Seth's breakdown of Kit's query ...

Some of you, maybe several of you, may find the content of this blog offensive.  But, hey, it's my blog, and I only put in it what's on my mind to write, and it's absolutely impossible to please everyone with every blog, every time.

I get most of my blog, short story, and article ideas from colleagues and friends.  Now and then I even get them from people I meet on the street, or in a shop, or all sorts of other places I come across them.  I'm not shy, and I'm prone to strike up a conversation with anyone that snags my interest.  But, for the most part, the content ideas tend to come from lunch discussions, or during discussions and idea-bouncing with the Muscle Next Door. 

I'm a Christian writer who's been blessed with a large group of caring friends, who come from all types of ethnicity and religious beliefs, and even the total lack of the latter.  I've caught some fire from Christians who believe I'm in the wrong for befriending folks who are not of the Christian faith, which only results in making me angry.  I get a bit bent when folks cop a a self-righteous attitude, and sincerely believe they're better than someone else because of their status in the Christian realm. 

So there you have it.  I'm not Buddhist, but I have friends who are.  I'm not a Catholic, or a Methodist, or a Druid, or even an athiest or agnostic, but I have friends from all of those beliefs.  And, though I'm straight, I have many friends who are gay. 

Torres on the left, Bobby D. and D.J. in the middle, Kit on the right.

It happened to be a friend from one of those genres, Kit, who'd met with Torres and I for lunch a couple of weeks ago, that contributed to article and blog content ideas.  She said I should considering writing up something on gay rights.

My first response was exactly this, "Gay rights?  Why would I do an article on that?  You've got the same rights as I do, so pick something else."  I really did answer her like that, and she truly knew I meant no offense.  But, she didn't agree and proceeded to give me a brief and valid "schooling" on why she felt she, in specific instances, doesn't have the same rights that Torres and I do.

Torres and I are both hetero, and both single.  Kit explained that if Torres and I were married to opposite-sex partners, even in marriages regarded as common law (which is recognized as a legal marriage in the state of Texas), that Torres and I would be given legal rights that Kit and her partner would not be given, in certain situations.

A description she gave of an example situation was, if Kit were to be suddenly incapacitated, her legal next of kin would automatically be her parent(s), rather than her partner.  If this happened to me, or Torres, and we had spouses, our husband(s) would be automatically recognized as our legal next of kin.  Past that, she said, if she were incapacitated and hospitalized, her parents could decide to not let her partner in to visit her, or to assist in any financial or medical decisions.  If Torres and I had spouses, they would automatically have the right to make those decisions for us. 

Afterwards, I admitted to seeing her point, and I understood why she feels same-sex partners are descriminated against in these sorts of situations. 

Seth Hall on the right.

I mulled it over, and before deciding how to present it, I met with Seth on the back patio to get his opinion on how I should go about writing this sort of thing up, and if it should be written in a blog, or presented as an article.  Seth is one of my main go-to-guys for this sort of ideological brainstorming.  He's  the eldest of the Muscle Next Door (excluding McGuyver, who is his dad), and he and I have spent many an hour discussing law, government, politicians and whether or not it's a good idea to wear sports socks with dress slacks. 

I laid out the points Kit had brought up, and I sincerely had no idea what side of the fence Seth might take regarding Kit's complaint about unfairness in the legalities of these sorts of partnerships.  However, there is one thing I can always count on, and that is that when it comes to citizens rights, Seth will always stand for what is fair and just, and will follow the U.S. Constitution to the letter, as a guideline.  That's a very good habit he's maintained, especially if you're a voter and you live in his precinct, because he's our local precinct chairman of the Republican Party.  He's also not "old guard" Republican, but an actual Republican, who is constantly mindful of constitutional adherance.  Therefore, for those of us in our precinct who happen to love liberty, we have an excellent representative to help ensure that we maintain it.

This time, it was Seth waving his hand at me, flipping away at the notion of gay rights or straight rights and said that ultimately, the problem had nothing to do with anyone's sexual orientation.  He broke it down beyond that, to the very base of the problem that causes this flurry of discussion, and even arguments amongst a good many citizens a great deal of the time. 

What it boils down to is this, a government has no right to be meddling in, sanctioning, taxing, or applying fees to the personal union of two consenting adults, period.  To make it a bit more blonde-friendly, he put it this way.  It's absolutely ridiculous for there to be a fee paid to any government establishment to be legally married.  It's equally as absurd to have to pay any government establishment a fee to be legally recognized as a minister.  Suddenly, the light-bulb came on in my blonde-brain, and I said, "Ohhhhhh!  You're right!" 

It was one of those, "Good grief!  I've been an idiot!" moments.

Sad thing is, I'd never even questioned this before, and I should have questioned it when I first gained the knowlege of it.  But, we as a society, have been so programmed to accept such things, that most of us don't bother to question laws that are an infringement on our human liberties.  Not just American liberties, but liberties that ALL people are entitled to.

If I ever marry again, I won't be heading to a courthouse, in any state, to pay for a marriage license.  I also won't require, or request, that the officiant be a licensed minister.  I will consider to have a partnership contract drawn up prior to the marriage, to ensure that whomever I married would be recognized as my legal next of kin, but otherwise .... what possible right does a government entity have to charge me a fee to get married, or charge a minister a fee to perform a ceremony?

None.

Now I can't help but wonder how much money has been made since the fees for marriage licenses and ministerial licenses have been implemented.  And, where has all of that money gone to?  Think about it.  That's a wholeeeee lot of change the governments been raking in for years, that they've never had a right to be taking in the first place.

This excerpt I've borrowed from macquirelatory.com is a priceless outline of the word "license" in relationship to a government.

"According to Black's Law Dictionary, the word license is defined as - the permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal." Now in other words, this means the government makes something that was lawful to do, illegal, so they can then tell you that if you pay the government money (which is a bribe), then they will turn their backs and give you a permit that allows you to break the law that they just said was illegal to do! So the question that people need to ask themselves, is why would it be illegal to marry without the State's permission?"

"Miscegenation laws, were laws that banned interracial marriage and sometimes interracial sex between whites and blacks. In the United States, interracial marriage, cohabitation and sex have since 1863 been termed as "miscegenation. In North America, laws against interracial marriage and interracial sex existed and were enforced in the Thirteen Colonies from the late seventeenth century onwards, and subsequently in several US states and US territories until 1967. In the United States, miscegenation laws were state laws passed by individual states to prohibit miscegenation, nowadays more commonly referred to as interracial marriage and interracial sex. Typically defining miscegenation as a felony, yes, felony, and these laws prohibited the solemnization of weddings between persons of different races and prohibited the officiating of such ceremonies."

"When a couple applies for a license from the State to marry, they are actually asking for permission to engage in the “unlawful” activity of marriage (License - a revocable permission to commit some act that would otherwise be unlawful - Black’s Law 7th ed). Why, because the State can regulate that which it licenses, by entering into a State-sanctioned franchise (marriage) as a married couple, a couple forfeits their rights to a private, sovereign marriage and any ownership control of their children or property; as a result of the marriage license. Child Protective Services receives its full power and authority to seize children via the marriage license under the ancient legal doctrine of parens patriae. When a State-licensed married couple has a child, the Birth Certificate is the document the State uses to claim ownership of the child under its marriage contract. State ownership remains as long as that child lives, even after the age of 21. If you have a birth certificate, the State owns you too. Couples married under a state-sanctioned marriage license also give up 1/3 of their property to the state. Should one person die, the government, through the inheritance tax, will demand the surviving party to “buy them out” - usually a 28- 35% tax."

I have to say, I find the entirety of the history of marriage licenses, and their current role in society to be disgusting and an affront to my beliefs as a Christian, and a liberty-loving individual, who thinks color is a grand thing, and believes God does too.  He came up with it before I was even born to appreciate it.  The description, miscegenation, will be rankling me for days.  If it hadn't been for some color mixing, I'd not be here, and I'm very happy with my ancestry.


The whole nasty business is neither a straight, gay, racial or cultural issue.  It's an issue with the government implementing a divide, conquer and control tactic while they plant their creepy, fat, greedy, thieving fingers in citizens wallets ... again.

My thanks to Kit for bringing it up, and my thanks to Seth for clearing it up, as well as sparking me to dig a little deeper into the whys and hows of the origination of this mess.

That's it for this one.

God bless you, thank you for reading, and please don't forget to thank a Veteran at your next opportunity!

femmeflashpoint