George Phillies For President 2008
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Uncle Sam has no business in your bedroom, your churches or your private lives. That’s the message of leading Libertarian Presidential candidate George Philles. “The George Bush Republican party disagrees: They’ve made it Uncle Sam’s business by passing the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).”
Phillies, 60, a college professor from Worcester, Massachusetts, is traveling the country, presenting the Libertarian message of peace, freedom, and prosperity for all citizens.
“The debate over gay marriage is a wonderful example of what’s wrong with Washington,” Phillies observed. “Down the street where I live are two churches. One church views gay marriage with horror. The other has been happily marrying gays for years. The Libertarian position is simple: Gay marriage is purely a personal and religious question, not a question for government to decide.“
Dr. Phillies believes the Defense of Marriage Act is deeply flawed. In 1967, the landmark Supreme Court case, Loving v Virginia found that the right to marry is a “basic civil of man.” “Loving v Virginia ended legal discrimination in marriage,” the Libertarian hopeful pointed out. “DOMA tries to bring legal discrimination back into marriage.”
Critics of DOMA say that the act violates the Constitution because it does not require states to recognize same-sex marriage contracts created in other states. The interstate validity of contracts is guaranteed by the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit clause. Phillies agrees. “No wonder the Bush Republican Party now wants a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. …. When I am elected, I will ask Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. I will protect the right of States to license same-sex unions or not, as they will. But I will also hold states to the United States Constitution and require them to recognize legal unions created in other states, just as they have always done in the past.”
Uncle Sam has no business in your bedrooms, your religious ceremonies, or your private life. It is none of the government’s business which consenting adults marry each other, and which do not. Do you want your religion’s marriage practices protected from government interference? Only the Libertarian Party will protect the privacy of your bedroom and your conscience.
To support the George Phillies campaign, please visit http://phillies2008.org/donation.
Contact Information:
Carolyn Marbry,Press Director
pressdirector@phillies2008.org (510) 276-3216
Less
aynrkey
bostonteapartygoer
Kenn Jacobine
mattdharris
Mike Seebeck
Miche
paulie
Jim Davidson
ponggod
Stuart Richards
Todd Andrew Barnett
Every state should record a civil union contract just like they record deeds.
Are they willing, competent parties, blah blah blah? Contract would spell out the consequences of breech, dissolution. Let your church, if any, handle the marriage. Germany and other countries require a civil ceremony whether or not the couple got married in a church. As for “recognizing” another state’s laws, there must be some exceptions to this: for instance, a notary from Maine can’t practice in New Jersey, and a CPA licensed in one state can’t necessarily hold himself out as a CPA in another state. These kinds of professional licensing schemes have been challenged and the courts have held that one state is entitled to require stricter requirements.
OG: That’s license reciprocity. Essentially, as each state holds to its own laws regarding what does or does not qualify one to be qualified, any states with equal or greater stringency may, in fact, carry on so.
However, when it comes to being legally married, that is, by constitutional law, required to be conveyed over. Just like ownership of an item that you bought in one state — that ownership must be recognized throughout the country. That’s the problem here, you see — and it is only exacerbated by the DOMA. Why does the Federal Government have any jurisdiction to decide who is or is not married?
The regulation of marriage is not one of the enumerated functions of the federal government and regulation of marriage should not be a function of any government, local or state.
It should not be the role of government to encourage or discourage marriage or any other voluntary relationship between people, granting no benefits, privileges or special rights.
People should be free to enter into marriage contracts, or not. It is their business whatever their relationship is and nobody else’s. But, of course, this is America – a place where most people couldn’t mind their own fucking business if their life depended on it.
State marriage licenses violate the 1st amendment, as well as similiar provisions in each state constitution. Therefore all government marriage licenses are invalid.
Gays should not get state marriage licenses, and neither should anyone else.
As long as anyone else does, they should as well.
Why would anyone want a state marriage license? Marriage exsisted long before state marriage licenses and I know people who’ve been married without them.
Andy,
You write:
“Why would anyone want a state marriage license?”
Because:
1) The state exists; and
2) The state preconditions respect for certain rights of custodial appointments (powers of attorney, etc.), conveyance of property, etc., upon whether or not one has been procured linking any two given parties.
I’d be as happy as you to see marriage licensing abolished and have marriage go back to being a religious or sentimental ceremony with a bundle of negotiated contractual attachments.
However, until and unless that is accomplished, holding that the state should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of the sexual composition of a couple (or of any other number of people, or on the number of people composing a group!) in its self-assumed duty of issuing the licenses it requires is an eminently reasonable position — and attempting to find ways to make it “okay” for the state to be allowed to so discriminate — as Ron Paul has done and bragged about doing — is 100% anti-libertarian, period.
George Phillies will never be President of the United States of America. We need someone who has Libertarian principles and can rally strong support. That person is Daniel Imperato.