Replies

I have believed that we should eliminate marriage entirely from the state and make people enter into corporate partnerships since I was in high school.

I saw this coming.

At the time, they told me the State had an interest because of genetics. The blood tests they preformed at the time served a vital public health interest to inform those getting married of potential reproductive issues that they need to aware of in the case of pregnancy.

If we did this, not only does it completely disarms the courts, it also opens another alternative reason to deny services to a gay wedding, refusing to service a wedding that isn’t officiated by your own church’s denomination or a denomination recognized by your church for officiating weddings.

Also, we get the benefit of introducing tax reform for small business, since every marriage would not be treated as such.

A state can end it’s participation in marriage by simply signing onto a civil union pact, which protects property situations. You can rig up a dissolving of a civil union as well (some divorce in basic terms). You could write this as a law in twelve lines....that’s how simple it is.

History-wise....none of the states had marriage laws when 1776 rolled around....this occurred with property issues and eventually got forced as a ‘solution’ and the ‘license’.

Speaking the truth, this is not going to pacify liberals and other queers.

We already have similar conditions set up with civil unions, and any entities can draw up contracts that bring legal actions from the courts to settle disputes. What the queers and their satanic supporters want is to run The Church. The first sin was satan wanting to be God, then he got the first couple to go along with the wanting to be God theme. Nothing new under the sun.

None of the “victim” groups wants equality, they want to rule, and even that won’t be enough. They will want to crush anyone who doesn’t celebrate their specialness. After that they will crush their own who aren’t celebrating their specialness enough.

Close to mine and a bit more complicated.

I say don’t involve the state in your union and it may ery well have a much more positive effect.

The church should insist on counseling before marriage, for the purpose of creating a legal document, spelling out expectations during the union and what happens should it dissolve.

Don’t record it with any agency. Simply file the binding terms and conditions with a lawyer.

Further, no more taking tax benefits that marriage, under the state sanction, enables.

Problem solved.

Taking the state out of the marriage business has been looking like the best idea for a long time.

And this plan, put forth by a Catholic priest, sounds like a good one.

I wish the Catholic Church - and all other churches - would adopt this plan.

Marriage law (and divorce) has become an absolute mess in every way.

Interesting, but the proposed “solution” does not address the expected exclusivity of the relationship (sexual, financial, emotional, social, etc) that is supposed to be established between the two persons entering into these partnerships.

In fact, this approach could possibly be manipulated to support group marriages between multiple individuals and would probably immediately legalize polygamy. The only real restriction would be having the financial wherewithal to support the children and some sort of pre-existing agreement concerning property (both joint and separate). A person, well-to-do (or otherwise) could establish these registry relations in multiple states between themselves and other contracting parties over and over again, theoretically without limit.

Many years ago, I stumbled into this minefield when, during a college class on politics, I suggested that the then proposed legalization of prostitution (never did occur anywhere except Nevada) would eliminate that (sexual infidelity) as an actionable offense between a husband and wife (or to be PC, between spouses). Turned out that the modern liberated women in the class weren’t so liberated after all.

I agree that, given the current political trajectory of gay marriage, discontinuing the use of religion to solemnize civil marriages/domestic partnerships/etc is probably a desirable thing to accomplish. Let the state call it civil marriage, etc.

Have them sign forms and a register without any special convocation of the community or invocation of community assistance to the new pairing. Make it about as interesting as taking out a building permit. I’m sure, given the tendencies of bureaucrats to well, bureaucratize, eventually they will manage to transform the current, relatively simple, process into a full blown ordeal complete with various fitness examinations, pre-counseling sessions, etc. Just consider, as an example, what it takes to adopt a shelter animal in many places these days.

However, if you want a religious ceremony, it is a separate matter and you are going to have to meet the criteria.of that particular faith tradition to get married. And for most traditions, but not all, that means one man, one woman.

Marriage isn’t a religion, even atheist Navy SEALs need the government to recognize their marriage, and the federal government has been recognizing and making law regarding the marriages of GIs, since the Continental Congress, 1780, 1794, 1798 1802, and on and on.

All societies need marriage law, society cannot function without it.

The Muslim church, the Satanic church, the gay church, the Mormon church, the Catholic church, can have their own ideas, but in the society at large, there must be law and definitions.

When that Muslim man’s wife becomes a Catholic and leaves him and wants custody of the kids and part of his pension, she wants a court to serve her, not the Mosque.

The states do it, the states will be found with unconstitutional law by the black-robed mafia. Quite regardless of what these laws actually say, or what the Constitution actually says.

Besides, the Church will be seen as dictating to the state.

Just. stop. issuing. any. licenses.

We are a Church, not a notary public.