Gay Rights, Gay Marriage, and The Link to Income Tax and Obligation of Contract
Where are the principles outlined, and authority given to the federal and state governments to define the religious institution of marriage? The origins of marriage are religious, the laws surrounding marriage and marriage licenses are laws to the establishment of religion. Marriage is a covenant or contract, the Obligation of Contract is established in the US Constitution. by Missourian
(libertarian)
Sunday, April 6, 2008
The rhetoric of homosexuals and their "Christian" opponents is difficult to miss, unless, of course, you have been living in a cave. It is unfortunate that too often the discussion goes far beyond the bounds of decency and order. As of yet there have been no solutions that are within the principles of human liberty; unalienable rights.
Mainstream media has done its part in polarizing the population by placing into the foreground the views of the far left and the far right. On the left, we have those that are following the ten platforms of Marx's "Communist Manifesto" to the letter, in addition demanding that others not have a negative opinion of the lifestyle they have chosen, insisting upon doctrinal changes in various religious beliefs to not see the homosexual lifestyle as deviant, and displaying all sexual preferences in an exhibitionist style. On the far right we have those who are following Mussolini's "Doctrine of Fascism" to the letter, in addition demanding the repentance of those who live a deviant lifestyle, expecting Borg-like assimilation into the religious institution collective, displaying a burning hatred for homosexuals, and a hatred that is the antagonist to the teachings of Yeshwa (Jesus). It is understood that these are the extremes of the spectrum, and many Americans are somewhere in the middle, however many have formed strong opinions as to how equal treatment under the law is to be achieved because of what has been placed in the foreground.
Where are the principles outlined, and authority given to the federal and state governments to define the religious institution of marriage? The origins of marriage are religious, the laws surrounding marriage and marriage licenses are laws to the establishment of religion. Marriage is a covenant or contract, the Obligation of Contract is established in the US Constitution.
What then is the purpose of marriage laws besides the establishment of religion? Taxation.
What is one of the primary purposes behind the gay rights, gay marriage agenda? Equal treatment under the law, per taxation and Obligation of Contract.
Therefore the abolishment of income tax on the state and federal level is necessary and the original intent of our founding fathers, as expressed in Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution, was that no such taxes where to exist. The various laws, regulations, and policies in regard to marriage are an infraction of the 1st Amendment; establishing a religion, and are an infraction against Article 1, Section 10 establishing "Law impairing the Obligation of Contract."
Much of the debate surrounding this particular issue is intended to polarize "We the People" causing distraction as our God-given rights are eroded even further. This is the only resolution to this issue, as far as the government action is concerned, for the preservation of the founding principles of liberty.
"We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debt, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our calling and our creeds...[we will] have no time to think, no means of calling our miss-managers to account, but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers... And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for [ another]... till the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery... And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression." Thomas Jefferson
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 9
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Missourian only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Missourian is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
I can appreciate you commentary and to some degree we are in agreement. I wrote an article entitled "THE STATE DESIRES DIVISIONS", I think it speaks to at least a portion of your commentary on the subject:
"We must all come to understand that as long as anyone depends on their minority status to determine their rights then the majority will only recognize a degree of rights based solely upon a specified set of what the majority considers allowable and therefore, contingent freedoms. In other words, the majority will always restrict the rights of the minority unless the minority can base their rights upon something other than the specific attributes and or definitions of that minority.
The government is not inclined to, nor does it obligate itself to ensure the Rights of any person in this country although it was created to protect the Rights of every individual. It is up to the individual to combatively insist and aggressively pursue his or her Rights before the government. It is People, first and foremost, that form the State Republics through acting on a cooperative and voluntary basis, but with an extreme prejudice toward their Rights. It has been said that the majority opinion is the true ruler; if that is the case then perhaps it is time for us all to become the majority and not base our Rights upon a specific status as a minority. This does not preclude any attributes that a person has who is a member of a minority or their identity, but in the eyes of the majority and therefore the law, a minority is only a minority and will remain as such as long as they base their Rights solely upon their minority status.
The problem with every democracy is that the majority always rule to the exclusion of the minority. The reason the Founders purposed a Republic instead of a democracy was to blunt the force and power of the majority through layers of checks and balances to equal out the playing field. The more democratic a political system becomes the more the majority “lords over” the minority. It is strange that people are all for democracy until it actually rules against them and in a democracy, since the majority always rules, the minority will always suffer under the prejudices of the majority. There is a defined tyranny within a democracy and yet so many clamor for such a system because they feel that it will provide them with more voice while just the opposite is true. In every democracy the government system appeals to the material interests of the majority’s large voting block, in turn the government will then merely placate the minority with a degree of rights and yet never “grant” them the same degree of rights as the majority.
The established elite ruling class, the governing “gentry” fears nothing more than a unified People. As long as sectionalism can be promoted and therefore pseudo-legalized, then this nation will remain divided and that is exactly what the “State” desires: a house divided. Until We take the stance that the only status that is legally meaningful and powerful is that of the Citizen, then We will remain a conquered People subject to the will of majoritarianism and their preferred democratic tyranny. The majorities will always, whether by vote, referendum or even by a form of legal or judicial enforcement, secure their perceived rights over the rights of a defined minority. Majoritarian democracy desires the artificial designation of minorities, it keeps the “majority” holding the reigns of power while providing the minority with a degree of satisfaction based upon their struggle to gain or retain a certain allowance of rights, but such a system will never provide equality because it inherently promotes and maintains social, racial, religious, ethnic or sexual divisions among the People.
The “State” readily supports the idea that a particular class or group requires or is entitled to recognition based upon that class or group or category, because segmentation will continue to allow its decisions to be based upon the majority and keeps the perceived minority, of which ever particular group, in check or within a majority defined scope of “civil rights”. In such a “democratic” system the minority will always yield to the will and power of the majority. The majority will always enact policies which ensure that the minority is not strengthened and will never allow the total empowerment of the minority. The “State” will always seek to breed social divisions in order the restrict minority power or empowerment. The solution therefore, must be found through a very powerful and very different view: that of the Majority of Citizenship.
It is interesting to note that you rarely hear the word Republic, but democracy is tossed out by most politicians and for good reason: a democracy will always protect the majority first and keep any minority under the thumb of the ruling powers. Minorities are not only required, but desired within democratic majoritarian system of government because it will always demand that all minorities yield to the will and allowances of the majority. A Republic is anathema to democratic majoritarianism because it equalizes the power and force of government among all People of the Land when the People press their Sovereignty, based solely upon their Natural Rights of Citizenship, over the “State”."
Posted By: Wendall Dennis
Date: 2008-04-06 17:34:44
The ultimate minority is the minority of one, each individual sovereign citizen. Until enough of the people begin to understand, and accept the fact, that the Constitution has been reduced to subservience to corporate policy, and that so long as the "economic" system is grounded in debt, that because the hole deeper, every "recession" can only get worse. The fact the "economy" is rescued by the theives willingness to accept less rent for their money, should tell us something. Wendall Dennis
Regardless of the gender condition marriage should be private.
We should all be advocating for the elimination of marriage certificates given by the state. Let each individual, couple, or even polygamists chose which ever lifestyle and marriage they want with which ever religious or secular ceremony WITHOUT having to file any sort of paperwork with the government.
On the religious side, if the marriage is supposed to be between them and their God, then why bring the government paperwork? Based on their believe system, shouldn't their church, other place of worship or their religion be the governing authority over their contract? Why do they want to give the power of their religion away to the state?
On the gay side, except on some backwards states, there is no law prohibiting them from establishing their own sexual or living arrangements. So why do they want to turn over their living arrangements to the state?
Instead we should unite to take it back from the state and bring it back to our individual rights by abolishing any marriage law whether heterosexual, homosexual or polygamist.
Unfortunately today, neither side understands that as the real solution.
Marriage is a basic civil right that should be attainable by all Americans if they choose. For the truth about gay marriage check out our trailer. Produced to educate & defuse the controversy it has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue: www.OUTTAKEonline.com
There is admittedly some disagreement within the Gay community over what's more important, the word "marriage" or the benefits and responsibilities that are connected with it. As someone who prides himself as being nothing if not diplomatic, I would take simple legal equality under the law, even if the operative term is "civil unions." If social conservatives simply wish to reserve the term "marriage" for heterosexual couples, they can have it, as long as Gay couples are treated fairly.
Here's an example of how the current system is not fair: According to a statement I recently received in the mail from the Social Security Administration, my married spouse would be eligible for over $1400 per month (after retirement) in the event of my death. I think anyone would agree that $1400 per month is a pretty hefty chunk of change. However, it is money that my significant other would not be eligible for, because we would not be allowed to get married. I would like to provide for the financial well-being of my spouse, just as I'm sure any heterosexual would, but in essence I'm throwing away money on a fund that my partner cannot take advantage to in the event of my death.
At the root of this discrepancy is the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which was signed, to his eternal shame, by Bill Clinton. Because of DOMA, even Gay couples who are legally married in Massachusetts are unrecognized by the federal government, and any such couple becomes magically “UN-married” once they move to another state. So frankly, even married Gay couples in Massachusetts continue to be second-class citizens in the eyes of Washington.
At the very least, the federal government should allow Gay spouses file joint tax returns and to designate one another for survivorship benefits under Social Security. If a "civil union" would allow us to do this, I'm all for it. If not, then nothing but full marriage equality will suffice.
It seems to me that the last two posters completely missed the point, per a lack of education, no worries I am learning myself.....We all have a right to make contracts, not following the US Constitution and the founders intent is the root of the problem. I would recommend going to the The National Center for Constitutional Studies website and ordering a few books.
I agree Missourian, the problem is a matter of legal consent. Besides, no matter who or what a person is, that person is an American Citizen and should be afforded all the Rights of any other American Citizen without regard to specified traits or demands by the State. The mere fact that a person is an American Citizen is demand enough that the Rights under the application of the Law be equal per the Constitutional. No other characteristics should come into consideration.
I do not however, believe that any group, race, gender or any other classification merits the grant of a right solely upon the characteristics of a particular group, race, gender, etc. To single anyone out for treatment that either denies or grants a particular right is neither productive or, in my view Constitutional.
Posted By: John Bisceglia
Date: 2008-04-09 15:34:21
Many gay people believe that it is immoral and unfair to tax everyone equally while granting rights to some, so they choose to resist paying any taxes whatsoever. I believe this kind of tax resistance is the only fair and moral thing to do (until we are equal).
We already are equal; obviously the government no longer operates in this fashion.
Individual rights are what needs to be the focus, not collective, or this group or that one. I encourage you to look into the Constitutional history, not implying that you haven't, big deep. A good place to start is "The 5000 Year Leap," by Dr. W. Cleon Skousen the founder of the National Center for Constitutional Studies.
It has little to nothing to do with "who" or what "society" thinks. We are endowed with inherent rights from our Creator, if you where to champion that cause, the cause of liberty, the end result would be the same. I don't care what your sexual preference is. What I do care about is your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, however just because I am willing to stand up for your liberty does not mean I condone your choices. Nor does it mean that you can tread upon anyone else’s natural rights.
We are not friends or acquaintances. If you stand on the side of liberty and natural rights we are allies. If you are only after the fulfillment of a single agenda then we have no common cause. Liberty and freedom are in the interest of all mankind, and our founding documents, the principles behind them, are the best vessel to that end.
Missourian, While I believe I understand your point and essentially agree with you, there is a flaw in your statement that the origins of marriage are religious. I hear this over and over in the media and it is not true. Marriage's origins are civil and are based on property rights (that's where the concept of dowry comes in--selling off your daughter since she was a burden to the man taking her--let's talk about civil rights!). At the origins, a wife was property, children were property, etc. and the marriage laws protected "a man's" rights to that property. Obviously, things have progressed a little, but the foundations are the same. Ultimately, it is a civil contract, plain and simple.
Marriage became a religious institution when civilly married people started going to churches to have their unions blessed. Because of the demand, churches began performing the ceremonies and, at some point, society began to look at the religious ceremony as the actual wedding.
Further, and in reference to some of the other people's postings, you do not need to be married in a church. A simple pledge before a properly-authorized civil official and a witness will do the job. All marriages are civil and have nothing, legally, to do with the church.
For gay people to want access to the same social contracts that provide hundreds of rights and responsibilities intrinsic to the way our society runs (and I do agree on the ills of taxation, need to guard freedoms, etc.) does not seem like choosing to subsume to the will of the majority, giving up religious control to the state, nor asking for "special minority rights." People have to live within the rules as they exist until such time as the rules can be changed; I do not believe it is right for the majority to exclude gay people from the game, however flawed the game may be, nor do I believe it to be harmful for gay people to pursue that inclusion. And, let's be clear: it is the majority that marginalizes and treats gay people as a minority; gay people do not marginalize themselves, individually or as a group, so it is great to talk about the rights of individuals and pursuing those rights but, to me, it is a far cry easier to be heard and effect individual freedom when there are a lot of like-minded people shouting together against a majority that is not going away.
I'm sure you'll have some deeper insight on all this, and looking forward to your thoughts.
Posted By: John Bisceglia
Date: 2008-04-22 21:58:49
Missourian,
I'm not convinced that you truly understand the concept of "sexual orientation", based on how you used the terms "sexual preference" and "choices". This basic confusion and mis-information is at the heart of much of the discrimination out there.
My single agenda is for ALL HUMANS to have basic marriage rights, so that everyone's FAMILY is treated equally under the law. This "single" agenda entails estate planning, hospital visitation, retirement, protecting one's children, and an array of other issues that most Americans would consider paramount in their lives.
It appears rather that you are not convinced that I support your concept of sexual orientation. In rare cases homosexuality genome based, such as some form of hermaphrodite. It is primarially a result of enviornment. Let's be honest with ourselves shall we, it is typically a result of sexual, mental, or physical abuse.
Also from your statements it would seem that honoring the Constititional princple of the Obligation of Contract isnt sufficant for you. It appears that you as well as many others, as I commented before, are on a vindictive mission.
Where is the historicial precedence for same sex marriage? Homosexuality is as old as mankind correct?
Where is the historical precedent that marriage isnt a religious institution, centered upon procreation and covenant?
Homosexuality was described in psychological pathology as deviant behavior until rather recently. The man behind removing it was a closet homosexual for 60 or 70 years, married with children and grandchildren. Is that moral behavior?
Posted By: John Bisceglia
Date: 2008-04-23 18:49:26
Mr. Miss.,
I'm sure we both feel that the other one is painfully ignorant in this conversation, which means we will NEVER agree.
That's OK.
Again, I don't care anymore who believes what; I just know that myself and 1,000's, possible 10,000's of other gays like myself will never participate in our government until we have equality. Period. That is only fair. Not vindictive, just fair.
RE: result of environment, historical precedence, covenant, etc. See first sentence. There's been a long history (precedence) for slavery....but that's hardly a rationale for continuing it.
The National Equality Tax Protest will be on Wednesday, April 15th, 2009.
Many more individuals are FINALLY gathering to TAKE A STAND against persecution from the Catholics, Mormons & the Christian "Right". No vote will be needed on this one, folks.
EQUALITY is SIMPLE when you simply include EVERYONE.
