Eyes Open Report
This is a argument against the states involvement in marriage: Currently there is wide talk of Proposition 8 in California and its legality circulating through the news. The arguments that are being presented both for and against the proposition can be deemed totally unnecessary when looking at the immorality of the states marriage licensing scheme.
Wikipedia: Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that establishes rights and obligations between the spouses, between the spouses and their children.
Understanding that marriage is a contract made by individuals, and those individuals have every right to write the rules of that contract, can give you a more clear understanding of the debate that is currently taking place in the United States.
Lawyers are arguing that Proposition 8, a law that makes only marriage between a man a women recognizable by the state of California, is unconstitutional.
In this case California has given its own definition of Marriage.
The State can not tell individuals that they cant engaged in a marital contract with others. It is impossible for the state to enforce such a thing, and if they tried it would be so invasive that its illegality would be enforced. Imagine if your neighbor tried to enforce the same rule, you would want him arrested. What gives government the exception? The impossibility to manage such personal decisions is exactly why the state cannot forcible stop anyone from going into such intimate contracts.
Yes it is unconstitutional for anyone to tell you that you cannot marry the person/s that you desire but that is not exactly what the government is doing.
Marriage through the state is completely voluntary. The incentives that insure those who bring the state along into this deeply intimate decision, gives the illusion that a intimate couple is illegitimate because they cannot receive the same.
The illegitimacy falls upon the state sticking its head into the marriage agreement. It should not be giving incentives to the people to involve it in such a matter. Those incentives themselves are unconstitutional.
When you hear this argument of whether or not those who are gay should be allowed to marry, you need to realize that the only reason this is a issue is because the state is luring people into being licensed to marry. This issue shatters with the realization that government has no place in being involved in peoples marriages. Marriage through the state only feeds into larger government, which is the United States largest burden to date. Those who are state free in their contract miss out on benefits, but avoid the extra party in the agreement and the standards that comes along with it.
Ultimately the permission those seek to marry is unconstitutional. The state has no right involving itself in this personal agreement between free people. RIGHTS DONT COME FROM GOVERNMENT.