Friday, May 22, 2009

The Separation of Marriage and State.

Valued readers,

Mr. Jerry Salcido, writing for Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty, has published an excellent article that is required reading for those of us who are opposed to the Feminist State and its deathgrip on Marriage:


... California, like the other 49 states and most countries in the world, holds a monopoly over marriage. Who can get married and un-married is at its sole discretion, through the granting and revocation of the marriage license -- that fiat currency, if you will, whose only value derives from the powers and privileges that accompany it at the behest of the State, but which nonetheless is required to consummate human relationships.

The state's involvement with marriage is rarely questioned. Advocates and enemies of same sex marriage alike all seek the endorsement of the state, never stopping to ask why the states approval is needed at all. The reason behind this submission appears simple enough -- the philosophy ascribed by our society today which has led to the displacement of the private sector with the substitution of the state in nearly all facets concerning the rights of life, liberty, and property has taken root in the marriage issue.

Thanks to the state, marriage is no longer a covenant between two people or between two people and God. No, marriage is a state classification, which connotes state-provided benefits or detriments. Marriage is married to the state imposed tax structure and the state created probate system, and in many instances marriage defines the powers of the state over the married individuals.

This unholy union between the state and marriage has transformed marriage from an inalienable or natural right in which government's only place was as protector of that right, to a civil right in which the state became the creator of the right...



It's refreshing that the viewpoints that Senior MRAs such as Baskerville have been writing about for a long time are finally being exposed to a wider audience.

Fiat Financed government, along with the Political Feminists and others who manipulate it, has destroyed marriage in Western society. No man can marry and know that his natural rights will be protected from family court encroachment. The unimpeachable truth of this statement is supported by the volumes of evidence posted throughout this blogspot.

Seek and ye shall find.

At first, only Men's Rights Activists would dare to put two and two together. But ever so slowly, I am beginning to see "green shoots" of understanding blooming in the post Political Feminist landscape. The masses of people who are slowly coming out of their slumber are connecting the dots. Bank Bailouts, Patriot Act abuses, and the Tyranny of the Divorce court [a][b] are all manifestations of private interest groups and public entities running roughshod over any and all notions of Rights, Responsibilities, and Common Sense.

Government is a necessity for civilized living. However, the role and scope of government must be limited to securing the full and equal rights of all of its people without exception. When one group of citizens succumbs to the temptation of using government power to harass, oppress, or seek vengeance upon another group of people, unscrupulous actors within government feed upon this discord in order to maximize their own power and influence. Before long, the newly empowered government regulates all aspects of life. In short order, the controllers wind up being controlled... for their own protection of course.


Continuing with the essay:


... First, the State declares what are and are not rights. Second, even if the State recognizes that something is a right, the State can abrogate that right so long as the State has a sufficient interest. Gone is the day when government's role was to protect the individual's natural rights.

By transitioning away from a protector of rights to a provider of rights, the state has laid the groundwork for the problems that are so evident in the same sex marriage issue. If the government were to take its proper place as a protector of rights then a private union between a same sex couple which the couple calls "marriage" would be inconsequential to same sex marriage opponents, even though it may be morally repugnant to some and nonsensical to others. Likewise, refusal to recognize a private same sex union as "marriage" would be inconsequential to gays and lesbians, even though such refusal may personally offend the practitioners of same sex unions. In a free society any individual could "marry" whomever he wants by whatever procedure he desires, and the government's only role would be to make sure that in doing so he does not violate the natural rights of others.

Such a scenario, of course, assumes that the state would be acting in its proper role as protector of rights in all regards, which would mean that private contractual relationships would replace the state created systems of benefits. Marriage, in that situation, would be relevant only where the contracting parties made it so; and, the state's only role with regards to such contracts would be to ensure that the contract is enforced or to protect the parties against the other's fraud...


And this failure of the government courts to enforce the marriage contract and protect against fraud is exactly why marriage in the West is a losing proposition.

As the Wise Robb Fedders wrote in his essay Marriage is Fraud:

... A contract says that if you behave in such and such manner and don’t deviate out of that behaviour, you will be compensated with a guarantee of this and this behaviour from the other party. Step out of these guidelines and you will be legally liable, stay within them and your rights will be guaranteed.

But, in the 1970’s, the ever wise feminists declared that it was far too difficult to find fault in people’s complex personal relationships, and therefore “No Fault Divorce” was implemented, again with the aid of the heavy hand of the courts. (Odd, isn’t it? They have no troubles at all finding “fault” in cases of domestic violence.)

So what have we got left here?

WE HAVE A FRAUDULENT CONTRACT MASQUERADING AS MARRIAGE!


Indeed we do. And consequently, no Man should even consider entering into such a one sided and dangerous agreement.

In any event, please read Mr. Salcido's article, as it is a good one. But also recognize that it doesn't go far enough (the definitive work on the topic of the destruction of Western Marriage by the State can be found here). Not only does the State need to exit the Marriage Licensing Business, but it also needs to either protect against fraud and enforce the provisions of the Marriage Contract equally and without favoritism towards women, as is the case today, or get the hell out of the way and let private mediators weigh in on marital disputes or dissolutions.

Don't get me wrong though... I view this well written article as another positive sign that the Political Feminist jig is up. Understanding will reach the masses, and then the mangled corpse of the Political Feminist vulture will be tossed into the garbage bin, to rot and fester in its own private Hell where it belongs.

Gyokko out.

3 comments:

Essay said...

I completely agree that government is a necessity in keeping the society peaceful and harmonious, however, there should be limitations of their powers when it comes to human rights. They should not be in control of everything.

Gyokko said...

"There should be limitations of their powers when it comes to human rights."

100% agreed. If the State would only do what it has the moral authority to do, ie protect life, liberty and property, as well as to be a neutral arbiter of disputes, we would be 1000% better off.

Unfortunately, government these days is doing everything else EXCEPT what it should be doing.

But don't worry... events are going to force a critical rethinking about the role of government... and this change of heart will come very soon.

Anonymous said...

My belief is that marriage should be abolished. Pure and simple.

When you really start thinking about it, marriage has become an instrument of torture.

The world will continue to exist even after marriage has been abolished. And people will regain freedom they lost almost half a century ago.

That people still marry today baffles me.

Rebel