The state shouldn't have the ability to do that to anybody. If I or my casual boyfriend decided not to testify against each-other the state should respect that and not assume that we are lieing just as much as if two married persons did the same. Don't you agree?  We both live in the same house, and share privacy. Also, what is the difference between two persons being a couple and marriage? They decided to sign a paper declaring that they are a couple and added in some contractual obligations. I don't see how that is anything that should afford them special legal priveleges over other people. 

Quite well actually. The supreme court (via common law) just outlawed legislation as unconstitutional that says two persons of the same sex can't form a specific contract. It wasn't a statute which did this.

So you don't believe in equal treatment? You only believe in equal treatment for those whose contracts you agree with. I get it. In that case please don't paint yourself as an arbitrator of equality. You are not.

I don't say take those benefits away specifically from spouses (although there is an argument to be made about reforming these things.) I am saying that the person should clearly denote who gets the benefits upon their death. How exactly can the state determine who that person wants their property to go to more than they can?

Citzenship shouldn't be a thing. It wasn't a thing for the first hundred or so years of the existence of the United States of America. I believe in free immigration as an ideal. But if we are to talk about our current reality, I think the immigration system should be reformed to allow anybody to sponsor an immigrant for a variety of reasons and contracts. Common-law marriage could be among these reasons.

perhaps not, there are many powers that the states have with the criminal justices systesm that are far too large. the "special" rights are ones they signed up for, all couples that aren'y maried yet don't have it, those that are do. Since you aren't legally married to your bf, they wouldn't think of you as attached to him and thus don't think of him as leverage.

14th constitutional amendmemnt. considering that it had to go to the supreme court, I'd say on the state level people weren't doing that well. if it wasn't an issue it wouldn't have gone that far. most people in most states coudn't just tell judges they were married and get the benefits.

I believe in a unified law, I don't believe in people trying to make their own law outside the law then expecting it to have the same standing. I don't believe people should be allowed to put anything in a contract, that's not that I don't think some people, all people. You can try and say I'm not for equality, but contracts aren't people, you had NO qualifiers in there, I don't agree with contracts that would then infringe on other people rights, (a contract to kill someone) contracts that significantly take away people right, slavey, opressive work conditions, you can say people had to agree to them, but if you take the state out of the equation, that leave too much room for coertion.  Peoples rights aren't limited by their own abilities to defend them. That's why I'm in favor of the state having limitations on what people can do with contracts.

I think we are talking around eachother here. The simple thing is many institutions offer benefits to spouces, some do to significant others, those get paid out because the people were married, those do discriminate agains those who are single, they themselves lose nothing. If they have a significant other but aren't married, well then they lose out, but they know that is the fact currently with the system as it is. Before same sex mairages were legal it wasn't a choice of being married or not, it was just no. But in those cases it's not the state the decides who gets the benefits, it's the couple that got married that did. People when they make their wills determine who gets what, if they don't then things

It was enough of a thing that it's in the constitution as a requirement for president. There were also plenty of laws passed involving it including the Aliens and sedition acts back in 1798. Though those had controversies and some were let to expire in 1800 and 1801, others were used during WWII though that's movie away from citizenship through getting married, the point is that it is important to have that as a way of not having people deported. Yes there needs to be plenty of reform with imigration , though I don't think taking this away is part of the solution.

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.

Obviously I disagree with regards to the draft and everything else in that paragraph. That is the equivalent of slavery. And it does not belong in a free and equitable society. The draft is one of the most disgusting features of the state. It is nothing other than slavery (forcing somebody to do something that they do not wish to do at gun point.)

My point was that progress occured faster through the common law system as opposed with the statute system. It is obvious that common law is much more responsive to changes than legislation is.

Obviously if a party involved does not accept a contract, it is unenforceable by the state. We were talking about the state enforcing contracts, not stopping them. That is one of its self-atributed responsibilites.So obviously a contract in which all participants who were involved in the matter did not agree is unenforceable and invalid. I can't just go to your house and say I have a contract to take your things without you agreeing to it. And you and I can't sign a contract that says we can go to my neighbor's house and take all of his things. He never signed it. This is obvious and rudimentary. Minimum wage is a great example of government getting in the way of voluntary contracts. The net effect of minimum wage laws is unemployment with a small spike in local average wages.* (recent sources: http://ftp.iza.org/dp7166.pdf , http://www.columbia.edu/~jm3364/Minimum_Wage_and_Space.pdf ) Which is better? Having a job and making something or not having a job at all and starving? At least in the first option you have a chance to make connections and show that you are worth more to your employer than they think. Obviously if somebody isn't going to benefit from the contract they will not sign it. So I will leave it to the individuals to decide what is best for themselves and not the state applying one-size fit all policies which in the end actually act in opposition of that person's individual interests. Nobody is being preyed on in a contract, because both persons expect to benefit.

So why do we need statutory marriage again? Wasn't the argument for marriage that we couldn't give people these powers otherwise? ;) As for the state being there when nobody has planned for it, it still isn't doing anything anybody else can't do. It is guessing who it should be that makes the decision, based on the whims of a central group of a few dozen people who know nothing about the particular situation. Why would it even matter if the state guessed or the hospital guessed? In fact, I would say the hospital at least has more knowledge of the situation than the state. If somebody hasn't priorly appointed somebody then honestly it is anyone's guess who makes that decision. That was an irresponsibility on the part of the endangered person, and nobody is to be held legally accountable in this situation. This doesn't mean the state is necessary here, just that it is the only party that is eager to guess what the incapacitated person wants. As you said, every state has different guesses and one size fits all policies.

Yes, but we were speaking of what should be and not what is (this whole discussion was about whether or not the state should be involved in marriage, for example.) I said that citizenship shouldn't be a thing, nor should deportation be a thing. They are separate issues that need to be addressed separately from the question of whether or not the state should be involved in marriage on the statutory level. Nevertheless, if the state could declare common law marriage as a means to get a green card in the event there is no statutory marriage and that would fix that problem easily.

* From second link, "Often, minimum wage laws are decided at the state or regional level, and even when not, federal level increases are only binding in certain states. This has been used in previous literature to evaluate the effects of minimum wages on earnings and employment levels.  This paper introduces a spatial equilibrium model to think about the seemingly conflicting findings of this previous literature. It shows that the introduction of minimum wages can lead to an increase or a decrease in population depending on the local labor demand elasticity and on how unemployment benefits are financed. The paper provides empirical evidence consistent with the model. On average, increases in minimum wages lead to increases in average wages, decreases in employment and net population loss of low-skilled workers. The implied low-skilled local labor demand elasticity is estimated to be between -.4 and -.7."