Why does the state involve itself with marriage?

Feb 2007
3,294
1,648
New York
Can I marry two women that aren't related to each other?
Just because something has rules does not mean that it isn't a right.

A person has the right to liberty, but if thet person takes the action of stealing, they will lose that liberty.

A person has a right to life, but if that person murders another, they may lose their own life because of that action.

By the same logic, if a person marries one person that action precludes marrying another.
 
Nov 2005
7,613
2,230
California
I do not respond to multi quotes. It shows that you have nothing to offer and are desperate to engage me by way of insults.
Again, you make up excuses to suit your needs.
You are the one being insulting here.
Moreover, it's amusing to note that you will provide post after post to whine about why you don't want to talk about the topic instead of just addressing the issues raised.


You are seeking relevancy through multiple insults. You have posted nothing but idiocy.
The irony of those two statements back to back ... :rolleyes:
You claim I am insulting you as you actively insult me and others.
You need to figure out something:
a) If you really hate the insults, then you need to stop insulting people.
b) If you don't care about yourself insulting others, then knock off this crap of others doing what you do.


Say what you want on a street corner. You have a First Amendment Right. You will have no problem unless you violate the Rights of others when you do so. That happens AFTER you say it. In marriage, you get a license BEFORE you get married.
It is not required to get a license BEFORE you get married.


Back to the original point, if you have a "right" to get married, why do you apply for a license?
The OP asked why the state involves itself with marriage. The answer is still the same: CONTROL.
I already addressed this question.
There are some terminology uses which are more historical relics than they are factually correct in a modern sense.
For example, people can still say "roll down the window" even though the window is electric.

There was a time in history where the marriage license referred to actual lordship "permission" for the couple to marry.
The modern sense demonstrates this is currently definitively not true. Moreover, some refer to it as a "marriage certificate"

certificate: A written assurance, or official representation, that some act has or has not been done, or some event occurred, or some legal formality been complied with.


FWIW, I have personally challenged and won 14th Amendment cases - they were won because the judge stopped the proceedings and never called the case back up for a rehearing.
Can you document any actual court case won based on the arguments you have listed regarding the 14th amendment?
 
Likes: leekohler2
Mar 2018
192
28
Grayson
Referring to David Barton to make your point about the US being a “Christian Nation” is like referring to Donald Trump to make a point about the size of the inauguration crowd.
LMFAO ROTF LMAO. There is nothing wrong with Dave Barton. While I don't always agree with him, he brings a substantial number of facts to the table. It is duly noted that you did not dispute the facts, just the man.

Thank you for that inadvertent concession of defeat.
 
Mar 2018
192
28
Grayson
OMG, the refutation of Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli. How often to the Christian Nation idiots attempt that?

Are you sure you aren’t Dave Barton?

Bottom line, the treaty that was UNANIMOUSLY approved by the Senate had Article 11. It doesn’t matter if the Arabic version had it. It doesn’t matter if someone thought it was inappropriate. It was there. It was approved. Now if you want to claim that every member of the Senate was wrong in approving it, fine...but the FACT is that it was approved. It was clear that every member of the Senate approving that treaty did not think the US was a Christian Nation.
Well you are consistently illiterate. There was no Article 11 in the final draft.
 
Jul 2008
17,780
11,591
Virginia Beach, VA
LMFAO ROTF LMAO. There is nothing wrong with Dave Barton. While I don't always agree with him, he brings a substantial number of facts to the table. It is duly noted that you did not dispute the facts, just the man.

Thank you for that inadvertent concession of defeat.
David Barton is a fraudster of the highest order. His book "The Jefferson Lies" was voted (by the readers of the History News Network) as "the least credible history book in print"
His book was so riddled with errors and falsehoods that his own publisher pulled the book from the shelves and refused to sell any more copies.
 
Likes: leekohler2
Nov 2005
7,613
2,230
California
LMFAO ROTF LMAO. There is nothing wrong with Dave Barton. While I don't always agree with him, he brings a substantial number of facts to the table. It is duly noted that you did not dispute the facts, just the man.
Barton's official biography describes him as "an expert in historical and constitutional issues".[32] Barton holds no formal credentials in history or law, and scholars dispute the accuracy and integrity of his assertions about history, accusing him of practicing misleading historical revisionism, "pseudoscholarship" and spreading "outright falsehoods".[8][9][10][11] According to the New York Times, "Many professional historians dismiss Mr. Barton, whose academic degree is in Christian Education from Oral Roberts University, as a biased amateur who cherry-picks quotes from history and the Bible."[7] Barton's 2012 book The Jefferson Lies was voted "the least credible history book in print" by the users of the History News Network website.[33] The book's publisher, Christian publishing house Thomas Nelson, disavowed the book and withdrew it from sale. A senior executive said that Thomas Nelson could not stand by the book because "basic truths just were not there."[26]
David Barton (author) - Wikipedia
 
Likes: leekohler2
May 2018
4,399
2,725
Chicago
Barton's official biography describes him as "an expert in historical and constitutional issues".[32] Barton holds no formal credentials in history or law, and scholars dispute the accuracy and integrity of his assertions about history, accusing him of practicing misleading historical revisionism, "pseudoscholarship" and spreading "outright falsehoods".[8][9][10][11] According to the New York Times, "Many professional historians dismiss Mr. Barton, whose academic degree is in Christian Education from Oral Roberts University, as a biased amateur who cherry-picks quotes from history and the Bible."[7] Barton's 2012 book The Jefferson Lies was voted "the least credible history book in print" by the users of the History News Network website.[33] The book's publisher, Christian publishing house Thomas Nelson, disavowed the book and withdrew it from sale. A senior executive said that Thomas Nelson could not stand by the book because "basic truths just were not there."[26]
David Barton (author) - Wikipedia
I thought lying was a sin. Oh well. Shows how much I know.
 
Likes: foundit66
Mar 2018
192
28
Grayson
Just because something has rules does not mean that it isn't a right.

A person has the right to liberty, but if thet person takes the action of stealing, they will lose that liberty.

A person has a right to life, but if that person murders another, they may lose their own life because of that action.

By the same logic, if a person marries one person that action precludes marrying another.

1) You are wrong. The Bill of Rights was interpreted a full 180 degrees opposite of what you claim. Let's get on the same page for a moment. The Bill of Rights is ONE bill; one piece of legislation. Right? So, it would stand to reason if one ruling applies to the Second Amendment, then it applies to all the rest of the Bill of Rights. Let us start with the earliest decisions of the Second Amendment. The first time the Second Amendment was interpreted by a state court was in 1846. Here is what the state supreme court ruled:

"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void,..."

Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

A few years later, in 1859, another state court considered the Second Amendment:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

Cockrum v. State 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)

The United States Supreme Court in their first ruling on the subject ruled:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)

With respect to Rights, the courts have ruled in earlier rulings:

The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.”

Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.

People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123)

Those rulings about a Right are consistent with the words of the founding fathers.

"[You have Rights] antecedent to all earthly governments: Rights, that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; Rights, derived from the Great Legislator of the universe." John Adams, second President of the United States

You see, the moment you begin to put limitations on Rights, it's not long before the Right is legislated away. Those Rights that existed before the Constitution were written are above the law. Otherwise no such Rights exist. They are all just privileges granted by government. So, you're wrong on that count

2) The ONLY way you "lose" your Liberty under the terms of our legal / de jure / lawful constitutional Republic is to endanger and / or deprive another of their Rights

3) I find no "logic" in your third premise. If you want to apply "logic" to the issue of marriage, then marriage was legally interpreted as a union between one man and one woman.

"The legal status, condition, or relationship that results from a contract by which one man and one woman, who have the capacity to enter into such an agreement, mutually promise to live together in the relationship of Husband and Wife in law for life, or until the legal termination of the relationship."

marriage


It is wholly illogical to change the meaning of words just to get what you want politically. What do you think the legislatures are for?
 
Mar 2018
192
28
Grayson
Again, you make up excuses to suit your needs.
You are the one being insulting here.
Moreover, it's amusing to note that you will provide post after post to whine about why you don't want to talk about the topic instead of just addressing the issues raised.



The irony of those two statements back to back ... :rolleyes:
You claim I am insulting you as you actively insult me and others.
You need to figure out something:
a) If you really hate the insults, then you need to stop insulting people.
b) If you don't care about yourself insulting others, then knock off this crap of others doing what you do.



It is not required to get a license BEFORE you get married.



I already addressed this question.
There are some terminology uses which are more historical relics than they are factually correct in a modern sense.
For example, people can still say "roll down the window" even though the window is electric.

There was a time in history where the marriage license referred to actual lordship "permission" for the couple to marry.
The modern sense demonstrates this is currently definitively not true. Moreover, some refer to it as a "marriage certificate"

certificate: A written assurance, or official representation, that some act has or has not been done, or some event occurred, or some legal formality been complied with.



Can you document any actual court case won based on the arguments you have listed regarding the 14th amendment?
When you get AN issue, let me know. I do not read nor respond to multi quote posts like that. Are you stupid? Nobody wants to read a freaking book. It's bad enough that you are wrong 99 out of 100 times, but trying to make people I'm wrong on EVERY point is a sign of weakness on your part. So, unless you have AN issue, I accept your concession of defeat.
 
Mar 2018
192
28
Grayson
David Barton is a fraudster of the highest order. His book "The Jefferson Lies" was voted (by the readers of the History News Network) as "the least credible history book in print"
His book was so riddled with errors and falsehoods that his own publisher pulled the book from the shelves and refused to sell any more copies.

One book out of how many that he wrote? Yeah, I don't agree with him on a lot of issues, but you can bet your ass if I quoted from some book the History News Network endorsed and you didn't like it, you'd bust your ass finding some negative criticism in order to try and refute the most obvious.