Designing a Quiz to Determine if SOme One is a Liberal Or Conservative

[Trip]

Wrong Taft, I was talking about William Howard Taft, the senator from Ohio in 1952 challenging Eisenhower. Not his daddy which was the one you referred to. I am not that old. I suppose the important thing is I am comfortable in my skin and am who I am. Perhaps I do have today’s libertarian traits, I never thought about it much. Also a man is basically the sum of his experiences and that is true for me. My basic political beliefs came from Goldwater and more recently Perot added a bunch.

Actually you were not talking about William Howard Taft, who was the President, but rather his eldest son, Robert Alphonso Taft. Robert had many admirable traits, however he voiced a blanket "non-interventionism", as is constantly parroted by today's Libertarians, and has long previous been shown to be unreasonable and an unrealistic approach to foreign policy.

Your nick is a dead giveaway, but the constant Taft and Goldwater references don't help much.

But as far as some being more equal than others, it has always been that way. Some being exempt form the very laws they pass even. Perhaps the torch of rebellion or correction or what ever is to be carried by the young. Has the government grown too big, no doubt about it. Do I wish we could go back to the size and scope of government we had back in the 1950’s? Sure I do. But that is not reality. Back then Washington D.C. might as well been on Mars for all the influence they had in peoples daily lives. Today it is just the opposite, Washington D.C. can’t take a breath without influences the people’s daily lives, but this is what the people want. They basically have traded individual freedom, liberty if you will for security. Charity use to begin at home, someone lost a job, had a barn hit by a tornado, family friends, neighbors etc, would come and help, they would help with their time, their energy and their money. Today, charity and help is sending an individual down to the nearest federal office which their help is paid for by the taxpayer.

If you think you can change this, more power to you my friend.

The reality is we need to put government back in the box, and it must be done, regardless of bloodshed, or we will be forever slaves to government, and the Constitution and our rights it protects meaningless.

 

[Perotista]

Actually you were not talking about William Howard Taft, who was the President, but rather his eldest son, Robert Alphonso Taft. Robert had many admirable traits, however he voiced a blanket "non-interventionism", as is constantly parroted by today's Libertarians, and has long previous been shown to be unreasonable and an unrealistic approach to foreign policy.

Your nick is a dead giveaway, but the constant Taft and Goldwater references don't help much.



The reality is we need to put government back in the box, and it must be done, regardless of bloodshed, or we will be forever slaves to government, and the Constitution and our rights it protects meaningless.

My nick? No i have seen enough bloodshed in my time. The people basically choose their leaders and let their government do what it does. I may disagree with some of it polices, but it is still the best thing going in this world. My only concern at my age is we get our debt and deficit under control so this country doesn't fall into the abyss of financial ruin. Most everything else is secondary.

 

[Slyfox696]

I think the hardest part of any quiz like this would be determining if you want to use the true definitions of liberal and conservative, or the political definitions America has assigned to them. I mean, in what way is advocating war conservative thinking? In what way is shutting down religion in public places liberal thinking? How is legally denying SSM a characteristic of small government? How is strict regulation on business liberal governing?

So while I know this thread is old, and while I know I've pretty much skimmed most of it, if you're still interested in a project like this, you first have to decide what exactly you want to find. Once you figure out what you want to find, the questions become easier.

 

[Trip]

My nick? No i have seen enough bloodshed in my time. The people basically choose their leaders and let their government do what it does. I may disagree with some of it polices, but it is still the best thing going in this world. My only concern at my age is we get our debt and deficit under control so this country doesn't fall into the abyss of financial ruin. Most everything else is secondary.

Uh, that's not what the Constitution indicates. What you described is a third World Banana Republic, a Democracy, and not this country. And if you're not disagreeing with more than "policies" then there's a problem. And it ws the best thing going in this world, but no longer, due to behaving like a Third World Banana dictatorship.

Our debt and deficit are not the problem itself, but rather only a symptom...

 

[Trip]

I think the hardest part of any quiz like this would be determining if you want to use the true definitions of liberal and conservative, or the political definitions America has assigned to them. I mean, in what way is advocating war conservative thinking? In what way is shutting down religion in public places liberal thinking? How is legally denying SSM a characteristic of small government? How is strict regulation on business liberal governing?

So while I know this thread is old, and while I know I've pretty much skimmed most of it, if you're still interested in a project like this, you first have to decide what exactly you want to find. Once you figure out what you want to find, the questions become easier.

Because same sex marriage is not marriage. Marriage has never been 'any two who are happy together"; I and my damn accountant are happy together.

 

[Slyfox696]

Because same sex marriage is not marriage. Marriage has never been 'any two who are happy together"; I and my damn accountant are happy together.

Legal prohibition of two consenting people getting married does not align with a theory of limited government.

 

[Fisher]

I think the hardest part of any quiz like this would be determining if you want to use the true definitions of liberal and conservative, or the political definitions America has assigned to them. I mean, in what way is advocating war conservative thinking? In what way is shutting down religion in public places liberal thinking? How is legally denying SSM a characteristic of small government? How is strict regulation on business liberal governing?

So while I know this thread is old, and while I know I've pretty much skimmed most of it, if you're still interested in a project like this, you first have to decide what exactly you want to find. Once you figure out what you want to find, the questions become easier.

Depends I suppose. There are no hard and fast rules as I slip through the cracks of these quizzes: the sum total of the linked quizzes is I am a dead in the center centrist, libertarian leftist who most agrees with the Green Party candidate and the democrats 90% of the time, but I totally get painted a conservative here at DP every day which I am not really at all. I just get there a different way which is totally unacceptable to liberals who insist you must think exactly as they do. It amuses me at least most of the time to have liberals paint me as a Bob Jones University conservative.

 

[Slyfox696]

Depends I suppose. There are no hard and fast rules as I slip through the cracks of these quizzes: the sum total of the linked quizzes is I am a dead in the center centrist, libertarian leftist who most agrees with the Green Party candidate and the democrats 90% of the time, but I totally get painted a conservative here at DP every day which I am not really at all. I just get there a different way which is totally unacceptable to liberals who insist you must think exactly as they do. It amuses me at least most of the time to have liberals paint me as a Bob Jones University conservative.

Another problem quizzes like this have is the idea that a person has to be one or the other, even on specific issues. For example, I support the death penalty, but only when we have 100% proof of guilt (usually I like to say overwhelming consistent eyewitness testimony and/or definitive video evidence). The use of the death penalty is usually one which aligns more with the conservative thinking, but the part of me which says if there is not 100% proof of guilt then you cannot kill him is more in line with liberal thinking.

A great test would figure out the major positions of today, and then break those positions down into various situations. That way a person could be mostly liberal on one idea, lean liberal on another and be totally conservative on a third.

 

[Trip]

Legal prohibition of two consenting people getting married does not align with a theory of limited government.

It has nothing to do with unlimited, or limited government. Government did not create marriage, and is not imposing a definition upon marriage, not even with DOMA, but rather recognizing a long extant definition that is the result of biological fact.

Marriage has never been merely "two consenting people", and such a gross reduction is necessary to fabricate the false equivalence.

 

[Trip]

Depends I suppose. There are no hard and fast rules as I slip through the cracks of these quizzes: the sum total of the linked quizzes is I am a dead in the center centrist, libertarian leftist who most agrees with the Green Party candidate and the democrats 90% of the time, but I totally get painted a conservative here at DP every day which I am not really at all. I just get there a different way which is totally unacceptable to liberals who insist you must think exactly as they do. It amuses me at least most of the time to have liberals paint me as a Bob Jones University conservative.

The previously referenced chart employs circular logic falsehoods into the chart, employing one term, Libertarian", repeatedly in the definition, both the x-axis and y-axis, as if libertarian were a fundamental litimus of political thought, when it is not, and is only a contemporary political ideology. It would be tantamount to incorporating "Conservative" or "Environmentalism"<green party> into the those axes.

This makes about as much sense as calling oneself a "dead in the center centrist". What does that even mean? Center of what? By what terms and standards? On everything? Is it implying that one has no position on anything at all, or merely trying to imply that one's own position is more rational and reasonable, and threeby more 'enlightened', than all the rest, yet still failing to recognize how this might possibly be? I'm guessing the latter. How can one possibly be "dead in the center" and a centrist when they stand with the Green Party and the Democrats 90% of the time? I'm an environmental geologist and yet I recognize the green party as nothing but environmental and social radical extremists, who are content to advance scams on the American people, using their tax dollars, to promote a Marxist agenda. That's not "centrist" at all.

 

[Trip]

Depends I suppose. There are no hard and fast rules as I slip through the cracks of these quizzes: the sum total of the linked quizzes is I am a dead in the center centrist, libertarian leftist who most agrees with the Green Party candidate and the democrats 90% of the time, but I totally get painted a conservative here at DP every day which I am not really at all. I just get there a different way which is totally unacceptable to liberals who insist you must think exactly as they do. It amuses me at least most of the time to have liberals paint me as a Bob Jones University conservative.

The previously referenced chart employs circular logic falsehoods into the chart, employing one term, Libertarian", repeatedly in the definition, both the x-axis and y-axis, as if libertarian were a fundamental litimus of political thought, when it is not, and is only a contemporary political ideology. It would be tantamount to incorporating "Conservative" or "Environmentalism"<green party> into the those axes.

This makes about as much sense as calling oneself a "dead in the center centrist". What does that even mean? Center of what? By what terms and standards? On everything? Is it implying that one has no position on anything at all, or merely trying to imply that one's own position is more rational and reasonable, and threeby more 'enlightened', than all the rest, yet still failing to recognize how this might possibly be? I'm guessing the latter. How can one possibly be "dead in the center" and a centrist when they stand with the Green Party and the Democrats 90% of the time? I'm an environmental geologist and yet I recognize the green party as nothing but environmental and social radical extremists, who are content to advance scams on the American people, using their tax dollars, to promote a Marxist agenda in no way allowed by the powers afforded to government. That's not "centrist" at all.

 

[Fisher]

Another problem quizzes like this have is the idea that a person has to be one or the other, even on specific issues. For example, I support the death penalty, but only when we have 100% proof of guilt (usually I like to say overwhelming consistent eyewitness testimony and/or definitive video evidence). The use of the death penalty is usually one which aligns more with the conservative thinking, but the part of me which says if there is not 100% proof of guilt then you cannot kill him is more in line with liberal thinking.

A great test would figure out the major positions of today, and then break those positions down into various situations. That way a person could be mostly liberal on one idea, lean liberal on another and be totally conservative on a third.

Well I think that is the rub of it. I am a fiscal conservative in that I mean that I think we need to be financially responsible, which is not the same thing as saying I do not think we should spend money on social things--just that we should only spend what we can afford, not the absolute most we can print/borrow. I am very liberal on immigration but very conservative on law and order. There is too much nuance for those quizzes to measure if one is not just a follower of the the same old same old partisan agenda of the day.

 

[Fisher]

The previously referenced chart employs circular logic falsehoods into the chart, employing one term, Libertarian", repeatedly in the definition, both the x-axis and y-axis, as if libertarian were a fundamental litimus of political thought, when it is not, and is only a contemporary political ideology. It would be tantamount to incorporating "Conservative" or "Environmentalism"<green party> into the those axes.

This makes about as much sense as calling oneself a "dead in the center centrist". What does that even mean? Center of what? By what terms and standards? On everything? Is it implying that one has no position on anything at all, or merely trying to imply that one's own position is more rational and reasonable, and threeby more 'enlightened', than all the rest, yet still failing to recognize how this might possibly be? I'm guessing the latter. How can one possibly be "dead in the center" and a centrist when they stand with the Green Party and the Democrats 90% of the time? I'm an environmental geologist and yet I recognize the green party as nothing but environmental and social radical extremists, who are content to advance scams on the American people, using their tax dollars, to promote a Marxist agenda. That's not "centrist" at all.

My guess is that they try to use an average--like if you are far left on one issue and far right on another, the quiz puts you in the center. IDK.

 

[Trip]

My guess is that they try to use an average--like if you are far left on one issue and far right on another, the quiz puts you in the center. IDK.

But "left" and "right" have no meaning inherent to them, and really only apply as relative reference to another position, at a given time in a country. Adding the adjective "far" before left or right does not give those terms any more meaning, and rather only introduces more bias.

"Center" likewise has no meaning whatsoever, having never defined, "center of what". It's like having a null score from not showing up for a contest.

 

[cpwill]

Legal prohibition of two consenting people getting married does not align with a theory of limited government.

With respect, you are mistaking the actions of the government with the actions of the people. If by "getting married" you mean the act of having a ceremony, living together, loving together, calling each other pet names, complaining about each others' mothers, etc; then I would agree, these are actions taken by the people and the state has little room for interference. If by "getting married" however, you mean "the state issuing a license", then it is the state which is taking the action. By creating and then utilizing a definition of marriage (for any definition by definition must have borders), you have imposed a limitation on State action. Which does align with the idea of limited government.

 

[Slyfox696]

By creating and then utilizing a definition of marriage (for any definition by definition must have borders), you have imposed a limitation on State action. Which does align with the idea of limited government.

That may be the first time I've heard that explanation and the logic does make sense, so thank you for that. But I have to disagree.

If the state is already in the business of granting official recognition of marriage, any law which prohibits people from engaging in this activity in the manner of their choosing and receiving recognition from the state is regulation by the state and thus, not an example of limited government. Creating an official definition is not limiting government, because it's not limiting who can get married, but only to whom they can marry. This becomes regulation and is no longer a principle of limited government.

 

[cpwill]

That may be the first time I've heard that explanation and the logic does make sense, so thank you for that. But I have to disagree.

If the state is already in the business of granting official recognition of marriage, any law which prohibits people from engaging in this activity in the manner of their choosing and receiving recognition from the state is regulation by the state and thus, not an example of limited government. Creating an official definition is not limiting government, because it's not limiting who can get married, but only to whom they can marry. This becomes regulation and is no longer a principle of limited government.

Since the actions of the individuals in question are not being restricted, but rather the actions of the state, i don't really see how people are being prohibited in engaging in any particular activity. When the state recognizes a marriage, the people themselves are not doing anything, it is the state that is taking action (specifically, it is issuing an annotating the issuance of a marriage license). The people themselves are not stopped from doing anything they wish to do - only the government is restricted, by the people, as it should be, in its actions. By the logic you have put forth, for the state to issue a marriage license (because it must then say to whom it shall issue it) is itself somehow abusive and limits the actions of the people - but that is rather silly. The actions of a free people are not limited or infringed when a state begins to issue marriage licenses. The "limited government" argument in favor of SSM has become popular because it has strong natural pull with moderates and conservatives... but it is a misnomer due to its misplacement of the relevant activity; I do not think it therefore stands up to careful inspection.

 

[Slyfox696]

Since the actions of the individuals in question are not being restricted, but rather the actions of the state

But the actions of the state are not being restricted, they are simply being selectively utilized. The homosexual man can still get married, just not to the person he wants. In this way, the state IS regulating the actions of the individual and hindering their ability to engage in the benefits already provided by the state.

When the state recognizes a marriage, the people themselves are not doing anything, it is the state that is taking action (specifically, it is issuing an annotating the issuance of a marriage license).

And with this license comes multiple benefits under the law. These benefits are being granted only to people who abide by their "rules" and marry the "right" person. In this, the government is stepping into a person's private life and telling them they can only be granted the benefits if the person does it the way they want.

That is not a limit on government, but regulation by government.

only the government is restricted, by the people, as it should be, in its actions.

But the government is not restricted, they can still issue that marriage license to the homosexual man if he chooses a wife. There is no restriction on the government, only regulation by the government.

By the logic you have put forth, for the state to issue a marriage license (because it must then say to whom it shall issue it) is itself somehow abusive and limits the actions of the people - but that is rather silly. The actions of a free people are not limited or infringed when a state begins to issue marriage licenses.

But their ability to collect the same benefits under law are limited.

The only way the limited government argument works if you believe in no recognition by the state and/or under law for any marriages.

 

[Trip]

But the actions of the state are not being restricted, they are simply being selectively utilized. The homosexual man can still get married, just not to the person he wants. In this way, the state IS regulating the actions of the individual and hindering their ability to engage in the benefits already provided by the state.

And with this license comes multiple benefits under the law. These benefits are being granted only to people who abide by their "rules" and marry the "right" person. In this, the government is stepping into a person's private life and telling them they can only be granted the benefits if the person does it the way they want.

That is not a limit on government, but regulation by government.
But the government is not restricted, they can still issue that marriage license to the homosexual man if he chooses a wife. There is no restriction on the government, only regulation by the government.

But their ability to collect the same benefits under law are limited.

The only way the limited government argument works if you believe in no recognition by the state and/or under law for any marriages.

Where is it the authority of a state to change the very meaning of words, and take control over a concept that no state originated? The recognition of marriage by society does not originate from governments, nor from religions, but rather from biological fact, with every person alive being the byproduct of heterosexual unions.

If this is a power to re-define words at their whim belongs to any state, then they open up the doorway to thorough corruption of any constitution, and indeed we see that going on today.

Not only do proponents of gay marriage advocate re-definition of marriage to create a false equivalence, but also have sought to abuse the applicability of the Full Faith and Credit clause to impose their redefinition on other states.

Additionally, the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment has been distorted by proponents and the courts alike, to imply equal outcome, when the clause does not ensure equal outcome, and to contort the equal protection of the clause to involve equal protection under different terms. Gays already have access to marriage, but under the same terms as others, and merely choose to not recognize those terms.

The promotion of this concept gives the states and government undue power over even the very definition of words, as well as undermining the Constitution itself, opening the people to even more heinous abuses and tyrannous acts.

"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words."
Samuel Adams​

 

[Slyfox696]

Where is it the authority of a state to change the very meaning of words, and take control over a concept that no state originated?

It occurs the moment the state involves itself in the business of the acts themselves. The moment the government decides to grant legal recognition, and the benefits which come as a result, is the moment the government has to decide to what extent it is willing to grant and limit the benefits. The more the government restricts the activities of those who would enjoy the benefits, the more regulation the government is having and the "bigger government" argument comes into play.

If you wish for government to stay out of marriage all together, there's nothing wrong with that. I'm perfectly happu with that argument, and then marriage would simply be up to whatever institutions who may wish to grant it and there would be no advantages granted to one group over another and government would not be deciding which is allowed and which is not. But the moment the government takes some level of ownership over it is the moment the government can define to what extent they'll allow those to receive government recognition. And when government is telling people that only certain types are recognized, that is the moment you have "big government".

 

[Trip]

It occurs the moment the state involves itself in the business of the acts themselves. The moment the government decides to grant legal recognition, and the benefits which come as a result, is the moment the government has to decide to what extent it is willing to grant and limit the benefits. The more the government restricts the activities of those who would enjoy the benefits, the more regulation the government is having and the "bigger government" argument comes into play.

If you wish for government to stay out of marriage all together, there's nothing wrong with that. I'm perfectly happu with that argument, and then marriage would simply be up to whatever institutions who may wish to grant it and there would be no advantages granted to one group over another and government would not be deciding which is allowed and which is not. But the moment the government takes some level of ownership over it is the moment the government can define to what extent they'll allow those to receive government recognition. And when government is telling people that only certain types are recognized, that is the moment you have "big government".

Recognizing the "acts" under the legitimate terms of law, does not provide any original authority to redefine those acts.

The government did not just recognize marriage because of a motivation to provide "benefits" (which are the property of those marriaed to begin with), but rather because societies, laws and governments specifically deal with the recognition of biological associations, the recognition of rights to property and inheritance involved in those associations, ....

... and not any sort of legitimate authority to redefine that structure to serve a social engineering agenda which government has no legitimate authority doing in the first place.

It is a gross falsehood, a canard, to say that "government is IN marriage" now. This dishonest distortion came about to rationalize government dictate and social engineering. Government simply recognizes marriage, and has codified the terms by which marriage is valid, such as not marrying those one is directly related to biologically, and not taking being able to marry a person of extreme youth, thereby preying upon and victimizing those extremely young. Government is decidedly not involved "in Marriage", but rather in society itself, and has no legitimate authority whatsoever to redefine marriage to serve a thoroughly false equivalence and promote social engineering.

In what it has done thus far, government has not taken any degree of "ownership" over marriage at all, but will only wrongly take that ownership for the first time in attempting to redefine marriage, but in the process will assume powers by usurpation, not legitimate authority to socially engineer society, when these powers were deliberately prohibited to government by this nation's founders, and barriers instituted in the Constitution, so as to protect freedom and prevent just this sort of tyrannous dictate.

 

[Trip]

It occurs the moment the state involves itself in the business of the acts themselves. The moment the government decides to grant legal recognition, and the benefits which come as a result, is the moment the government has to decide to what extent it is willing to grant and limit the benefits. The more the government restricts the activities of those who would enjoy the benefits, the more regulation the government is having and the "bigger government" argument comes into play.

As I previously pointed out, government is not "in" marriage, but has a consideration via the law in regard to marriage as a result of inheritance, property ownership, and taxation, not to mention birth and ensuing citizenship.

Despite these ongoing interests, none of them provide government any legitimate authority whatsoever to redefine marriage to be something else, perticularly something that does not produce proto-citizens.

This has nothing to do with "bigger government", nor the falsehood that government is "in marriage", both of which are canards to only promote the false equivalence of gay marriage, a long with a host of other distortions and false, which I have also previously referenced.

If you wish for government to stay out of marriage all together, there's nothing wrong with that. I'm perfectly happu with that argument, and then marriage would simply be up to whatever institutions who may wish to grant it and there would be no advantages granted to one group over another and government would not be deciding which is allowed and which is not. But the moment the government takes some level of ownership over it is the moment the government can define to what extent they'll allow those to receive government recognition. And when government is telling people that only certain types are recognized, that is the moment you have "big government".

There's no "if" involved here. Government is not "in" marriage at all, but has legitimate involvement in ancillary aspects resulting from marriage. The claim of keeping government "out" of marriage by allowing any two of anything to marry, actually puts government in marriage, and in the business of social engineering, and increases the size and reach of government, when none of it is even remotely an authority of government, except for to progressives, in conflict with the constitution.

 

[cpwill]

But the actions of the state are not being restricted, they are simply being selectively utilized.

that's an interesting way of putting it. When I am not allowed to go past a certain speed on the high way, am I not restricted in my speeds so much as I am only allowed to selectively utilize my gas pedal?

Sorry, but no. A restriction is a restriction, whether you call it "selective utilization" or anything else, the thing is still the same - a border, a definition.

The homosexual man can still get married, just not to the person he wants.

The Homosexual mans' actions are not hindered in any way. All the things that he does, he is still free to do.

In this way, the state IS regulating the actions of the individual and hindering their ability to engage in the benefits already provided by the state.

On the contrary, the state has merely provided the definition of the circumstances in which it shall take action.

Take your logic here and apply it to any other scenario. According to the trap you have set up, for the state to have any definition for anything it does is to hamper individual liberty and freedom. Unemployment benefits, for example, are by definition not available to the gainfully employed. Ergo, unemployment benefits reduce our civil liberties and individual rights, and thus cannot be squared with a vision of limited government. You can play the same game that you play above with disability payments, WIC, the whole kit and kaboodle. Your argument would have the effect not of invalidating current marriage restrictions, but rather of invalidating or making impossible most of what government does.

And with this license comes multiple benefits under the law.

:shrug: which really has no pertinence to the discussion, however, even if it did, see the above discussion on unemployment benefits. Or, if you like, interject the manner in which the state imposes on my rights by not paying me as a teacher, simply because it does not currently define me as an employee of the education system.

The state has to have definitions for the allocation of things like licenses (I am happy, for example, that we do not give concealed carry licenses to felons, nor drivers licenses to 8 year olds) and benefits. To claim that the existence of a definition is inherently an infringement on our rights from a limited government model is to equate Limited Government with anarchy.

These benefits are being granted only to people who abide by their "rules" and marry the "right" person. In this, the government is stepping into a person's private life and telling them they can only be granted the benefits if the person does it the way they want.

The state is simply stating that it's employees (which represent it) shall only issue licenses to those situations which the people have decided they wish the state to issue licenses to. Since no freedom of action on the part of the individual is inhibited, and at best only a positive receipt of government benefits is at issue, then what you are attempting to argue here is that a limited government vision includes a positive right to government benefits. But limited government quite explicitly states that rights are negative things. You have no right to government benefits, under the rules of limited government.

That is not a limit on government, but regulation by government.

Yes, a regulation by government on the actions of government. Government isn't saying that homosexuals cannot have weddings, cannot live together, cannot do all the things that couples in receipt of a marriage license do. It is simply saying that it, the government shall not take part. Which is fine. As a fan of limited government, the idea that, without explicit direction from the people or their representatives, my government shall not take part in things suits me just fine.

The only way the limited government argument works if you believe in no recognition by the state and/or under law for any marriages.

On the contrary - that is the natural endpoint for the argument you are advancing. For you are setting up a scenario where the existence of a state definition of marriage (not this particular one, but any border, any restriction) is an infringement on human rights.