Vows of Powers Vs. the Marriage License/ A Libertarian Alternative to Marriage

People who are in my family and those who know me well and are in my church and circle of friends know that one political issue that  I’m very passionate about ,which is very close to my heart, is the marriage issue, and they know why.

The marriage debate is very interesting in that, in my opinion (and in  a lot of others opinions ) is very lop-sided and only seems to support people of one religious sect. Yet we’re supposed to be a country of “freedom of religious expression” but yet there are people of many religious sects that are not allowed that freedom. Unfortunately every religious persuasion doesn’t believe that marriage should be just between “one man and one women”.

History (even biblical history) shows marriages that are more than just “one man and one women”.

Genesis16:3-And Sarai, Abrams wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife. Vs. 4 and he went into Hagar and she concieved.

Today there are many religious sects that believe in marriage between people  of the same sex, yet their freedoms to have marriage, as their sects believe, are discriminated against in laws all around the country, “forcing by government” people to accept other religious beliefs and to denounce their own. How would christians feel if government laws were instituted here in our country, that forced them to denounce worship of Christ. Yet others are being forced to denounce practices which they uphold and believe. So much for “freedom of religious expression”.

In the meantime while this fight goes on millions of people in strong loving relationships around our country are openly discriminated against by the law, yet they are expected to honor people who have absolutely no honor for them at all.

I ran across this video and it really got me to thinking. How unfairly people in the minority are treated (and this time its not minorities such as “the races” , it speaks of minority groups who also have rights).

Imagine how you’d feel if you were tossed out of a home you’ve lived in for years or tossed out of hospital while you’re trying to spend the last moments you have with someone you loved for a very long time … lets say even your mother or your grandmother … and you were told you’d have to leave because you are unrelated. Whether they are a relative or a just a long time girlfriend you still love them and should have a right to be with them in their last hours, especially if you know that person would want that.

(Look at this video)

Unfortunately, that is not the case in our country. If you are a legal very close relative, (husband, wife, son, daughter), you’d be allowed to stay. If you are not, in many states, you’d be tossed out.

I’m a firm believer in “marriage equality”. That any adult should be able to marry any consenting adult that they want to. I don’t believe a pastor or any religious sect should have to endorse a marriage that they don’t believe in, however I DO believe that no religious sect should be denied the right to honor the families their sects believe in. Here in Michigan many sects have been denied that right. That is what I call true “religious discrimination”. There are a lot of people in this country who want to keep that going. Your sect should be able to honor whatever your sect believes in and so should everyone else’s.

So while this fight is going on … I’d like to offer “a libertarian alternative to marriage” which doesn’t involve the word marriage or changing the definition of marriage at all (since that seems to be the big issue). It’s legal, its wouldn’t take long term lobbying and it can be done without changing laws. If its taken seriously it can be instituted in a relationship within the next hour and could be done without spending one red cent. It can also provide some support to a lot of relationships until those fights are resolved. I’m calling it, The Vows of Powers of Attorney.

The Vows of Powers of Attorney-

The Vows of Powers attorney, a term which I have coined, is a document that anyone can draw up that is very similar to a regular “Power of Attorney” document. (A lot of people say this is a very costly undertaking but that is untrue as there are regular “Power of Attorney” documents already pre-drawn and given free by Attorneys all over the internet). That document is generally just signed by the person granting someone power of attorney and then notarized.

The “Vows of Power of Attorney’ document is different in that it is (in my own definition) “an agreement between TWO people granting each other SEVERAL different powers of attorney that each person on the document has vowed/agreed to honor in behalf of the other”.

The regular “Power of Attorney” is not an agreement between two. Its simply a statement, wish, or will of “one” which sometimes the other doesn’t even know about. In the “Vows of Power” both parties know because both sign and the document holds because it expresses the wishes of the party not able OR available to express their wishes themselves. In some ways the “Vows of Power” are more powerful than a marriage license and definetly much more easier to resolve than a marriage.
.
Where the “General Power Attorney” basically just authorizes someone to handle another’s financial affairs, the “Vows of PowerS of Attorney” would authorize a number of other powers as well. It would grant …

  1. GPOA /General Power of Attorney – which authorizes one to make financial decisions on behalf of the other when the other person is simply UNAVAILABLE.
  2. MPOA/Medical Power of Attorney – which authorizes one to make hospital and medical decisions on behalf of the other when the other is INCAPABLE.
  3. DPOA/Durable Power of Attorney –which authorizes one to make financial decisions on behalf of the other if the other person is INCAPABLE or DECEASED
  4. Guardianship – which expresses the wish of one to have another care for a family member who is unable to care for themselves (children ect) should legal caregiver or legal guardian expressing the wish be UNAVAILABLE, INCAPABLE or DECEASED to continue care.

Each “Power” on the “Vows of Power” document would be paragraphed separately and list several very generale details.

The GPOA for example would name the partys at the beginning of the document (Partner 1, Partner 2) and it would start something like this …

General Power of Attorney – If Partner 1 is unavailable for any reason to fulfill any responsibilities of the list below, General Power of Attorney is granted to Partner 2 to fulfill those responsibilities on his/her behalf, in Partner 1’s name. General Power of Attorney is also granted to Partner 1 to fulfill this list of responsibilities in Partner 2’s name whenever Partner 2 is unavailable. (I’m not a lawyer but if its worded incorrectly a good laywer could fix this)

The responsibilities being graned in this GPOA include the following:

  • Handling banking transactions
  • Entering safety deposit boxes
  • Handling transactions involving U.S. securities
  • Buying and selling property
  • Purchasing life insurance
  • Settling claims
  • Entering into contracts
  • Exercising stock rights
  • Buying, managing or selling real estate
  • Filing tax returns
  • Handling matters related to government benefits

If desired both parties would also have the option to grant the following additional powers to the other:

  • Maintaining and operating business interests
  • Employing professional assistance
  • Making gifts
  • Making transfers to revocable (“living”) trusts
  • Disclaiming interests (this has to do with estate planning strategies to avoid estate taxes)

The other powers being granted would appear on the document the same way, They would be listed MPOA, DPOA & Guardianship. (The powers typically granted for each one of theses can be found in many places on the internet). Guardianship issues can only be assigned by legal guardians and those to be guarded should be listed on the document. Each may have a different age up to which a child can make their own decisions.

Another unique factor of the “Vows of Power” document that I am proposing is,] that it can be much easier resolved than a divorce. Only one signature required.It would contain a clause such as, PLEASE NOTE: Only a revoke of power issued by one of the above vowing party’s can nullify the agreed upon arrangement. This can be done at anytime without the others consent. The “Revoke of Powers” document should read :This “revoke of powers” is being issued to revoke all powers granted on the Vows of Powers of Attorney  document on 00/00/2000

Now I did mention earlier but i will say again that I am not a lawyer but all of the language I’m proposing to be used are very general legal terms, already basically accepted in court of laws around the country. Any one attempting to draw such a document up for themselves however should seek legal advice or to the very least, take the document drawn up and have it approved by a lawyer in order to confirm its legality.

I’m currently looking for a lawyer to assist in drawing up a document like this that can be used by any body. It would be a “statutory document” in which blanks will be added so that individuals will only have to add their names and signatures to the document (I’m a pastor and once its approved I plan to have it on the backside of every certificate I grant when I do a wedding- It will be optional for those marrying to sign).

My next step would be, in order give some “added protections” to the document for the individuals, is to propose a bill requesting “state senate” legislators to create a similar “uniform statutory FORM” called “The Vows of Powers of Attorney”
and to have it distributed and filed by and with the “secretary of state”. This will give those who enter the agreement additional security in knowing that their rights to have such a contract are supported by the states which they live in.

This is not marriage, nor a marriage license, nor is it an attempt at all to re-define marriage. It is a simply a libertarian effort to bring some supports to relationships of individuals who have come together as family’s, whom the states don’t acknowledge. It also gives everyone the “individual rights” to secure the relationship they desire.

Seeing that “individual” rights are protected is, the Libertarian way.

Would Dr. King Protest the “No Smoking Laws” Here in 2012 ?

This is just my third blog and today is “Martin Luther King Day” and I thought since Bayard was such good friends with such a great civil libertarian that it would only be appropriate to do a light refection on Dr. Kings protest of govrernment laws.

Most people who will be doing these blogs today will be talking about the great works Dr. King did back in the day. Personally I think, if a person really wants to honor him a better way to do it would be by “speaking up” for something he would have spoke up for today.

A lot of people believe that if he was still young and here today, he would be standing with the gay community in their fight for marriage equality. Now me I’m Libertarian and I definitely support marriage for all, but I’m not 100% Dr. King would have, because he basically stood up against unjust laws that affected him and those in his community. His good friend and co-community worker Bayard might have, because it was publicly known that he was gay and lived with his partner. What I do think Dr. King would be speaking up and out against however are these crazy “non-smoking” laws we have in Michigan because he definitely was a smoker.

.I’m not a smoker, I have never been a smoker nor have I ever had a desire to, but my mother, father, sisters and brother. friends, even had a pastor who smoked. I never had a problem with it. What did bother me however was to see something that had been legal for years all of a sudden just banned from all public places here in Michigan.

It started way back when they started saying “smoking was hazardous to your heath”, then they started having “smoking sections” in restaurants. It reminded me so much of the “the whites” and “colored only ” water fountains.

I will never forget riding downtown one day and the first time I saw nearly 100 executives standing outside in the winter in front of an office complex smoking and I thought how unfair. These people work for this company and have brought the city and this company millions of dollars, and now where smokers could once smoke inside, now they have to do it outside in the cold. What’s worst was, just to get inside of the building you had to walk through a crowd of people who normally wouldn’t be there but are now only there because they smoked but have been forced outside. How tacky.

Some of that I got, because these were private owned company’s and I believe every company should have the right to determine what they want and don’t want to have in the company’s they started. Then they made the law to ban smoking from ALL PUBLIC PLACES forcing all business owners who don’t agree, to participate. I’ve only been to a bar 2 or 3 times in my entire life and I when I learned smoking was banned in bars I thought … that’s taking it too far. It was one of the few places that were left that people could smoke in. Now thousands of Bars in Michigan are struggling to stay open because the law is forcing folks to stop smoking or just stay at home.

Most people would say …”well what can you do …its the law?”. Well …all that segregation that went on back then in Dr. Kings day was the law too, but they fought it. The difference is Dr. King fought for the rights that minorities never had. Smoking is a right that a minority of people had … that’s being taken away. Right now, there’s just no smoking in public places and trust me the ultimate goal is force people to stop smoking all together.

We know smoking is hazardous for your health and we that believe also know according to scripture that our body is the temple of the Holy Spirit  (I Cor 6:19). The question is, shouldn’t the right be reserve for the Holy Spirit within to lead and guide us individually  as to what should or should not be put in our individual bodies OR are legislators who make laws more qualified to do it, than He. I think not. It says “let everyman  be fully persuaded by his own mind” (Rom 14:5) , not by the government .And as far as “second hand smoke” , my grandmother is 96 years old, been around smokers all of her life and never complained and is as healthy as you can expect any 96 year old to be as well of tons of the elderly. May be the second hand smoke just hasn’t taken its toll on them yet.

The “no smoking laws” to me are the most ridiculous laws that are on the books. What’s next … banning restaurants that sell fried chicken. Laws that take away personal freedoms and choices that don’t harm others, should be stopped in the same way that segregation laws were stopped back then.

Dr. King was a smoker and while I’m sure smoking wasn’t any where near the top of his list of laws that should be protested, I believe because he enjoyed the freedom he had to do it, he would have stood up against the Michigan “no smoking” law today. He may not have marched for it or even went as public as back then but I believe he would have at least protested in some way by saying something,  if not for himself, at least in behalf of the businesses who’ve been forced into it who don’t believe they should have to support it . Actually I’m kind of surprised that more of the thousands of businesses’ who these laws have hurt are not speaking more. Maybe its because they’re too busy trying to run their businesses or looking for ways to supplement their incomes. At any rate to have this right taken away from them is unjust.

Those laws take away personal freedoms. Dr King protested senseless laws and if we want to honor his memory on his day one of the ways people could do it is by speaking out against senseless laws like this that hurt so many today.

Jobs & Education for a Shrinking Population-A Urban Libertarian Plan

Anyone that knows anything about Detroit’s current situation knows there are many many streets which have a hundred houses or so where sometimes 75% to 99% percent of those house are literally burned out shells.

Sometimes the last houses standing on these streets are usually occupied by a elderly man or elderly women. The sad part is – because there are no residents left … the business have left too, leaving no tax base to pay for the areas city services. That means that the people who outright own their homes in these areas and still pay taxes, now have no neighbors, vacant schools, vacant church buildings, no lights, no protection and because the neighborhood is filled with squatters, crime is running rapid.

Mayor Bing has come up with a plan to mow down thousands of these burnouts throughout the city. Problem is it would take almost 20 years to mow them all down and millions of dollars which the city doesn’t have. In the mean time the people who still live in these areas, own their homes, have held jobs all of their lives and are now retired, are stuck. The truth is, the city is steadily shrinking and by the time the plan is completed (if it is completed at all) there will be no one left and all those millions of tax dollars spent to complete it will be all for naught.

Government spending and waste of tax dollars like that is a continual complaint Libertarians have with Democrats who have run Detroit now for more than 30 years. If Mayor Bings plan goes into effect, its going to cost the city, which has no money, even more. Spending millions of tax dollars on a city that is declining doesn’t make sense.

I was thinking about all of this as I ran across this blog I read entitled ” A Libertarian Program for Urban Renewal.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/headline/a-libertarian-program-for-urban-renewal/

After reading it I started thinking of a couple of other Libertarian project solutions that could be taken on in urban communities that could help eliminate government spending. More particularly, the money it would cost the city of Detroit to undertake Mayor Bing’s project.

The project I’m proposing could help get 6 to 700 of those houses mowed down in one area in less than a year that WOULDN’T COST THE CITY ONE RED CENT (the mayors plan is to do 300 a year). This idea would not only save the city millions of dollars but it would bring 100’s of residents and jobs back to the area that’s its implemented in, as well as begin to give Detroit a much different reputation. I don’t think Democrats and Republicans will like it too much because it transfers power from the government to the citizen. That’s the Libertarian way and it is a way that can begin to get the job done

Project 1 which I’m proposing today in this blog, is a plan to replace the blight and bring back jobs and residents. I call it the “The Campus of High Education Project”

“The Campus of High Education Project”  :A 5 step plan that ANYONE can implement

Step 1

Form an Association. The initiator of this plan would go out to recruit a small group people that would make up an association of about 10 or so neighborhood business’s and organizations that would form (what I’m calling) “The Campus of High Education-Association. The Associations mission would be to develop an educational campus in their area made up of about 10-15 private schools (The next steps tell how it can be done)

Step 2

RECRUIT LEADERSHIP-Once the association is formed, its first job would be to appoint, assign or elect leadership in the association that would be responsible for petitioning the city to see to it that (may be about) 2-400 acres of a dilapidated and depopulated area which the association will represent, will be a area declared a total tax free zone. If the associations leadership can not commit to see this through, it should work to elect libertarian leadership for the district who can (or at best find someone who can get on the inside with a libertarian idea like this)

Step 3

RECRUIT SCHOOLS -The association board would then do a statewide or nationwide search to find about 10-15 different kinds of “private” schools (possibly franchised) with proven success records who will join the association and come into the campus area and build their institutions. These would be regular private schools, (as well as specialized vocational schools) of all kinds. The incentive for the schools coming aboard would be -they’d be totally exempt of taxes. Since much of this land is already vacant and owned by the city the property would be given to these schools FREE. It would be the responsibility of the Associations membership to see to it that the project is properly promoted (The plan for land still occupied will be addressed below).

Step 4

RECRUIT RESIDENTS -Once schools have been identified who will participate, the association will then canvas the proposed area to speak to the remaining residents still living on the proposed site to see if they would like to work with them in seeing the project take off. Those left who agree that live in bull’s-eye areas, where the actual buildings will sit, will be offered $50,000 each (which the schools combined will pay) for them to move in houses that are on campus borders. Banks and other residents who own property on areas proposed for parking and landscaping, will be offered $30,000. Residents will also be offered 2,000 scholarships for themselves to family members to attend the campus’s schools. Residents unwilling to participate can remain in their homes but will simply be forted in. The residents and the schools will all pay the association a small monthly fee – residents ..say $10 -schools say $100. (The public services normally to be paid for by the city will now be paid by the membership fees of all associations residents and schools)

Step 5

RECRUIT EMPLOYEES & STUDENTS. After the residents willing to participate in the project have been identified, both the association and the schools will begin their individual promoting and recruiting efforts for students and employees. All students and employees who come aboard (who don’t live in the target area) would be offered a $10,000 grant to live on property purchased by the schools which the association will buy and sell on behalf of the schools. This will encourage potential students and employees to move back into the area.

WHY I BELIEVE ITS GOOD.
The project is a good and truly libertarian in that its initially initiated by the volunteers from the neighborhood and INVOLVE NO GOVERNMENT SPENDING. Once the land has been given, the plan at at that point involves no or very little dependence on government sources, services OR city tax dollars . It will actually save the city millions of tax dollars that it would have to spend to tear down the hundreds of dilapidated houses in these declining depopulated areas – which produce little tax revenue.

What’s really good is that it will bring to the neighborhood that’s its in, many (professional and non professional) jobs at these successful schools. It will bring educational scholarships for neighborhood residents. It will almost instantly raise the neighborhoods property values because of the heavy flow of new neighborhood residents made up of working class people and students and business’s who would be coming in. It will also bring in sales taxes to the city and very quickly build revenues the business that are ask to be a part of the campus and those that surround it.

I’m not an economist nor do I currently know a whole lot about the budget’s of these kinds of schools or projects, so my financial figures might be off. What I really want to do is just put this libertarian idea out there and those who would be involved would have to determine what would be practical and what would not be.

Its a just a libertarian idea that can liberate a whole community from government dependence that’s brought together solely by a grass roots association. Its also a project I wouldn’t mind working on with some folks myself. Its just made up of regular volunteer neighborhood citizens which have shown themselves to be independent and self reliant, and now able to take on the responsibilities of its own community with out government help.

That’s the Libertarian way of doing things

Comparison Between Democrats, Republicans & Libertarians : From an Urban Libertarian View

Just a few weeks ago someone said to me “you talk like a libertarian”, a party I had only heard of but really knew nothing at all about. When I went online to see what I could learn, I found their general thinking about things seemed to be pretty much like my own, more so than the party I had voted with up to that time.

When I went to my first libertarian blog a couple of weeks ago however to join in on a conversation, I was told by the other libertarians there that, my thoughts were way off. I was kind of taken back, because I was just speaking what I had heard so many other Libertarians online say. (What really surprised me was that from my research it appeared that Ron Paul was pretty much the man that Libertarians supported but according to the Libertarian blog I went to, apparently I was very wrong).

When I went back to re-check some of the other things I had read about Libertarians, I learned a little bit more about them. I learned that even though they have a base philosophy , there are a ton of different conflicting  philosophy’s among them. In other words,  they all claim “libertarian” they just attack  their issues from a different approach.

Here’s one site  that I found, that I thought summed up some of the many differences among those who are Libertarian.

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/uscivillibertie1/p/libertarians.htm

After reading them all, in my own true independent libertarian “individualist” fashion (which libertarianism and freedom is all about) I’ve decided to put in this blog  a summary statement of how I see all 3 parties and how they respond to different situations. This won’t be the way I see them respond to all situations but the way I believe they’ve responded to most.

The statements will summarize the way I’ve seen all 3 parties respond to ….

1) government programs and initiatives
2) taxes
3) minimum wage
4) guns
5) abortion
6) marriage
7) environment
8) foreign affair

Keep in mind I am libertarian, but I will try to be as unbiased as I possible can in my summaries.

Okay here we go…..

Democrats are generally seen: committed to seeing that government funding is spent continually to develop strong “government controlled initiatives” that would work most to assist those who are disadvantaged in our country and those around us. This would involve a number of special interest groups. [Special interest might include, poor, seniors, labor unions, immigrants, the gay community and many others}

Republicans generally are seen: committed to drawing back from A LOT OF government controlled program that will increase government spending and they in turn support initiatives that would benefit “independent entities” (as tax cuts) so THEY can assist the disadvantaged in our country and others around the world. [Among Independent entities might be large corporations, small businesses, churches ect]

Libertarians are generally seen: working to remove the public from AS MANY government initiatives as they can, in a effort to reduce government spending and they in turn are more supportive of initiatives that would benefit more”independent entities” so THOSE entities can assist the disadvantaged in our country around the world.

Please note: These summary statements I’ve written (which in my opinion are very unbiased as I could make them) are not based on things that the 3 parties themselves have said. They are merely generalizations on how I have come to see the 3 parties operate over the years. The first two I am very familiar with. The information regarding the Libertarian party (which I’ve just recently learned of) is simply based on the research I’ve done. If they truly operate according to what is written, I will learn as I enter this new journey with them.