Proposed new law in Colorado: You have to submit to hours of mandatory relationship and parental counseling before you can receive your marriage license.
The guy at the link doesn’t like the idea.
On the other hand, I am of a mind to endorse the idea and even wonder if it should be enacted in every state.
To put my reasons simply, if you are going to submit to the government the ability to “sanctify” or “approve” of your relationship with another person, then the government is going to set up some restrictions/qualifications.
Now don’t get me wrong. I don’t like to submit to just about anything involving any government, but most folks haven’t thought of the idea of a marriage license as actual “submission”. But it is high time they start.
This was and is my only problem with the state of the same-sex marriage debate. If the GLBT community would have approached it from the angle of actually “Getting government out of our relationships and bedrooms!” instead of “approve of my relationship and who I have sex with!”, they would have found a strong ally in both the large and small L Libertarian community. Instead, most of us pretty much just grabbed some popcorn and watched the special interest groups and political parties on both sides spark off.
When you make the tyranny blatant, people might actually see it. I hope that this is the angle that the backers of the bill are taking.
I can’t argue with your reasoning!
I say we simply require all marriage licenses to be purchased at Family Court.
You go stand in line for and hour with the guys filing their income and earnings declarations or trying to keep visitation rights and the battered women fighting tears to file a restraining order.
So, do the proponents of this bill think we should we ban cohabitation? Fornication? Out-of-wedlock births? Lots of “loopholes” out there for the pols to have a field day with. Sheesh.
Pingback: theCL Report: Marxism for Morons
“This was and is my only problem with the state of the same-sex marriage debate. If the GLBT community would have approached it from the angle of actually “Getting government out of our relationships and bedrooms!†instead of “approve of my relationship and who I have sex with!â€, they would have found a strong ally in both the large and small L Libertarian community. ”
That’s pretty much my take. On the few occasions that I was asked my opinion, there was generally surprise when I said I was against “gay” marriage being “legalized”. Only one or two actually were able to understand that my objection wasn’t to gay people doing whatever their heart desired but to the licensing; i.e., I objected to the State involvement in the issue from start to finish. Being (or not being) gay had nothing to do with it.