Is the left helping same sex marriage?

Is same sex marriage even an issue, sadly government makes it so by stepping into an area it thinks it needs to control.

We see and endless parade of the statist religionist right spewing drivel about the evils of gayness, but where is the left, supporting the statist position of course.

Marriage or the union of people in a serious committed relationship is a personal issue, the domain of consenting adults who decide to rise above a simple relationship of sex to one of partnership love and responsibility. A partnership recognized by most as more than just a string of romps in the hay.



The sad part of course is when the left wants to increase the original grab for power and tax income to officially “sanction” a partnership. The problem becomes in defining what a marriage is and just who has access to what benefits may be a part of that partnership.

Few outside of the far religious right would deny that a committed adult relationship should give the partners the rights of visitation, inheritance, medical, insurance contracts, and powers of attorney where appropriate. Even the attempt a defining a marriage cheapens the entire affair to a certificate stamped by some uninterested public servant. Getting government out of the quagmire would actually help, it would allow the social groups the freedom to define personal relationships as desired.

Problems arise when the immature and irrational left feels it necessary to let the issue fall into the hands of the religionists with rhetoric that cheapens the debate to an issue based on sex or sex acts.

Not too long ago I posted this. Change the world? Global, Local, or Personal?

Family or the personal definition of “a family" is one of the reasons I reject “legal” government recognized (and taxed) “marriage” (and “family”). Who you call or claim is your “significant other” is the personal business of the individual or individuals involved. I believe it requires two (or more) adult cognizant and willing (not under duress, coercion or force) and consenting (willing to accept the terms of the personal/social contract) human partners/participants.

For the silly and stupid wanting to point out the “human only” part, I do not recognize ownership of an animal as valid to replace consent. Until valid, provable, repeatable communication with any creature and humans is established this is not an option. Until communication and self-awareness along with the clear concept of freedom of refusal is established I consider any relationship invalid I use this same reason for the refusal to recognize pedophilia as a valid relationship.

Some of the juvenile left seems to want to equate marriage with sex acts and even the love of livestock falling into the hands of the irrational religionists. The idiots are not your friends, obviously the title of leftist is used as a cloak to cover idiocy and deflect criticism as if it is some shield of political correctness over the insanity.

Marriage Has Gone To The Dogs!

See, those fundamentalists were right. Once you legalize gay marriage, it's anything goes! Though the man, a Mr. Guiso, claims to be religious and so didn't want to go on living "out of wedlock" with Honey (the dog's name).


The man (human) "yesterday tied the knot with his best friend – a five-year-old labrador. Thirty of the couple’s closest friends and family were in attendance for the emotional ceremony, held at dusk."

See pictures of the newlyweds at the link: Puppy Love: Man Marries A Dog

Is Marriage Obsolete in the 21st Century?

Privatize Marriage

The author of this website divides the debaters over "gay marriage" into two camps:

1. The "Religious Conservative" Argument

We can not legalize gay marriage because it would damage the institution of marriage. Marriage should be between one man and one woman - if we let gay people get married, then that legitimizes gay relationships legally, and we don't want that. It makes it seem like gay relationships are the same as straight relationships, which is absurd.

2. The "Right To Marriage" Argument

Gays need to be given the same rights as straight people. If straight couples are allowed to marry, then why not gay couples? Is their love any less worthy of recognition? The government needs to give gays the right to marry right now. They are being treated as second-class citizens, which is unacceptable in the "Land of the Free."

They continue: Now, I have sympathies with both of these arguments. As a Christian, I do not believe homosexual relationships are the same as heterosexual relationships. However, as a lover of liberty, I do not believe we should disallow gay people the right to freely associate. I would like to propose a third option.


So, the answer is to privatize marriage, a proposal (as an anarchist) I've long been in favor of, because you don't need the state to validate or approve what people choose to do when the issue is matrimony or anything else. We can run our own lives, thank you.




And here is a Christian against marriage licenses:

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 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.

5 Reasons Why Christians Should Not Obtain a State Marriage License

The Christian above who is against the state granting permission is, unfortunately, not consistently in favor of freedom (like those ridiculous "arachno"-capitalists):

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.

We can ask the same thing about parenting and parental authority (completely arbitrary) as we do of the state.

And the broader question on licensing restrictions is: Why should we have to get a license for anything? All licensing laws should be abolished.