Constitutional Ammendment for Parental Rights...

[Proud 2b Peculiar]

So if you have to provide a marriage certificate for your driver's license, I guess you never change your name if you are a woman in a common law marriage.

I wish I could have know this, I would have looked into doing it, not sure how the temple in those areas would do that though.....

[jnjnelson]

In your opinion, how many times must the will of the people be ignored by the euphemistically named "public servants" before it is appropriate to refer the the government as "them?"

If we follow the principles of the Constitution, We the People should never consider the government as "them". We should always view the government as "We the People."

Are you of the opinion that everything the government does has the tacit approval of all of us since "we" elected "them?"

Absolutely not.

If "we" are truly the government, then "we" should be able to act with governmental authority, right?

Any just and right action performed by government officials would be equally just and right if it is performed by individual citizens. (There also must be order in all things, which is why there are government officials who have been delegated authority by the people.) Likewise, as shadow has pointed out, if it is wrong for an individual to perform a certain action, it is equally wrong for the government to perform the same action.

Are you sure we don't only have the right to choose to pursue happiness?

The right to choose to pursue Happiness would fall under the right to Liberty. This intellectual exercise is interesting.

If you have no authority to restrain or limit my freedoms (privileges for those of you who are socialists), then does the government? Yes! Should they? No!

Let's consider the following: Do I have the authority to limit the freedom of my neighbor if my neighbor attempts to use their freedom to initiate force against me? Just as I have the authority, and the right, to defend myself from force that is initiated by my neighbor, the government could have that same authority. This is the proper role of government - to combine resources in order to restrain and limit the freedom to initiate force and deception.

We could also discuss and compare freedoms and privileges. What is a freedom and what is a privilege? What is the difference between the two? Let's clearly define our terms, so as to avoid being labeled socialists.

[jbalm]

Well Joel,

It looks like we agree on a lot more than I originally figured. We are just speaking somewhat different languages.

I'll put some thought into your last questions and respond when I have a little more time.

Cheers

[shadow]

Let's clearly define our terms, so as to avoid being labeled socialists.

I didn't mean to call you a socialist per se, just those that believe rights are privileges that are granted by the government, or even we the people. Marriage is an eternal principle. Government has no business being involved in the marriage business.

Do I have the authority to limit the freedom of my neighbor if my neighbor attempts to use their freedom to initiate force against me? Just as I have the authority, and the right, to defend myself from force that is initiated by my neighbor, the government could have that same authority. This is the proper role of government - to combine resources in order to restrain and limit the freedom to initiate force and deception.

I'm not sure how that relates to a marriage license. Can you explain?

[jnjnelson]

Do I have the authority to limit the freedom of my neighbor if my neighbor attempts to use their freedom to initiate force against me? Just as I have the authority, and the right, to defend myself from force that is initiated by my neighbor, the government could have that same authority. This is the proper role of government - to combine resources in order to restrain and limit the freedom to initiate force and deception.

I'm not sure how that relates to a marriage license. Can you explain?

I'll do my best.
My comment relates to marriage in the same way your comment relates to marriage. Let me be more specific ... The comment you quoted from me relates to marriage to the same degree as this comment from you:

If you have no authority to restrain or limit my freedoms (privileges for those of you who are socialists), then does the government? Yes! Should they? No!

The concept of restraining and limiting freedom is equally applicable to marriage in both comments, as far as I can see.

[shadow]

Joel, so are you saying it's none of the governments business to require a license to marry?

[jnjnelson]

Joel, so are you saying it's none of the governments business to require a license to marry?

No, I'm not. I am also not saying that it is the government's business to require a license to marry. I feel strongly that the answer to that question depends largely on the following three things: (1) the nature of the license, (2) the intent of those wishing to be married, and (3) the understood definition of government.

Does a requirement for a marriage license restrict one's freedom to marry? I assert that such a requirement does not restrict anyone's freedom to marry. The requirement for a marriage license only restricts the couple's freedom to have their marriage legally and lawfully recognized by the government as a marriage. As I have stated before, I believe this is a necessary restriction of freedom, because my neighbor does not have the right to use their freedom to force me to recognize their marriage as a legal and lawful union. There is no law that I am aware of that punishes a couple for entering into a marriage without a license - the only punishment is that the marriage is not legally recognized as a valid marriage. If you know of such a law, you are welcome to enlighten me and I might change my opinion.

If a couple only wants to marry, and has no desire to have their marriage legally recognized as valid, they don't need a license. In my opinion, this is not a valid marriage, because one of the requirements for a valid marriage is that is a legal and lawful union. I am not forcing anyone to share my opinion. The government is not forcing anyone to share my opinion. Anyone is free to feel differently, enter into a marriage contract under their own definition, and call themselves married.

You and I seem to have a different understanding of what exactly is government. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) We seem to agree about the proper role of government, but not the nature of government. If the government truly is "We the People," then there is no separation between the government and the people, the two groups are one and the same. However, if the government is some separate entity from the people, then there is tyranny. I acknowledge no tyrannical government. If an individual government bureaucrat chooses to act tyrannically, I refuse to accept their leadership and I refuse to be governed by them. When I obtained a marriage license, I did so voluntarily and with a full knowledge of my actions. There was no tyranny. Can you provide an example where this was not the case?

[Proud 2b Peculiar]

Blacks law dictionary describe a license as this: "The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal."

A legally recognized 'marriage' gives each of you legal rights to the other's finances, property, power of attorney for health care, and such.

[shadow]

I like and agree with the words of Will Durant. "When liberty becomes licensed, dictatorship is near." It is wrong to have to get permission from my neighbors in order to have a marriage validated. The marriage covenant does not include my neighbors, so why should I need their permission? And yes, a license is synonymous with permission.

[jnjnelson]

The marriage covenant does not include my neighbors, so why should I need their permission?

You don't need your neighbor's permission to be married, you only need your neighbor's permission for your marriage to be considered valid. This permission for validity is accomplished through marriage licenses.

It is this same argument that can be used against legalizing homosexual, underage, or human-beast marriages. My neighbor has no accountability to me as to the nature of their marriage, but I also have no responsibility to validate or recognize their marriage without having met certain criteria.

[shadow]

you only need your neighbor's permission for your marriage to be considered valid. This permission for validity is accomplished through marriage licenses.

I wonder where Adam and Eve got their marriage license from? Somewhere in Missouri I suppose. But until someone can show me their license, it wasn't a valid marriage.

[jnjnelson]

... it wasn't a valid marriage.

You are apparently attempting to discount opposing opinions through sarcasm. If not, then you and I have a different opinion about the validity of their marriage.

A flaw in the logic of this statement is that Adam and Eve did not have any mortal neighbors in the Garden of Eden.

Nonetheless, let's pursue this line of thinking. Who was the government in the Garden of Eden, from which Adam and Eve may have received a marriage license (a marriage license being governmental permission to be legally married)? If Adam and Eve is to be considered the government and the only occupants of the Garden of Eden, then they provided their own governmental validation of their own marriage (nothing is more effective government than unanimity). If God is to be considered the governmental authority figure, He married them and thereby provided the governmental validation. Either way, the logic of the principle still applies, and the marriage is valid.

[shadow]

It was sarcasm, but the truth none the less.

I think it stands that you and I have differing views on the proper role of government. To that we can probably agree on.

[jnjnelson]

I think it stands that you and I have differing views on the proper role of government. To that we can probably agree on.

Agreed.

[jjlopez]

OK. This post was about parental rights to begin with. I have to say that with or without a marriage license the state does Not have control over our children except to protect them from crimes committed by anyone parent or not. To say that a marriage license somehow gives them the right to dictate to us about our children is ridiculous on a number of levels. First of all, that would mean that children born out of wedlock and those of common law marriages would somehow have special protected stats. We all know the government better then to think that these children would be simply excluded from the pool of those ruled over.

Most importantly, our rights as parents do not come from the government. They are not a privilege magnamonously bestowed upon us from the state, but a God given right. This is why I oppose this amendment being brought up. I don't feel that the government or any of us have any right to vote on whether parents are the ultimate authorities in the lives of their children. We are. Barring any crime that we commit that harms the welfare of our children; we have the jurisdiction and the rights already. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that without the governments say so we are powerless in raising our own children.

If this issue were to come to a vote it would be absolutely essential for us to Win. We would start this country racing faster then ever downhill if we were to propose an amendment like this and then lose. This is another reason not to bring this to a vote.
Julie