Plan B on Marriage: A Proposal to Remove the State from Celebrating Marriages

Vivificat - From Contemplation to Action ^ | 3 May 2015 | TDJ (@vivificat)

[ansel12]

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’.

What??????? Even Thomas Jefferson had a marriage license for his marriage in 1772, and as a lawyer he also got involved in divorce law. George Washington had a legal marriage.

Here is a piece on Virginia marriage law: As you can see, even in the early 1600s you needed a license or a bane.

*An act in 1628 forbade marriages “without lycence or asking in church.” In 1632, in the same group of acts that empowered church wardens to collect penalties of one shilling for each unexcused absence from church and that required ministers to preach one sermon every Sunday, it was stated that “noe mynister shall celebrate matrymony betweene any persons without a facultie or lycense graunted by the Governor except the banes of matrymony have beene first published three severall Sondayes or holidayes” in a church located where the parties lived.

[ansel12]

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.

[Teófilo]

All you is TRUE.

If the definition of “marriage” is left completely in the private domain, all you say can happen.

I don’t adopt this position lightly. Since the state has proven itself unable to define marriage correctly, let its role be relegated to be a bean counter of sorts and unburden it from its perceived power of defining new sorts of unions and new but synthetic human “rights.”

In my Church, matrimony is a sacrament; in someone else’s faith (or atheist association) it might be a hog-tie, perhaps even with real hogs. Who is to say? If the state don’t want to say what marriage is, or can’t bring itself to the true definition of marriage, then let’s take that power away from the state.

~Theo

[annalex]

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.