Why marriage should be outlawed for everybody

Ron Paul often opened his congressional speeches with the line, “Imagine for a moment…” In honor of Dr. Paul, and also for its sharp effectiveness, I will do the same here in explaining why all forms of marriage should be outlawed.

Imagine for a moment.

Imagine for a moment that in order to be friends with somebody, you needed government approval. Imagine that you met somebody you liked talking to, hanging out with, drinking a beer with, whatever. But you couldn’t legally be friends with him until you both applied for a government “friendship license”. A friendship license, by the way, costs 600 shekels which goes right into government coffers, not to mention a week of rat-racing around to 6 different bureaucrat offices filling out forms (so all the bureaucrats can have jobs and “stimulate the economy”), so you lose a week’s salary in the mess. Once you pay up and you have those forms, you can then apply for a “friendship license” which gives you and your friend the legal right to get a whopping 2% sales tax break at any restaurant in the country where you order together at the same table, upon presenting a proper friendship license, of course.

Imagine for a moment that not everyone in the country could legally apply for a friendship license with anyone he wanted. Imagine that an unmarried man and a married women, or vice versa, could not get a friendship license. It could lead to adultery, after all. Imagine that an Arab and a Jew could not get a friendship license. It’s a matter of national security, or something like that. Imagine that a father and son, or mother and daughter, could not get a friendship license. Family cannot be friends. Imagine that no more than two people could carry one friendship license. A group of three, for example, could not legally be considered friends, as that would be polyfriendamy. Therefore, all these people – the single man and married woman; the Arab and Jew; the father and son or mother and daughter, the group of three or more – all of them could not legally be friends and therefore they all had to pay that extra 2% in sales tax at restaurants.

Imagine for a moment that a “national discussion” starts taking place, the kind that enlightened media and intellectual elite like to call “a real meaningful debate” and other linguistic smokescreen nonsense. Shouldn’t an Arab and Jew have the legal right to be friends? Why can’t a married man and unmarried woman be recognized by Big Brother as friends? Shouldn’t three people have the right to be friends?

“Friendship equality for all!” the liberals would say.

“Friendship is a sacred human institution that has been around for thousands of years! Family cannot be friends! What sacrilege!” the conservatives would say.

Meanwhile, the libertarian looks around and sees the utter insanity of the whole situation. Take a deep breath and here it is in one sentence:

The government, looking for a way to extract more money out of private people, baits them with the possibility of a 2% tax break, which is essentially a promise to steal slightly less from them, if they pay 600 shekels and run around for a week begging for a license from a massive and totally unnecessary bureaucracy funded by millions of shekels in tax money for a relationship that is essentially private and has nothing to do with the government anyway, and instead of people repudiating these petty friendship licenses and ignoring them, they start fighting with each other about who has the right to a government license with catchphrases like “the right to be friends” and “friendship equality” and “the sanctity of friendship,” while in the meantime both sides are being stolen from in order to fund the bloated bureaucracy that is running the friendship license boondoggle so the government comes out of this way in the black with all the license fees and taxes and levies to fund the system and instead of uniting against the common thief and calling an end to friendship licenses and just lower sales taxes at restaurants for everyone by the measly 2% so we can stop having this STUPID argument and being at each other’s THROATS, we fight with each other about who gets to have the stupid licenses and who doesn’t.

People, we are being hoodwinked. No matter what the government says, the government does not define marriage, nor can it, not any more than it can define friendship. All it can do is promise to steal from us less if we engage in whatever relationship The Man endorses.

But in Israel the situation is even more ludicrous. In Israel, the State taxes you MORE if you get married because single parents get tax benefits. So you have people in Israel arguing with each other about who can “legally get married” and who “cannot get married” essentially fighting each other NOT over who gets a tax BREAK, but rather who gets the merit of being taxed MORE by the government, in exchange for precious, precious State recognition. State sanction to “marriage” is so important to people that no one can see how Uncle Shmuel is simply playing both sides against each other and collecting from both as we duke it out.

This is why marriage should absolutely be outlawed. NOBODY should have the right to be married. Not gays, not straights, not Jews to Arabs, not Arabs to Jews, not polygamists, not polyandrists, nobody.

Someone might say “Marriage has been around for thousands of years! How can it be outlawed?” Marriage has been around for thousands of years. Just as friendship has. If there were friendship licenses, those should be abolished as well, as their only purpose would be to promise us to steal a penny less in return for us funding a gigantic friendship government bureaucracy. The house always wins. It seems to me the institution of friendship, whatever that is, survives wonderfully without government recognition and intervention. So will the institution of marriage, whatever that is. For thousands more years to boot.

If you want to be married to anybody, you have to do it without any legal recognition. You will have to do it in private, without the government’s knowledge, and you will not be allowed to be taxed more for being privately married. Sorry, you’ll have to keep your money in exchange for not having any government recognition of who you marry.

To get to this ideal, I call upon a national boycott of all government sanctioned marriages. Paying bureaucrats for marriage licenses should be a crime. Participating in any way in the marriage license boondoggle should be frowned upon and shunned.

Marriage should return to the private sphere and outlawed as a public institution. Then we can stop fighting with each other over who gets to be stolen from more in exchange for government recognition of marital status.

Imagine for a moment we could have a debate about something that actually mattered instead of get distracted by who gets government recognition while they get all of our money.

7 thoughts on “Why marriage should be outlawed for everybody

  1. LOL Rafi! I think it’s more like the thinking of many men for marriage to not exist and like the thinking of very few women still. It’s about taking it seriously and thinking long and hard about it. Are you sure humanity is at the stage when they will be serious when allowed to fool around? But I am a romantic…
    The actual situation is legal in France and I find it still awkward in the news when they say “the president’s mistress”. But financially you have a point, also regarding ensuring personal freedom.
    Wouldn’t it be less aggressive idea to just outlaw benefits/taxes regarding marriage-children? Just take the State out from what is a personal, sensible issue? Give people their privacy and individuality back.
    But I think it’s the people who want this law-enforced because of the sense of security it gives. A soul for a sense – there’s no sensibility in this decision but that’s how people are for their majority.
    People cried at Stalin’s death like he was a member of their family… That’s how people are.You say “let’s educate them into freedom” they can always reply “so it’s not the idea of control bothering you but the idea that you want to control us”. It’s a paradox and “the masses” are very keen of “catching dictatorship before it happens”. But a referendum regarding these matters should definitely be done.
    Can you force someone into freedom without them saying that it’s only your projection of freedom? Is freedom getting what you want or is it getting what is necessary and who is such a selfless man to think it or define it without projecting his own will into it?
    You take the Govt out, as crappy as it is, and people will find a dictator who wants to be king and make a counter-revolution. They will just find him. It’s like an intrinsic instinct people have to find or form one. People wrongfully call this “communism” but it’s not about communism it’s about human nature and the need for a parent of society, a visible one (so mysticism can’t cover this).
    So I propose to build a giant puppet and present it to the world and if you go out and say “Puppet says…” and put your ideas in it, people will take you seriously. You won’t change human nature but you will get your ideas done.

  2. Sure, but given the current state of affairs we’re in, you still need the legal recognition of the state in order to draw your benefits (i.e get some of your stolen property back). So sure, state mandated marriage is an idiotic on paper, but since the state makes the rules, sometimes you have more to lose by not marrying. First abolish the welfare state, then handle the marriage institution.

    • My solution is to eschew all the benefits I can. I don’t consider them my stolen property that I’m getting back. That’s how the State keeps even its most bitter enemies inside the system. Grabbing benefits gives it legitimacy. Whatever they steal from me is gone. I reject the benefits as much as possible.

  3. Also I’m pretty sure if marriage were *outlawed*, you and your friends Ron and Rand would be having a fit about how there is too much government intervention. I think you just want to remove state recognition of marriages.

    • Dave, the humor in it is that government cannot, by definition, “outlaw” marriage. It’s as absurd as the State “recognizing” marriage. The effect of outlawing marriage would be the State ignoring it, which is the point. The thing that needs to be outlawed for real is the State itself.

  4. How would you deal with other benefits of marriage: inheritance, social security, medicare, disability/ veterans benefits, health insurance, paternity leave, “Receiving wages, workers’ compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse,” hospital visits, medical decisions, dividing property in event of a divorce, etc?

    http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States

    • Dave – step back for a second and observe how deep within Statist mentality you are writing from:

      social security – a ponzi scheme systematic theft machine government program
      medicare – an even bigger ponzi scheme systematic theft machine government program
      disability – government mandated
      veterans benefits – government mandated
      paternity leave – government mandated
      Receiving wages, workers’ compensation – government mandated
      retirement plan benefits – government regulated

      As for the rest, after all this other crap is gone (and it will all be gone when bankruptcy ensues), private contracts between people will do just fine. They agree on whatever they want and private courts/police enforce the contract.

Comment here.

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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