2016 hopeful Marco Rubio reaches out to gay Republicans

[240 is Back]

I'm confused.   Rubio says gay people are born gay.  But he opposes gay marriage too.  Trying to please the base while appealing to gay voting repubs?


Marco Rubio, the youthful Republican presidential hopeful who touts himself as the candidate of his party's future, has been making moves to court a socially liberal faction of his party that represents gay conservatives.

The Florida senator's staff have held quarterly meetings with the Log Cabin Republicans "going back some time", their executive director, Gregory Angelo, told Reuters. The meetings with the advocacy group were to discuss legislation, issues and opportunities to "partner on," Angelo said. Rubio's office declined to comment on the meetings.

The discussions highlight the tricky electoral math for Republican presidential aspirants like Rubio.

The Republican party will struggle to win the White House in 2016 if it relies only on the support of socially conservative voters. At the same time, presidential candidates will battle to win their party's nomination without those voters, who often dominate state primaries, or early voting contests.

That tension is starkly apparent on gay marriage. For years, staunch opposition to gay marriage was a reliably safe strategy for Republican candidates. No longer.

Facing an electorate that has sharply altered its views on the issue since the turn of the century, even Rubio, who has long opposed gay marriage, has softened his rhetoric, saying last week that he would attend a gay wedding of a loved one.

And then in an interview with CBS's "Face the Nation" on Sunday he said he believed "that sexual preference is something that people are born with" and is not a choice for most people.

While those kinds of comments might help win votes in the general election if he becomes the Republican nominee, they have the potential to antagonize the conservative Republican base he needs to win the primary, party activists said.

[avxo]

I'm confused.   Rubio says gay people are born gay.  But he opposes gay marriage too.  Trying to please the base while appealing to gay voting repubs?

The two positions aren't mutually exclusive. Not saying that we shouldn't have gay marriage - in fact, I see no credible legal argument against allow gays to marry. It's much simpler: I just don't think the Government should be in the relationship endorsement business.

[Straw Man]

The two positions aren't mutually exclusive. Not saying that we shouldn't have gay marriage - in fact, I see no credible legal argument against allow gays to marry. It's much simpler: I just don't think the Government should be in the relationship endorsement business.

Marriage is,  among other things, a legal contract. 

If the government is not involved in one way or another then what other entity, if any, would take their place or what to you envision the marriage landscape to be?

[avxo]

Marriage is,  among other things, a legal contract.

Right. Now imagine if the government came out and said: "henceforth, only men may enter into contracts, because that's how it traditionally done, and tradition rah rah rah!"

If the government is not involved in one way or another then what other entity, if any, would take their place or what to you envision the marriage landscape to be?

First, do note that the government isn't involved in any way, shape or form in the vast majority of contracts entered into everyday (with the exception of contracts to which it is a party obviously). And that's perfectly fine, because why should it be? So why should it be involved with marriage?

Second, contracts are legally binding, which means that if we have issues we can go before a Judge who can decide our dispute. But there's nothing wrong with that level of involvement, and even if there is, we don't need to resort to it: many contracts mandate legally binding arbitration in front of a Special Master who isn't employed by the government but is instead paid by the parties who hears the issue and makes a decision (although all such clauses allow for appeal of the arbitration decision to a Judge.)

So what do I envision the marriage landscape to be? Quite simply: civil unions, governed by a contract (standard or not), available to all consenting adults who choose to enter into a union voluntarily.

[Straw Man]

Right. Now imagine if the government came out and said: "henceforth, only men may enter into contracts, because that's how it traditionally done, and tradition rah rah rah!"

would that be constitutional?

I can't see how it would

First, do note that the government isn't involved in any way, shape or form in the vast majority of contracts entered into everyday (with the exception of contracts to which it is a party obviously). And that's perfectly fine, because why should it be? So why should it be involved with marriage?

Federal, State, City?

The parties appeal to the governement to enforce them or when there is a breach of contract don't they?

Second, contracts are legally binding, which means that if we have issues we can go before a Judge who can decide our dispute. But there's nothing wrong with that level of involvement, and even if there is, we don't need to resort to it: many contracts mandate legally binding arbitration in front of a Special Master who isn't employed by the government but is instead paid by the parties who hears the issue and makes a decision (although all such clauses allow for appeal of the arbitration decision to a Judge.)

So what do I envision the marriage landscape to be? Quite simply: civil unions, governed by a contract (standard or not), available to all consenting adults who choose to enter into a union voluntarily.

governed by what entity?

[avxo]

would that be constitutional?

I can't see how it would

Oh, so it's OK for marriage to be restricted between a man and a woman, but not for other contracts because Constitution...

 

Federal, State, City?

It doesn't matter. Government (regardless of its classification) isn't involved in contracts (with the exception of contracts that it's a party to).

The parties appeal to the governement to enforce them or when there is a breach of contract don't they?

Right. But only when there is a breach of the contract. You don't need to get approval from the Government to sign a contract, nor can the Government prevent you from signing a contract. All it can do is pass legislation that makes the contract legally unenforceable, and that legislation can be challenged, at which point it has to pass Constitutional muster.

governed by what entity?

It should be governed by no entity - just by the rules laid out in the contract itself. If the rules of the contract are broken, the contract can stipulate the consequences and courts can, at that point, become involved to enforce the terms. It's how every other contract works!

[Skip8282]

Oh, so it's OK for marriage to be restricted between a man and a woman, but not for other contracts because Constitution...

 

It doesn't matter. Government (regardless of its classification) isn't involved in contracts (with the exception of contracts that it's a party to).


Right. But only when there is a breach of the contract. You don't need to get approval from the Government to sign a contract, nor can the Government prevent you from signing a contract. All it can do is pass legislation that makes the contract legally unenforceable, and that legislation can be challenged, at which point it has to pass Constitutional muster.


It should be governed by no entity - just by the rules laid out in the contract itself. If the rules of the contract are broken, the contract can stipulate the consequences and courts can, at that point, become involved to enforce the terms. It's how every other contract works!

Meh...think I would argue that my required syphilis test constituted a de facto approval by the government.  That was some time ago and I think they may have gotten rid of test now.

So I think for what you're proposing, would there be safeguards for the dumb?  I have a feeling a lot of people will claim a lack of understanding and even if they sign, they don't truly understand the implications.  I suppose you could just go hard core and say 'tough shit', but that seems somewhat heartless.

[Straw Man]

Oh, so it's OK for marriage to be restricted between a man and a woman, but not for other contracts because Constitution...

did I say that

I'm all for gay marriage, polygamy, triads, whatever the heck else.

There should be some restrictions on first cousins, siblings, etc.. but if you're think those should be allowed that's your choice

I was addressing your specific premise about only men being allowed to enter into contracts

If that were the case then I guess men could only marry men
 

It doesn't matter. Government (regardless of its classification) isn't involved in contracts (with the exception of contracts that it's a party to).

so we are pretending that contract law doesn't exist?

OK

Right. But only when there is a breach of the contract. You don't need to get approval from the Government to sign a contract, nor can the Government prevent you from signing a contract. All it can do is pass legislation that makes the contract legally unenforceable, and that legislation can be challenged, at which point it has to pass Constitutional muster.

so who writes the marriage contract
do we just get a sheet of paper and make it up (fine with me by the way)
can children get married to each other.  I mean there are no rules other than what 2, 3 or how ever many people want to agree to right?

It should be governed by no entity - just by the rules laid out in the contract itself. If the rules of the contract are broken, the contract can stipulate the consequences and courts can, at that point, become involved to enforce the terms. It's how every other contract works!

so a government has no vested interest in whether first cousins are getting married, or siblings, minors etc..

I'm just trying to understand your world where the goverment isn't involved at all

If the government is not involved does the governmemt also say churches aren't involved either or does the government just step out and ignore everything else

I'm just trying to understand if you're really serious about this premise that you have proposed

[Primemuscle]

Marriage is,  among other things, a legal contract. 

If the government is not involved in one way or another then what other entity, if any, would take their place or what to you envision the marriage landscape to be?

There's this little nuance in the Constitution which addresses a separation of church and state. To date marriage is a mixture of influences coming from both church and state. On the government side, there seems to be no issue regarding the contract part. The marriage part which is more influenced by church, has proved to be a much bigger problem. And then there is the discrimination business. Government has enacted laws which make discrimination illegal. By not allowing gay marriage, the government is breaking it's own laws. By allowing it, they violate the doctrine of some if not many churches. There is no easy answer to this dilemma.   

[avxo]

Meh...think I would argue that my required syphilis test constituted a de facto approval by the government.  That was some time ago and I think they may have gotten rid of test now.

So I think for what you're proposing, would there be safeguards for the dumb?  I have a feeling a lot of people will claim a lack of understanding and even if they sign, they don't truly understand the implications.  I suppose you could just go hard core and say 'tough shit', but that seems somewhat heartless.

In a previous post, I specifically mentioned "consenting adults." If you can't consent - because you are judged mentally incompetent, then that's out. If, however, you can consent and choose to do so, then yes... tough shit.

did I say that

I'm all for gay marriage, polygamy, triads, whatever the heck else.

OK.

There should be some restrictions on first cousins, siblings, etc.. but if you're think those should be allowed that's your choice

Just out of curiosity why would you not allow that? If the issue is birth defects of offspring, remember that (a) marriage isn't a prerequisite to impregnation; and (b) that not all married couples want (or can have) children. With that in mind, why would you allow "polygamy, triads, whatever the heck else" but not marriage to a first cousin?

I was addressing your specific premise about only men being allowed to enter into contracts

Right, but I didn't know your position and it seemed like you were suggesting that it's OK to limit marriage based on gender, and I wanted to see if you were ok with limiting other things based on gender.
 

so we are pretending that contract law doesn't exist?

No, there's plenty of contact case law (DVD CCA v. Kaleidescape comes to mind) out there. But that's not quite the same thing as the government being a party to the contract. Yes, it's true that all contracts are evaluated with a certain legal framework - a framework established both by law (for example, the Uniform Commercial Code, here in the U.S.) and by previous decisions on specific issues. But the term party has a very specific meaning and the simple fact of the matter is that the Government is not a party to a contract between two private entities.

Here's an example: let's say I go out and buy a Tesla Model S, there's a contract between me and Tesla Motors, there is no Government involvement (at any level). The fact that the contract says that is to be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California and the County of Santa Clara doesn't change that fact.

so who writes the marriage contract

You could get a lawyer to do so, but considering that there are companies out there that sell fill-in "prefab" legal instruments that are infinitely more complex than a contract (for example, wills) I'd imagine plenty of such "fill-in-the-blanks" contracts would be readily available.

do we just get a sheet of paper and make it up (fine with me by the way)

If someone thinks he can do it, then more power to them. I generally prefer to leave the legal writing to lawyers. It tends to work better than way.

can children get married to each other.  I mean there are no rules other than what 2, 3 or how ever many people want to agree to right?

Typically, children can't enter into legally binding contracts because they haven't reached the age of majority. This would be no different. Also I will point out that I have already said said that marriage should be available to consenting adults, so it's unclear to me why you would pretend I haven't.

so a government has no vested interest in whether first cousins are getting married, or siblings, minors etc..

As I just explained, I don't think that minors should be able to marry for the same reason that minors can't enter into other legally binding contracts. And I'll take it one step further: I don't think that parents should be able to enter their children into a legally binding marriage contract. Marriage should be a contract entered into by consenting adults. I don't know how to make this any plainer.

As to the Government's vested interest in prevent first cousins from getting married, eh... I don't really see the point. As a I wrote earlier, that legal prohibition mostly centers around the traditional opposition of society to such things because of the increased risk of genetic disorders in offspring. But, again, marriage isn't a prerequisite to procreation, nor is marriage a guarantee of conception. While I personally find the concept of marrying a close relative abhorrent and off-putting, what I find more abhorrent is the concept that others should be limited in how they live their life because of how I live mine.

In other words, just because I find it yucky doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to do it.

I'm just trying to understand your world where the goverment isn't involved at all

In my ideal world the Government is only responsible for three things: the military, the police and the criminal and civil Courts.

If the government is not involved does the governmemt also say churches aren't involved either or does the government just step out and ignore everything else

Today a Church is only involved inasmuch as the people who are getting married want it to be involved. In fact, a Church can't prevent a member from marrying anymore than it compel a member to marry. The flip side of that token is that a Church and a Priest should be free to not perform a religious ceremony for people if that goes against their beliefs.

I'm just trying to understand if you're really serious about this premise that you have proposed

I'm really quite serious about it.

[Straw Man]

ok, let's boil this down (keep it short)

if you're drawing the line at "consenting adult" then do you want "the government" (pick which one that you want) to be involved in that or is it the honor system?

after that I'm all for whatever you want to call marriage  

if you want to draw some lines then let me know which ones and who/what gets to make that decision

you're right that cousins can have sex (and siblings, parent/child etc..) and if your vision of marriage includes that it's fine with me

it's weird and will probably naturally be very rare but it's really none of my business what other people choose to do

[avxo]

ok, let's boil this down (keep it short)

10 4!

if you're drawing the line at "consenting adult" then do you want "the government" (pick which one that you want) be involved it that or is it the honor system?

Yes and no: I'd consider such a contract null and avoid, and it would, of course, be legally unenforceable. So such a "marriage" would be about as legit as Franco's 1981 Olympia win.

after that I'm all for whatever you want to call marriage 

if you want to draw some lines then let me know which ones and who/what gets to make that decision

you're right that cousins can have sex (and siblings, parent/child etc..) and if your vision of marriage includes that it's fine with me

it's weird and will probably naturally be very rare but it's really none of my business what other people choose to do

Hooray, we agree! Beers on me!

[Straw Man]

10 4!


Yes and no: I'd consider such a contract null and avoid, and it would, of course, be legally unenforceable. So such a "marriage" would be about as legit as Franco's 1981 Olympia win.


Hooray, we agree! Beers on me!

please respond back when you're sober

btw - I'm all for drinking beer.   

[avxo]

please respond back when you're sober

btw - I'm all for drinking beer.   

I'm very sober. Do you think Franco deserved the win?

[Straw Man]

I'm very sober. Do you think Franco deserved the win?

I'm not really following the dots on "2016 hopeful Marco Rubio reaches out to gay Republicans" .... to  "I just don't think the Government should be in the relationship endorsement business."....to Franco and the 1981 Mr. Olympia

I know it's probably obvious but ......?

[avxo]

I'm not really following the dots on "2016 hopeful Marco Rubio reaches out to gay Republicans" .... to  "I just don't think the Government should be in the relationship endorsement business."....to Franco and the 1981 Mr. Olympia

I know it's probably obvious but ......?

Man... You can't take a joke. OK.

I was saying that a marriage contract signed by children would be null and void. You had asked "well, what if they sign the contract anyways, huh? What then, huh?" What if they did?  No Court would enforce the terms of the contract, since it wasn't entered into and voluntarily by consenting adults. So at that point it's like a promise ring or some such. That is: meaningless.

[Straw Man]

Man... You can't take a joke. OK.

I was saying that a marriage contract signed by children would be null and void. You had asked "well, what if they sign the contract anyways, huh? What then, huh?" What if they did?  No Court would enforce the terms of the contract, since it wasn't entered into and voluntarily by consenting adults. So at that point it's like a promise ring or some such. That is: meaningless.

who is making that rule and who is going to enforce it

is it some "government" ?

after that I'm all for whatever you want to call marriage 

if you want to draw some lines then let me know which ones and who/what gets to make that decision

you're right that cousins can have sex (and siblings, parent/child etc..) and if your vision of marriage includes that it's fine with me

it's weird and will probably naturally be very rare but it's really none of my business what other people choose to do

[avxo]

who is making that rule and who is going to enforce it

Are you being dense on purpose or are you genuinely stupid? As I have explained to you before, this is settled and well understood: contracts don't exist in a vaccum. A contract is enforced through Courts, and Courts follow established contract law, and will (generally) not consider the signature of someone who is underage as legally binding.

If a kid wants to sign a piece of paper, he can. The important question is does the signature carry any legal weight and does it legally bind the kid? The answer is no.
 

is it some "government" ?

Maybe. For disputes between parties to the contract it might be legally binding arbitration, if that's how the contract stipulates disputes are to be resolved, although a Court is certainly an option too. For disputes involving someone who isn't a party to the contract, the answer will almost certainly involve the Courts, yes.

Here's an example: if a shop is offering 50% off for married couples, and two 15 year olds show up with a marriage contract laser-printed on fancy paper, the shop doesn't have to honor it (although it can - after all, the shop owner can choose to give non-married people discounts at his discretion).  This is perfectly fine because a contract can't arbitrarily bind non-parties. At this point, if the kids want to enforce their contract, they can choose to sue the shop to compel him to give them the discount, at which point, a Court would say: "This is some nice paper and the fonts are beautifully kerned, but this is legally meaningless. 15 year olds can't marry. NEXT!"

Is this "enforcement" by "government"? If it makes you feel better to think of it that way, then knock yourself out. It marks no change from the current status quo, and still doesn't mean the government is a party to the contract. In fact, the government may not even know until a contract exists until a dispute arises.

[Straw Man]

Are you being dense on purpose or are you genuinely stupid? As I have explained to you before, this is settled and well understood: contracts don't exist in a vaccum. A contract is enforced through Courts, and Courts follow established contract law, and will (generally) not consider the signature of someone who is underage as legally binding.

If a kid wants to sign a piece of paper, he can. The important question is does the signature carry any legal weight and does it legally bind the kid? The answer is no.
 

Maybe. For disputes between parties to the contract it might be legally binding arbitration, if that's how the contract stipulates disputes are to be resolved, although a Court is certainly an option too. For disputes involving someone who isn't a party to the contract, the answer will almost certainly involve the Courts, yes.

Here's an example: if a shop is offering 50% off for married couples, and two 15 year olds show up with a marriage contract laser-printed on fancy paper, the shop doesn't have to honor it (although it can - after all, the shop owner can choose to give non-married people discounts at his discretion).  This is perfectly fine because a contract can't arbitrarily bind non-parties. At this point, if the kids want to enforce their contract, they can choose to sue the shop to compel him to give them the discount, at which point, a Court would say: "This is some nice paper and the fonts are beautifully kerned, but this is legally meaningless. 15 year olds can't marry. NEXT!"

Is this "enforcement" by "government"? If it makes you feel better to think of it that way, then knock yourself out. It marks no change from the current status quo, and still doesn't mean the government is a party to the contract. In fact, the government may not even know until a contract exists until a dispute arises.

fine, so in your fantasay world the "government" is not involved at all in "marriage" except for the fact that it creates contract law but we'll just pretend that "the government" is not invloved in that

after that, I guess some non-government entity will regulate the arbitration process that will naturally have to exist when there are disputes and dissoluation of marriage contracts

who regulates arbitration now?

I assume the government must not be invloved in any way in that at the moment or at least it won't be in your fantasy future world

What entity will enforce things like custody, child support and the like

We know it won't be a government enity so who will it be?

[avxo]

fine, so in your fantasay world the "government" is not involved at all in "marriage" except for the fact that it creates contract law but we'll just pretend that "the government" is not invloved in that

The government isn't involved in the sense that it cannot say "you can get married, but you can't." The government isn't in the business of marriage. The government is, however, in the business of legislating and providing a framework within which contracts can be enforced and disputes resolved.

after that, I guess some non-government entity will regulate the arbitration process that will naturally have to exist when there are disputes and dissoluation of marriage contracts

If people want arbitration, they can specify it in their marriage contract. If they want a church or synagogue elder to be their arbiter, they can specify that in their marriage contract. If they want to agree to waive alimony in the event of a dissolution of the marriage, they can specify that - which, by the way, happens today: it's what a prenuptial agreement is all about.

who regulates arbitration now?

Define "regulate" and explain why "regulation" is necessary?

I assume the government must not be invloved in any way in that at the moment or at least it won't be in your fantasy future world

I'm unconcerned with what you assume. My position is quite clear and your penchant for misunderstanding or misrepresenting it reflects poorly only on you.

What entity will enforce things like custody, child support and the like

Note, first of all, that children aren't parties to a marriage, so a marriage contract between their parents can't bind them. With that said, if the parents can work such issues out between themselves then I'm fine with that. If they want to have arbitration, they can. And if they don't want to do any of those things or can't agree, then I don't see a reason why this can't be handled like any contract dispute: by having a Judge sort it out.

Note, by the way, that I don't consider that an intervention by the government.

We know it won't be a government enity so who will it be?

I'm not sure what you know, but I'm pretty sure that whatever it is, it's wrong.

[Straw Man]

The government isn't involved in the sense that it cannot say "you can get married, but you can't." The government isn't in the business of marriage. The government is, however, in the business of legislating and providing a framework within which contracts can be enforced and disputes resolved.


If people want arbitration, they can specify it in their marriage contract. If they want a church or synagogue elder to be their arbiter, they can specify that in their marriage contract. If they want to agree to waive alimony in the event of a dissolution of the marriage, they can specify that - which, by the way, happens today: it's what a prenuptial agreement is all about.


Define "regulate" and explain why "regulation" is necessary?


I'm unconcerned with what you assume. My position is quite clear and your penchant for misunderstanding or misrepresenting it reflects poorly only on you.


Note, first of all, that children aren't parties to a marriage, so a marriage contract between their parents can't bind them. With that said, if the parents can work such issues out between themselves then I'm fine with that. If they want to have arbitration, they can. And if they don't want to do any of those things or can't agree, then I don't see a reason why this can't be handled like any contract dispute: by having a Judge sort it out.

Note, by the way, that I don't consider that an intervention by the government.

I'm not sure what you know, but I'm pretty sure that whatever it is, it's wrong.

No time at the moment to go line by line

regarding arbitration, I have a friend who does that (or used to - haven't talked to him in years) and I seem to recall that the government was involved in his licensing and regulation and other aspects so I just don't see how "the government" is not going to be involved in one way or the other

As I mentioend previously,  I'd have no problem "the government" just stayed out of it completely (in terms of who can get married) but there is no feasible way they won't be involved in the dissolution of marriages, distrubution of property, assignement of debts, child support, custody etc..

Also, fundies are already losing their minds over gay marriage so it doesn't seem likely there would be any support for "the government" getting totally out of process

[avxo]

regarding arbitration, I have a friend who does that (or used to - haven't talked to him in years) and I seem to recall that the government was involved in his licensing and regulation and other aspects so I just don't see how "the government" is not going to be involved in one way or the other

You are using the term "involved" when government intervention is 1074 steps removed. With that said, I don't think the Government ought to be in the business of issuing licenses to practice either.

As I mentioend previously,  I'd have no problem "the government" just stayed out of it completely (in terms of who can get married) but there is no feasible way they won't be involved in the dissolution of marriages, distrubution of property, assignement of debts, child support, custody etc..

And yet, with everything you cite except child support and custody, the Government need not be involved - and frequently isn't today: people reach mutually-acceptable agreements on how to divorce today, and the Judge simply rubber-stamps an agreement, in which case, why should he be involved in the first place?

The Government today only needs to be involved for child support and custody issues (even if the people getting the divorce can come to an agreement themselves) because the children have their own interest, separate and distinct from the interests of either of their parents. Although even there, I could argue that  you can make the Judge unnecessary by default simply by requiring the appointment of a guardian ad litem for the children, in the matter of the divorce, to watch out for their interests.

[Straw Man]

You are using the term "involved" when government intervention is 1074 steps removed. With that said, I don't think the Government ought to be in the business of issuing licenses to practice either.


And yet, with everything you cite except child support and custody, the Government need not be involved - and frequently isn't today: people reach mutually-acceptable agreements on how to divorce today, and the Judge simply rubber-stamps an agreement, in which case, why should he be involved in the first place?

The Government today only needs to be involved for child support and custody issues (even if the people getting the divorce can come to an agreement themselves) because the children have their own interest, separate and distinct from the interests of either of their parents. Although even there, I could argue that  you can make the Judge unnecessary by default simply by requiring the appointment of a guardian ad litem for the children, in the matter of the divorce, to watch out for their interests.

you can make the claim that "the goverment" need not be involved in a lot of things (any chance you're a libertarian) but the fact remains that the government is involved and rarely (ever?) gives up involvement in something so ubiquitious , especially when there is no public outcry for them to do so

btw - what entity would be appointing guardians?  It wouldn't be the government of a government sanctioned entity would it?

Also, why would the government step aside only to have to turn around and create an entire infratructure to replace all the things they used to do

I'm not quite sure how we got here from the starting point of Rubio trying to walk a political tightrope on the gay marriage (and by extension gay people) issue

[avxo]

you can make the claim that "the goverment" need not be involved in a lot of things (any chance you're a libertarian) but the fact remains that the government is involved and rarely (ever?) gives up involvement in something so ubiquitious , especially when there is no public outcry for them to do so

Yes, I am a libertarian - what gave it away? Was it my well-developed quads! I knew having leg-day twice a week would pay off!

And it's not a claim that government need not be involved. It's reality" the government doesn't need to be involved in many of the things it is and the excuse that "well, it is today, so..." simply doesn't hold water. Look at this discussion alone. You've offered reason after reason for the government must be inexorably involved in the marriage business and not a single one has held up. The simple fact is that there's no reason why the Government needs to countersign a marriage (in the form or a license) or a divorce, in for the form of a divorce decree.

btw - what entity would be appointing guardians?  It wouldn't be the government of a government sanctioned entity would it?

It doesn't have to be. Nothing stops the two parents from agreeing on someone else (for example, a third lawyer) provided that the person selected has a fidiciary duty to the child, instead of the parents.

Also, why would the government step aside only to have to turn around and create an entire infratructure to replace all the things they used to do

There's no infrastructure that needs to be created. Over 80% of divorces are routinely worked out and finalized between the parties lawyers and agreed to by the soon-to-be-exes. The Court appearance is a mere formality - an opportunity for a Judge to bang his gavel to make it official.

I'm not quite sure how we got here from the starting point of Rubio trying to walk a political tightrope on the gay marriage (and by extension gay people) issue

I stated that I didn't think that the Government should be in the relationship endorsement business and you, apparently, took offense.

[Straw Man]

Yes, I am a libertarian - what gave it away? Was it my well-developed quads! I knew having leg-day twice a week would pay off!

And it's not a claim that government need not be involved. It's reality" the government doesn't need to be involved in many of the things it is and the excuse that "well, it is today, so..." simply doesn't hold water. Look at this discussion alone. You've offered reason after reason for the government must be inexorably involved in the marriage business and not a single one has held up. The simple fact is that there's no reason why the Government needs to countersign a marriage (in the form or a license) or a divorce, in for the form of a divorce decree.


It doesn't have to be. Nothing stops the two parents from agreeing on someone else (for example, a third lawyer) provided that the person selected has a fidiciary duty to the child, instead of the parents.


There's no infrastructure that needs to be created. Over 80% of divorces are routinely worked out and finalized between the parties lawyers and agreed to by the soon-to-be-exes. The Court appearance is a mere formality - an opportunity for a Judge to bang his gavel to make it official.


I stated that I didn't think that the Government should be in the relationship endorsement business and you, apparently, took offense.

how in the world did you conclude that I've taken offense at that opinion

I don't think anything I've written indicates I find that offensive

I've only questioned whether it's feasible

that's completely different from being offended

didn't you see the multiple times that I've said I'm fine with gay marriage, polygamy and I've even agreed with you that if cousins or siblings want to get married it's really none of my business...so why in the world would you think I'm offended if "the government" is not involved in "endorsing relationships" as you put it

I've just pointed out that the government created the laws (and enforces them) that use the contracts that you envision for future marriage and the government will no doubt be involved when the marriage fall apart and the government will be involved in property dissolution and child support/custody.   Regardless of whether than get out the "relationship endorsing part of it.