Replies

I agree with what you say about not participating in government schemes when you don’t have to but a marriage license, though not required by law is a contract with a great deal of case law behind it. A shack-up marriage is fine if you don’t plan to have children and you have a contract that settles property issues. Of course, it is also unstable since anyone can opt out any time they please.

On the other hand, a marriage contract protects both spouses, children and estates. I am certain people could write their own, but why bother when you already have a well known body of law.

BTW, I am the victim of a no-fault divorce. You have no idea how important that marriage contract is until you marry and divorce a bitch.

I was thinking along those lines. Maybe the states should just simply cease issuing "licenses" for marriage. That would remove any implication of "sanction" or "approval" by a government agency. For people of faith to whom it is important, the presiding clergy can still sign a Certificate of Marriage attesting that a marriage took place, and such could serve as a record to be deposited with appropriate agencies regarding legal issues associated with marriage. Such a record could also serve to validate the marriage in the religious realm, similar to Certificates of Baptism that some (most?) churches issue.

For others, they could have a notarized copy of the marriage contract deposited with the appropriate agency, covering whatever issues the two parties wish to cover, attesting to the natural issue of children that might result, and so forth. That would serve as legal proof that a marriage took place. Then of course there are civil unions, which could be modified so as to be recognized without the marriage license, but simply have a record of the marriage noted for legal purposes.

Doing this would remove the impression that the state, by issuing a marriage license, attaches its imprimatur to the pairing. The state still serves a recording and archival role in terms of the legal implications of the union, but its role is confined to that, basically being an observer of record and guardian of documents required for the legal processes involved.

The question of stability of the family unit is a valid one and I am not sure that would be adequately addressed by these suggestions. But it seems that wall has been breached already by this decision, and the flood has been unleashed for any number of future cases covering other (formerly) taboo parings, as other threads have discussed.

I don’t care who you are, that last line is funny right there...and true ;)

IMO, the task at hand would be MUCH easier if govt wasn’t in the ‘social engineering’ to begin: No marriage penalty, exceptions, benefits...In fact, it should be standardized across-the-board.

My $.02, get govt out, make them all contract and, IF one wishes, sanctioned by the church/Creator.

Course, when it comes to the children, that’s a whole ‘nother ball of wax. There should still be father/mother (sperm doesn’t grow on trees [yet?]) and two men, two women still can’t get each other pregnant. Adoptions are for the betterment of the child = mom/pop (though, I suspect, if NONE can be found, a home that is not the State is better than the orphanage. Which means, making adoption easier/cheaper).

Yep, whole new can of worms with ONE ruling by the judicial oligarchy....