Married to Government?

Prompted by “Privatizing Marriage Is a Terrible Idea”:

My thought on marriage (perhaps simple in part due to never getting married) is there’s no power in our nation’s Constitution involving marriage, so our government has no legal authority there. Of course, there’s no power involving illegal drug use either, but an obviously judicially redefined Commerce Clause took care of that government hindrance in the “land of the free”.

However, my eyes running into the compelling argument in the prompting piece provoked my thoughts today.

At the most basic level, even if we can get government out of the business of issuing marriage licenses, it still has to register these partnerships (and/or authorize the entities that perform them) before these unions can have any legal validity, just as it registers property and issues titles and deeds. Therefore, government would need to set rules and regulations as to what counts as a legitimate marriage “deed.” It won’t—and can’t—simply accept any marriage performed in any church—or any domestic partnership written by anyone.

Without marriage, every aspect of a couple’s relationship would have to be contractually worked out from scratch in advance. This may—or may not—prove to be an onerous inconvenience (some people speculate that companies would start marketing canned contracts to couples). But without licenses or registration for marriages, many things, including establishing paternity, would get really messy.

I assume really messy somehow means more messy than the norm these days (which seems pretty messy to me — 50% divorce rate means a lot of precious taxpayer resources funding a lot of disputes).

Our national public is automatically married to our government by the need for law as a means of formalizing negotiations and therefore conflict resolutions.

As someone who has worked for a civil law firm by way of my father spending four decades as an attorney, I witnessed the lacking clarity of law in the form of very lengthy law suits (the advice/warning is simple — stay out of court, if you can).

A solid example, the patent system is severely backed up these days to the point of raising a large group of eyebrows within civility.

If we applied the same judicial greyness to technology, then any engineer would instantly laugh. The flow in technological results is cut and dry by necessity. It must be for law too (at least for fairness, so justice), and that’s where Liberty Shield comes in preferably with your support. Without objectively defined law, we run into a subjectively defined mess. The more complex the law, the more unwieldy (or at least the risk of being unwieldy) law becomes, so inevitably increases the risk of judicially making (perhaps more of) a mess to the discredit of law, so naturally destabilizing society governed by that favoritism-defined (and enforced) law to the increasing risk of a serious public backlash (e.g. American Revolution).

The Big Lie reinforced illusion is formality enhances civility (e.g. that’s why the public accepts over 70,000 pages of federal regulations alone, before President Obama took office). But since corruption (likely from unethical favoritism) occurs within that formality, I return to my constitutional argument and believe people can marry whomever or whatever they want — as long as rights are not being infringed upon (i.e. no citizen is objectively harming another citizen). In other words, my beliefs are tuned in with the original written intent of our nation righteously against abusive law — despite the terribly still-existing and supreme violation of that intent by pre-American conservatives spanning the political spectrum throughout our nation’s entire duration — i.e. the “Americans” who gave us slavery and racism by law, gender discrimination by law, Alcohol Prohibition and other religiously pressured rights-infringement by law, etc.)

If a guy wants to marry his tractor, then so be it, but his community cannot be judicially compelled to honor that contract (judicially approved or not), and I maintain (without any negativity against tractors) that marriage with a tractor would be terrible — tractors, and not to mention non-human members of other species, just don’t make quality spouses. Chalk one up for common sense combined with constitutional law, and unhealthy marriages lead to a natural (but non-rights-infringing) dominantly public response disapproving of the situation. In other words, the essential ingredient for survival and “thrival” — i.e. credibility — is publicly lost (no law needed) when marrying a tractor, etc. Note the guy marrying a tractor at least won’t have any kids from that odd relationship, so what harm is truly done?

Formality of law is not a panacea against abuse (including that from stupidity) — which obviously sometimes occurs on both sides of any law.

Improving human psychology (via science and education/entertainment) to minimize such abuse is urgently needed, and Liberty Shield addresses that too (see Rule of Reality). Ironically, so too does proper psychedelic (e.g. cannabis) use — not abuse, which has the destructively reverse effect. Sobriety is mental nakedness, and like being naked in general, is not always advantageous. Psychedelics inspire the advancement of protecting the brain similar to the way Earth protects humanity from solar radiation. Evidence of that advancement comes in the form of Psychedelic Culture withstanding seriously overwhelming (and international) financial, government, and public dominance against them (us) for decades — while we remain firmly resolute and obviously strong (at least given judicial momentum) in the “home of the brave” and beyond.

True civility (not merely presented civility by the actually excessively stupid) is a natural divorce settlement between the government and the public excessively suffocating from that (at least excessively) unhealthy marriage.

I would much rather have (and responsibly exercise) my unalienable right to liberty, and our original national intent — that logically should have instantly ended slavery/racism, gender discrimination, sexual discrimination, drug user discrimination, likely virtual reality user discrimination, sentient robot discrimination, etc. — undeniably agrees. Do you?

I'm an honest freak (or reasonably responsibly balanced "misfit", if you prefer) of an entertainer working and resting as my careful contribution to help improve society. Too many people abuse reasoning (e.g. 'partial truth = whole truth' scam), while I exercise reason to explore and express whole truth without any conflict-of-interest.

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Liberty Shield, Respect Cannabis

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

a couple of images of yours truly "There are some things so serious you have to laugh at them." – Niels Bohr

Feel free to join us in seamlessly riding our boundless community waves.

Fun through serious, my carefully formed results are honest and usually offer a freshly unique view.

As a fairly complex person, I cover many interests, so for your convenience, I separate them into "RSS-able" branches...

Follow Spirit Wave Journal on
Thank You
To those of you making up the number in the box above (and informal followers elsewhere -- e.g. tapping into my RSS feeds here), I thank you for your undeniably necessary role for (and as part of) my beloved 3Fs (family, friends, and fans).
Help Needed

Helping raise awareness and any other constructive way to participate in our growing community is equally appreciated.

Legal Disclaimer
Spirit Wave ("entertainer" herein) disclaims that entertainer only publicly posts content ("entertainment" herein) for entertainment purposes only. You (the reader of this sentence) agree to the fullest extent permissible by law that entertainer is not liable for any damage. Moreover, entertainer never advocates breaking the law, so any expression involving drug use is addressed solely to anyone capable of lawfully engaging in that use. Since this journal is a part of the All Sines entertainment ecosystem, you (the reader of this sentence) agree to be bound by the All Sines legal disclaimer located @
%d bloggers like this: