession and prevented claims to title from the bastards many a royal sired. Not much use to us mere commoners tho.

Anonymous said...

Prostitution indeed. I've always thought that staying single and using a HIGH paid hooker when needed was way more economical than marriage. Marriage is only for having kids and not much more.

LBD said...

I think I understand your views on marriage, coupled with your desire to live a minimalist, unencumbered life. De gustibus non est disputandum and all that, no argument about your tastes and choices. However, it always makes me wonder about your girlfriend. What’s in it for her? Of course she gets your no doubt scintillating company and from your videos I can see you’re not physically repellent, but no security, no children, no material support? Unless you’re equipped like Secretariat, I don’t get it. What is the reciprocal benefit to her? I would bet that you have been entirely straightforward about your lack of interest in marriage and children, so she’s making an informed choice as well.

Would you be willing to satisfy my impolite curiosity?

YIH said...

The other reason for ''marriage licenses'' was a crude way to control STD's, that's what the blood test was for. Test positive for Gonorrhea or Syphilis means no license, no wedding. Made sense back in the day, because there was really no effective treatment for either until antibiotics came on the scene.
Before you say ''thank god that problem is history'', take note, ''super'' (drug resistant) Gonorrhea has been rearing it's ugly head.