Skip to main content

Marriage and Power

A lot of my political views have been held since long before getting involved and educated about philosophy and government. For example, growing up Catholic and going to a private school I always thought it was dumb that the government had any say on what we did in the church e.g. marriage. Why would we want to allow the sanctity of marriage to be corrupted by government? Why would we want to take a matter that has to do with Love and God and include and allow Atheists to both conduct and participate in the act of marriage for the reasons of money, power and control?

We can either be treated equally under law, not involve the government at all, or be treated unequally under the law. Any attempt at making people or groups of people equal by treating them differently is nothing more than well intended legal discrimination.

The problem is government is power and control, it naturally finds its way into everything. Once the government gets involved it claims to be the solution to all of the inequalities it is responsible for. For every good intentioned thing the government has done, I can point to the government’s role in creating the problem it is trying to fix.

I would like to share with you, the language of a Facebook page I created some time ago:

"What consenting adults do should have nothing to do with governmental regulations and or taxes. Morality cannot be legislated.

Marriage is an unalienable right and is a matter of holy matrimony. The Constitution does not protect unalienable rights, they are unalienable! The Constitution is there to protect civil rights. Supporting the government in issuing marriage licenses, is in essence conceding a right that cannot be taken from you. The last thing we need is government being involved in people’s love lives, beliefs, hopes and dreams.

No one should get tax breaks or subsidies from the government. If you want to enter into a contract, that is your choice, it cannot be taken away from you. The problem is, marriage has less to do with love and everything to do with money and government control. Keep the government out of marriage and leave it to the churches. Legal contracts are protected by the Constitution and we all have the right to enter into them.

As for visiting loved ones, money, custody issues etc, I have already pointed out, we all have the right to enter into a contract; marriage should not give special privileges or rights to anyone. Legal contracts are protected by the Constitution. While it would make sense to have a contract with loved ones, a will etc, that is your choice. That said, there is no need to include any of these provisions in the marriage itself, this contract is basic and needs to stay that way. Marriage has become something like a piece of complex legislation coming out of DC filled with pork. It needs to be one bill, one point, no pork. Marriage is and should be simply the right, ceremony, sacrament, oath; solemn pledge, sign, token, or symbol, to tell a person you love them and want to be with them for life. If you believe in God and want a holy person there to witness, or carry on a ceremony, great; if not then do whatever makes you happy. Leave the State, judges and tax payers the hell out of it.

One reason people get married is because of the pork, not the meaning. Take away the pork and I guarantee you will not have an issue with people fighting over the right to be married. If marriage is a right the government provides you, how does love fit into the equation?"

Social engineering take place in American politics each and every day, it is done so with incentivizing and subsidization. You cannot be both depended and free at the same time. If you have to ask permission from the government, the government is your higher power and you are not free. (added)


 

Oppose state involvement in marriage

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Oppose-state-involvement-in-marriage/151492548219591?ref=hl

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Grassroots Revolt Against GOP Elitism

By Matthew Hayward In the complex arena of political strategy, even those who occupy the highest echelons of power can falter, demonstrating a profound disconnect between their strategic intentions and operational execution. The recent failure to secure the endorsement for their preferred candidate, Dave Reichert, is not merely a setback; it is a revealing exposé of the grave strategic missteps at the heart of the Republican party's establishment in Washington State. These seasoned campaigners, these stewards of conservative strategy, have evidently underestimated the critical importance of grassroots engagement. While I acknowledge the logic behind promoting an established politician strategically positioned geographically and perceived as moderate in our swing state—a strategy driven by considerations of electability, which admittedly has its merits—the incessant focus on this argument and complete lack of any meaningful engagement and education has alienated the grassroots yet a...

Could Today Be the Cheapest Price for Bitcoin Ever Again? Here’s Why

By: Matthew Hayward Current price  Nov 10, 2024 76.72K 80.43K Is Now the Time to Buy Bitcoin? Bitcoin has come a long way since its early days as a niche digital asset. Today, as we enter another phase in its established four-year cycle , Bitcoin may be at a historic high, but it could soon become the new baseline price. This cycle, which has repeatedly shown Bitcoin’s resilience and long-term growth potential, suggests that the current price might be the lowest we’ll see again. While recent political shifts, including Donald Trump’s landslide election victory, have added new momentum and support for Bitcoin, the timing within the cycle itself makes this an ideal moment to consider buying. A Political Shift: From Anti-Crypto to Pro-Crypto For years, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies have faced an uphill battle against a U.S. government determined to restrict and control their growth. This opposition was largely led by Gary Gensler, who waged an outright war against crypto from hi...

When the Census Goes Beyond the Constitution

 By Matthew Hayward The Census: From Counting People to Collecting Control The Constitution established the census as a straightforward tool for representation—nothing more, nothing less. Article I, Section 2 mandates an enumeration every ten years to determine how many representatives each state is allotted. That’s it. Simple. Effective. Proportional representation was the goal, and the census was designed to achieve it. So how did we end up here—with government agents asking about the number of bathrooms in our homes, our ethnic identities, and everything in between? This is the creeping hand of central planning at work. What began as a tool to empower individual representation has been twisted into a mechanism to empower bureaucrats, planners, and those who believe they know better than free individuals how to run their own lives. Central Planning: The False Promise of Data The justification for prying into the most intimate details of our lives is always the same: “We need the ...