Image Image

  Nostalgia ain't what it used to be

Thursday, 21 June, 2018
Image

The State of Marriage

Date: 14 February, 2001

By: Chief

Imagehhhhh. Love is in the air. Cupid is loose and aiming his arrow. Boy meets girl, pitty-pat goes the heart and they fall head over heels in love. They get the needed blood tests, sign the license, have a preacher give them the vows. Both say "I do" and the preacher then says "I now pronounce you man and wife."

Sounds great doesn't it? Oh, ha. What the preacher left out, among other things, was:

"I now pronounce you man and wife, under the laws of the State of [whatever] and pursuant to the contract, the State is now a part of your intimate lives and, whenever it so sees fit can change the contract which you both voluntarily signed, with or without advising you, and you both shall be held civilly liable and/or criminally responsible for the terms of the contract, even though you both don't know what the terms are now or shall be in the future."

That, believe it or not, is correct. When a couple decide to marry, under the 'normal' state of marriage, the marriage license, signed by both, is indeed a contract. A contract not only with the man and woman, but with the state in which they reside as well.

Marriage is a legal status. It conveys to those who are legally married benefits and privileges. Other couples who choose not be legally married, but are married under the common law or live in cohabitation are not entitled to those benefits and privileges — though we pay for them in taxes and excises.

The essence of a legal marriage is to provide three things:

This is nothing new or earth shaking. It has been going on for thousands of years. Indeed, the entire concept of a legal marriage was, initially, to provide the man with property rights — the woman. To be sure, into the 1920's women were considered chattel — property. Carnal privileges — sex — was, until quite recently, considered a legitimate right of the married man. That is, by and large, no longer the case. Further, by chastising and in some cases killing women who became pregnant without the legal status of marriage — and their offspring as well — a surname bloodline was created and maintained.

For the 'man of the house', this doesn't sound to bad. Indeed it is not. But what of the woman? If nothing else, she loses her identity. More to the point, a woman entering into a legal marriage loses her:

The woman, not knowing any better, is usually brought up to believe that marriage, aka voluntary slavery, is a great way of life. Religions promote this form of idiocy. So does the Congress. So do the legislatures of the several states.

You hear or read about it in the news all the time. 'We've got to promote families'. 'Family values are our first priority'. Members of Congress, state legislatures, governors and presidents are always talking about families and how important they are. Why, according to government, families are so important that on the one hand single people and those married — but not legally, are taxed at a higher rate than those who are legally married. Further, and as I stated earlier, legally married couples are entitled to governmental benefits and privileges that are either outright denied to or much more difficult to qualify for single people and those not legally married. Hence, the governments, federal and state, discriminate against those people who are (1) unmarried and/or (2) not legally married.

Discrimination is unconstitutional. Period. The Fourteenth Amendment provides for "equal protection of the laws." Being taxed at a higher rate because of my beliefs pertaining to marriage or any other subject, for that matter, denies to me the equal protection of the law. Further a governmental program which I as a citizen and taxpayer am required — under law — to fund, yet am unable to qualify for because of my marital status is discriminatory and, as such, in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Additionally, where in the Constitution is Congress granted the authority to punish me, without due process, for my marital status or my choice of 'type' of marital arrangement? I can find no authority whatsoever. Does that stop Congress or the legislatures of the several states? Not for a moment. Let alone the executive branch agencies who administer these benefits, privileges and tax collection.

In short my marital status or lack thereof is my business, not the government's. Yet the government continues to mete out punishment to those who voluntarily choose to live free. On the other hand the government rewards those who engage in voluntarily servitude. It goes to show the government helps (rewards) the weak and stupid. Now attend to the fact that the weak and stupid won't rise up against the strong. The slaves won't break their chains placed upon them by their masters. Government likes and encourages weakness, stupidity and ultimately, slavery.

I'm not a dog. I don't need a licence.

(Return to the top)