Via email from Brian Keith:
The set of potential mates which I might have an interest in is fairly small and, assuming they are all consensual, is no one’s business but mine and theirs. No politician has any moral high ground in deciding who I want to spend my life with.
And whether I want to carry a two shot derringer, a 9mm with a 21 round magazine (STI DVC Limited with 140mm magazines), or a five shot revolver is my choice. I know my situation and capability better than any politician. No politician has the moral authority to say I can or cannot carry a firearm to defend myself or other innocent people.
No politician has the moral authority to say I can or cannot marry or carry. If they insist they do then whatever “crime” occurs is on them. They created the crime. I did not commit a crime.
All very good, and well done!
BUT (here we go) there’s another issue sewn into your post (placed, aligned, stitched, stitched, stitched…and tied) which must be addressed;
It wasn’t until the Progressive authoritarian era that such a thing as a “marriage license” (the concept of government “authorizing” or sanctifying a union between two people) became a thing in the U.S. The Progressive Movement is the Eugenics Movement (controlled breeding among other things, hence the “licensing” of marriage) is the irritation, agitation and demoralization of a noble into one of looking always over one’s shoulder to the authorities, a society of dependence and of submission. “It’s your life, so long as you fall in line with our plans and look to us for your needs, even salvation.”
It is one thing to say, “It’s not any of government’s business” and quite another to demand, as many do, that government officially approve, sanctify and legally authorize your union (i.e. “virtue by edict”). It’s either one or the other. A or B, On of Off, One or Zero. Don’t seek to have it both ways, because at that point they have you.
Come OUT of Babylon, come OUT of Egypt and come OUT of Rome, ye people!
Only then can things begin to become clear to you. Blending truth with error, as is our global society’s mission, uplifts the status of error while reducing the status truth, and at some point they are so mingled that they become indistinguishable from one another.
“Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.” (I’ll let you find out where that came from)
Really, the only interest the bureau, department, state or county agency has in the marriages of its citizens is as a recording agency, like the County Hall of Records. Maybe a search of records to reveal any undisclosed and undissolved prior marriages not noted in the declaration of marriage to be filed and recorded, but nothing more.
Dude, that’s way too many characters to put on a meme!
😉
The typical design process starts with complexity, followed by integration, then refinement and further integration, and ends in elegant simplicity. I’m only just getting started, so please forgive.
Really Joe’s post is quite good, and well-refined, but I had to jump in due to the common, related assertions of others. Try this;
If you (tacitly or openly) accept government authority to sanctify (and therefore prusamably at some point to deny) marriage, then on what moral grounds to you protest government’s assertion of licensing and denial authority over your so-called “right” to carry a weapon?
(Alternatively, I considered replying with a quick, thousand-word essay)