| sc94597 said: I don't view that as right. There are many reasons why people choose to not get married besides detachment. I know people who have gotten married after 6 months precisely because they were pressured in to it by their families and pregnancy and I also know long-lasting couples (who could have gotten married) who were not married for up to fifteen years, before they finally decided they had the resources, funds, and desire to do it. That is why I promote de facto or sui jurus marriage rather than statutory marriage. Furthermore, I think nobody should be compelled by the state to testify against anybody else. That is immoral and amounts to a subtle form of slavery. Same holds for things like jury duty. To get to the supreme court it had to go through various other courts, and it still doesn't change the fact that it was the judicial system and a common law appeal (by Kennedy) which made the decision final, not congress and their statutes. Even before this many state laws were overruled by federal judges, and local laws by state judges. So the judicial system and common law has been on the side of gay marriage for the last few years now. A contract to kill somebody is not a valid contract. The person who was being killed (unless it was assisted suicide which I support) had not agreed on that matter. We are obviously not talking about invalid contracts. We are talking about contracts in which all participants agree with what is written, spoken, or recorded. All of these should be enforced by the state Your assumption is that you know better about the needs of those involved than they do, which is quite elitist in my opinion, and something the social conservatives did with respect to gay marriage. It honestly isn't any of your business what two people voluntarily agree to do, as long as neither of them are coerced into doing it and they aren't affecting the rights of others. What if I want somebody besides my spouse to be the decision maker in the hospital, or I want somebody to be the decision-maker, but I don't want to marry them? What if I trust them to make the right decision more than my spouse? I know a particular case of a man who almost died because his wife was a Jehovah's Witness and his family had to bribe the doctors to actually give him a blood transfusion. If my spouse were a Jehovah's Witness (let's assume that would work lol) I would respect his beliefs, but I would also tell him that he can't make the decisions for me in the hospital, and I would want to change that. There should be a more versatile and less rigid legal framework here, and that is why it is argued that the state should not be involved (at least on the statutory end of things), because it just doesn't allow for that. It is far too rigid and inefficient. The constitution fails to define "citizen" and that is the only place it is even used in the constitution. As far as De Jure citizenship goes, it did exist, as you noted with the Alien and Sedition acts, but defacto federal citizenship wasn't really a thing until the 14th amendment. Being a federal citizen really wasn't an issue and it meant very little until then. Nevertheless these acts were the actions of the federalists, and I generally have disdain for them as a party. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=citizen Regardless of the U.S constitution, I don't believe in the concept of citizenship. All permanent/semi-permanent residents of a geographical region should have the ability to participate in the politics of said region (if politics are to exist.) That is only fair, as these politics affect all individuals in that region, regardless of their "citizenship. There would be no such thing as deportation in an ideal world. People would be free to move to wherever they wish. However, I recognize that we don't live in an ideal world, and states like to limit migration and deport people. For that reason, reform of what is considered "marriage" would make this a non-issue. Any sui jurus marriage would be recognizable for grounds of a green card and eventually citizenship. In fact, this would prevent marriage fraud, where people say they are married when they are only statutorily married. |
All things come with a price, being a citizen and getting married are no exceptions. You might disagree but that's the reality that in many cases people agree with. While there is no draft now, men still register with selective service should we need it. I think they should expand jury service to more than just registered voters, though I also think registration should be automatic.
Progress is being made yes, but we're not there yet.
We weren't obviously talking about anything, I know some people that go to the extreme and think that people should have the legal right to sign themselves into slavery. You were saying that the state shouldn't stop any contracts, now you have drawn lines? if you don't think that makes you elitist, you shouldn’t be calling me one. (though in some ways I will admit I am It's reality, I'm more informed than some people just as I know there are others more informed than I, and ignorance, mine or someone else’s isn't equal to someone’s knowledge) Give examples of what you think are valid contracts that aren’t allowed today that you think should be. Minimum wage? Housing agreements? Part of why I think there are and should be restrictions is that not all people going into those contracts are on equal footing to begin with, so while people might not be coerced by the other party to sign a contract that is way out of their favor, other circumstances might and the poor and impoverished deserve protections from predatory contract especially when it’s not even between 2 people but between a person and a corporation.
In many of those cases you can give people those powers now even in a system with marriage, but if you haven’t made that decision before something happens to you, then it’s just poor planning on your part and not the systems fault, that they go to the default people who could make those decisions for you. In your example what happens is what some might call elitist ;P. The man got married making the legal contract granting his wife that power hopefully knowing she was Jehovah’s Witness. If he died because of that it was his right. In your hypothetical case, you could get an advance directive to make sure he couldn’t make a decision you disagree with, for the many who don’t make an advance directive, many states have laws that don’t just automatically give it to a spouse, but sometimes to adult children, neighbors. Some give the hospitals or doctors the power do decide who is the decision maker, or even just the doctor with the consultation of the next of kin. While some people say they want the state out of it, it’s there when people haven’t made a “contract” or other agreement beforehand. Of course there are then the issues of if you are traveling in another state, will it hold up or will that states laws apply? Best to check before traveling.
Citizen shows up in the constitution all over the place, in requirements for being a representative, senator or president, in terms of the conflicts that the courts will settle, yes what a citizen is wasn’t defined there but congress had the power to make a uniform law for naturalization.
The concept of citizenship is very real in this day though, and changes you want to other things would need to work with the current system or be changed concurrently. For the most part within the country people can take part in local civics wherever they are living, foreigners from out of the country not as much. Deportation today is a real issue for many.
