Why should ANY marriage be legal?

[Delvo]

I don't mean the alternative would be making marriage "illegal", as in banning it. I'm talking about having it be not a matter of law, not something the government gets involved with. The government doesn't certify or license any kind other personal relationship; why pick on straight couples like this? Why not just drop the concept of marriage as a government entity entirely, so the government pays no attention to whether or not you consider yourself "married" just like it pays no attention to what kinds of personal relationships you have with anybody else?

[slingblade]

Should divorce be a matter of law?

[GodMark2]

It's not about the personal relationship, it's about the legal relationship. Legal marriage is saying "This person can speak for me in legal matters if I am unable to do so". It shortcuts the need to bring in lawyers whenever someone dies without a will, or lies near death on a hospital.

Who gets the house? Who gets the precious angelic children? Who has to take care of the horrid, demonic kids? Who decides to remove feeding tubes? Who is responsible for all this credit card debt?

The legal spouse. One designated person, with one voice, speaking for the other signatory of the legal contract. A one-size-fits-most contract, that the government can handle quickly with a minimum of cost and effort. A contract that is transferable to any state or country. A contract that can be modified to fit individual needs (see pre-nupual agreement), should the parties so desire.

[Alt+F4]

I'm talking about having it be not a matter of law, not something the government gets involved with.

I totally agree with you, the government should not be involved with marriage. With that said, we all know that ain't gonna happen anytime in the near future.

I might care about this issue more if the government would actually let me marry the person I love and want to spend the rest of my life with. It won't.

[The Atheist]

Why not?

It's a desirable legal state for many couples. A tradition which works well for some people.

Unless you want to marry your mother, or allow polygamy.

[JWideman]

Who gets my social security death benefits? One of my male roommates, or my girlfriend? I like marriage as a legal construct, TYVM.

[ponderingturtle]

I don't mean the alternative would be making marriage "illegal", as in banning it. I'm talking about having it be not a matter of law, not something the government gets involved with. The government doesn't certify or license any kind other personal relationship; why pick on straight couples like this? Why not just drop the concept of marriage as a government entity entirely, so the government pays no attention to whether or not you consider yourself "married" just like it pays no attention to what kinds of personal relationships you have with anybody else?

The government might not certify other kinds of relationships but it does recognizes them, mostly blood relations.

As long as you are happy with parents and siblings being recognized as being the primary people in your life and not any sex partner you have, it would seem fine for you.

[ponderingturtle]

Who gets my social security death benefits? One of my male roommates, or my girlfriend? I like marriage as a legal construct, TYVM.

Here is something else to think about, what about immigration and the like? If marriage is not recognized then it becomes harder to have a relationship across national boundaries. Two forum members got married for this reason.

[Tim Moen]

I'm talking about having it be not a matter of law, not something the government gets involved with.

Agreed, its ridiculous to think that a state needs to sanction a personal relationship. A marriage is essentially an agreement, or, contract between 2 or more consenting adults. Any agreed upon 3rd party could arbitrate a contract breach/divorce based on the terms of the agreement. Government certainly isn't required for this.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think the problem isn't with legal recognition of marriage, but legal recognition of religious marriages. In most states, we've essentially made ministers, priests and rabbis agents of the state.

This is, I think, where the notion of "defense of marriage" comes in with these anti-gay marriage measures. For some people, their religious ritual and sacrament is the same thing as the legally recognized thing we call marriage.

To me, the easiest solution is that ALL legal marriages should be done by the state. (And do we really even need a judge to do a ceremony? Why not just leave it as a paper contract?) Aside from that, you're free to do whatever you want in the church of your choice, but that ceremony should receive no legal recognition at all. (We don't certify baptisms, confirmations and bar mitzvahs.)

We already have exactly this model with divorce.

[SalG13]

I think the problem isn't with legal recognition of marriage, but legal recognition of religious marriages. In most states, we've essentially made ministers, priests and rabbis agents of the state.


I cannot speak for other states, but in Illinois I was required to get a legal marriage certificate from the state, not the church. The pastor (in my case) wasn't actually a necessity for my marriage to be legal.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I cannot speak for other states, but in Illinois I was required to get a legal marriage certificate from the state, not the church. The pastor (in my case) wasn't actually a necessity for my marriage to be legal.

Yes, that's the way it is in most states.

The ritual performed by the pastor in your case was given legal recognition as the execution of your marriage license. I realize the church ceremony is not required, but it is a legal substitute for a secular ceremony (usually done by an officer of the civil courts).

To me this entanglement (a ceremony doing double duty as a religious sacrament and as the legal execution of the state license) is the problem.

No ceremony that is done, for example, in the name of "the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" should receive any state recognition or sanctioning.

ETA: I'm not 100% sure, but I suspect that there was a time in our history when baptism or christening in the church was a legally sanctioned way of naming a child. It's certainly not anymore. If you want to do those things, you're free to, but they're distinct from the legal conferring of a name on a baby, which is just done by paperwork nowadays. (As far as I know, no states require a naming or christening ceremony.)

[godless dave]

I cannot speak for other states, but in Illinois I was required to get a legal marriage certificate from the state, not the church. The pastor (in my case) wasn't actually a necessity for my marriage to be legal.

Right, but the pastor was still empoyered to sign the certificate as an officiant, correct? This is what a previous post was talking about.

Of course - actually many Americans seem not to know this so I'll drop the "of course". You can get married by going to the courthouse or county clerk's office. A government employee signs the form, but no ceremony is required.

In Germany, clergy can't sign the marriage license. The civil marriage has to take place in the government office.

[jj]

Let me put it this way: "Marriage" is clearly a religious formality. Why else are ministers all allowed to perform marriages, but not everyone who isn't a minister? When we got married, the judge had to write a letter to the mayor deligating the authority he had to the mayor so she could perform the "ceremony" which officially consists of signing the documents in the presence of the township registrar anyhow. So they mayor had to get permission to preside, but a minister didn't.

To me, this is a clear violation of the establishment clause.

Now, the state has a valid need to memorialize personal relationships, but religious belief should absolutely not be involved in any fashion. We will now hear how it's the end of the world because two guys might get hitched, or two women. And they do, and the world continues to churn as it always has.

[godless dave]

I realize the church ceremony is not required, but it is a legal substitute for a secular ceremony (usually done by an officer of the civil courts).

To me this entanglement (a ceremony doing double duty as a religious sacrament and as the legal execution of the state license) is the problem.


You're a little off. There is no secular ceremony, just a form to fill out and be ratified by a government employee. Any ceremony is an optional add-on with no legal standing. The only way the religious interesects with the secular is where clergy are allowed to ratify the form instead of government employees.

[shadron]

Should divorce be a matter of law?

I divorce thee, I divorce thee, I divorce thee. ??

[plumjam]

I divorce thee, I divorce thee, I divorce thee. ??

:rolleyes: Jeez, now we're back to polygamy

[Thunder]

i think govt. should only recognize domestic partnerships. this should have the same legal status as marriage. leave it to the religious institutions to declare someone "married".

[gumboot]

I don't mean the alternative would be making marriage "illegal", as in banning it. I'm talking about having it be not a matter of law, not something the government gets involved with. The government doesn't certify or license any kind other personal relationship; why pick on straight couples like this? Why not just drop the concept of marriage as a government entity entirely, so the government pays no attention to whether or not you consider yourself "married" just like it pays no attention to what kinds of personal relationships you have with anybody else?


The key word, I think, is "relation" in "relationship". Marriage turns an unrelated person into a related person. The fact is the government does pay attention to other personal relationships you have with people. But those are all determined by your birth certificate.

Without government overseeing marriage the government would have no ability to confirm or deny the legality of your relation to your spouse. This would have an impact in a large variety of areas where this relationship intersects with daily life.

And finally, last of all, marriage is enshrined as a basic human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 16), and as a signatory the US Government has a legal obligation to protect that right.

[slingblade]

I divorce thee, I divorce thee, I divorce thee. ??

Okay, I get the kids, the house, both cars, the boat, the furnishings, all your personal property, the 401K, your retirement, your insurance...and you pay me max alimony and child support.

Or do you think you might, possibly, argue a tiny bit with me on that? Hmmm. Whatever will we do, since marriage isn't a matter of law...?

[Skeptic Guy]

You're a little off. There is no secular ceremony, just a form to fill out and be ratified by a government employee. Any ceremony is an optional add-on with no legal standing. The only way the religious interesects with the secular is where clergy are allowed to ratify the form instead of government employees.

You're 100% right. No ceremony is required, secular, religious or otherwise. I believe, and I'll have to check, that I have a license from the state that is not signed by the priest (back when I did that sort of thing) and I have a separate one provided by the Catholic church.

Marriage, as a legal contract, is necessary for tax, benefits, other legal reasons. Marriage on religious reasons is a whole other thing.

[ponderingturtle]

i think govt. should only recognize domestic partnerships. this should have the same legal status as marriage. leave it to the religious institutions to declare someone "married".

And now you just have to get every country in the world to agree.

[godless dave]

i think govt. should only recognize domestic partnerships. this should have the same legal status as marriage. leave it to the religious institutions to declare someone "married".

Why? It was a social custom long before religious institutions existed.

Why not just keep civil marriage as a government matter and religious marriage as a religious matter, the way it is now?

[Uncayimmy]

Why? It was a social custom long before religious institutions existed.

Why not just keep civil marriage as a government matter and religious marriage as a religious matter, the way it is now?
Did you know Tom Green was convicted of bigamy for having one government marriage and several "spiritual" marriages?

[godless dave]

Did you know Tom Green was convicted of bigamy for having one government marriage and several "spiritual" marriages?

No, I didn't.

[GodMark2]

Did you know Tom Green was convicted of bigamy for having one government marriage and several "spiritual" marriages?

This the same Tom Green that tried to uses his 'spiritual marriage' to a minor to avoid having her testify in that case? To quote the closing arguments from the bigamy case:

Tom Green will use and bilk and abuse the laws of this state when it suits his purposes. And when he doesn't want the laws to apply to him . . . then there's not a hair thin enough that he won't split to try to justify his position.'

[Uncayimmy]

This the same Tom Green that tried to uses his 'spiritual marriage' to a minor to avoid having her testify in that case? To quote the closing arguments from the bigamy case:

Yep, same guy. Doesn't change the point, though.

[ponderingturtle]

Yep, same guy. Doesn't change the point, though.

It does thought, he was trying to get the state to recognize multiple peoople as being his wife.

[Uncayimmy]

It does thought, he was trying to get the state to recognize multiple peoople as being his wife.

So? The statement to which I was referring was, "Why not just keep civil marriage as a government matter and religious marriage as a religious matter, the way it is now?"

Regardless of what transpired during the case, the end result is that the state prosecuted Green for, among other charges, bigamy. This was based on several religious marriages.

Thus "the way it is now" is not exactly completely separate.

[ponderingturtle]

So? The statement to which I was referring was, "Why not just keep civil marriage as a government matter and religious marriage as a religious matter, the way it is now?"


And that was not what was happening there, he was demanding civil recognition of his religious marriages. If he did not do that, would he have been charged with bigamy?

He was trying to claim the legal rights of marriage for more than one person, that seems like a workable definition of bigamy to me.

[Uncayimmy]

And that was not what was happening there, he was demanding civil recognition of his religious marriages. If he did not do that, would he have been charged with bigamy?

He was trying to claim the legal rights of marriage for more than one person, that seems like a workable definition of bigamy to me.

If I claim my Jennie McCarthy blow-up doll is a sheep to justify why it's okay to parade it front of little kids doesn't mean I can be convicted of bestiality.

As I understand it the bigamy charges did not come about because he tried to use the spiritual marriage as a shield to try keep his spiritual wife from testifying. Even if he did, it sounds a bit warped to me.

[ponderingturtle]

If I claim my Jennie McCarthy blow-up doll is a sheep to justify why it's okay to parade it front of little kids doesn't mean I can be convicted of bestiality.

As I understand it the bigamy charges did not come about because he tried to use the spiritual marriage as a shield to try keep his spiritual wife from testifying. Even if he did, it sounds a bit warped to me.

Maybe I am not knowledgeable about this case, but he was going beyond a totally separate religious and sexual marriage, and tried to get government recognition.

There seems to be a lot more than just bigamy charges as well from how this sounds. So it might be like some of the sodomy laws that are used to pad out someones charges when they are being charged with legitimate crimes.

I think that people massively underestimate how hard it would be manage a legal recognition of a polygamous marriage, but I am not for bigamy laws.

[godless dave]

Yep, same guy. Doesn't change the point, though.

Yes, it does, because he was trying to represent his spiritual marriage as a civil marriage.

[Darth Rotor]

I don't mean the alternative would be making marriage "illegal", as in banning it. I'm talking about having it be not a matter of law, not something the government gets involved with. The government doesn't certify or license any kind other personal relationship; why pick on straight couples like this? Why not just drop the concept of marriage as a government entity entirely, so the government pays no attention to whether or not you consider yourself "married" just like it pays no attention to what kinds of personal relationships you have with anybody else?
It is posts like this that make me weep for our future. Even as a rhetorical question it is clumsy and ill informed.

Human social existence is a continuum, not a series of discrete events.

To me, this is a clear violation of the establishment clause.
How droll, that your ignore the part of that very amendment that prohibits the interference with the citizens' right to free exercise. They coexist together, whether it suits you or no.

Now that you've had a low rent cherry pick, would you care to try something where you set the bar a bit higher?

DR