Posted on 01/27/2014 3:28:50 PM PST by Kaslin
That is a bald faced lie, it predates the United States in the colonies, and of course thousands of years before that. Do you really think this nation was founded on a law that you had to be a member of a Christian church (or mosque) to marry?
Even at the federal level the first marriage law was passed in 1780, added to in 1794, and 1798, and 1802.
About Time.
Conservatives everywhere can do one better: get married in church but skip the license. Let caesar define marriage as between 3 men, 3 women and a mule named Bob. There is no reason to pay for caesar’s marriage license. It isn’t required and in the eyes of God, it makes zero difference.
What tax break?
Homo marriage isn't. Traditional marriage has been around since the dawn of time.
Nobody says you have to get married in the eyes of the government. If you think it’s between a man, a woman and God go for it.
Marriage is an implied contract. And with implied contract there has to be a set of rules to adjudicate the inevitable differences that come up between two people.
Like, who is responsible for the care and support of the children who re the result of this union? If one or both parents abandon the duties, at what point does the greater community step in?
All these disputes, and other matters like inheritance, or property ownership, or even separation of parties with irreconcilable differences that may very well lead to mayhem or murder, are very much in the wider interests of the community. At one time, these disputes were settled within the confines of the religious authority figures, but with the deep schisms that have appeared between factions of the religious authority, this was no longer a reliable agency to settle differences. Religions sometimes are not very good at making judgments on a wide range of human mischief and malfeasance.
“I wonder what the Founders would say to that capitulation if they were standing in front of you today?!”
What capitulation? Marriage licenses are relatively new in the grand scheme of things: they came about in the middle ages. It’s a construct of caesar, not of God. And there is nothing in the Constitution about them.
If you can find a woman who’s willing, go for it.
“Government gets involved so that they can collect on licenses. For the money. And for social experiments.”
So why should we have anything to do with it?
Sure, but you can certainly learn from us as we learn from you.
Bond for Marriage License
[23 December 1771]
Know all men by these presents that we Thomas Jefferson and Francis Eppes are held and firmly bound to our sovereign lord the king his heirs and successors in the sum of fifty pounds current money of Virginia, to the paiment of which, well and truly to be made we bind ourselves jointly and severally, our joint and several heirs executors and administrators in witness whereof we have hereto set our hands and seals this twenty third day of December in the year of our lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy one.
The condition of the above obligation is such that if there be no lawful cause to obstruct a marriage intended to be had and solemnized between the abovebound Thomas Jefferson and Martha Skelton of the county of Charles city, Widow,1 for which a license is desired, then this obligation is to be null and void; otherwise to remain in full force.
th: jefferson
francis eppes
Any tax people here?
What are the financial benefits and problems with marriage vs. cohabitation over the span of 50 years or so?
Wrong. Completely wrong.
The State benefits from healthy traditional marriages. Economically, socially and even financially; marriage is a win/win for the state.
Remove marriages from the government? Yeah. We did that in the 1960’s with LBJ’s Great Society leaving us with the Welfare State.
Its way past time to begin punishing welfare queens and rewarding Mom and Dad and the Family.
“Marriage is an implied contract. And with implied contract there has to be a set of rules to adjudicate the inevitable differences that come up between two people.”
So make it an explicit contract. Do you think that the so-called family courts are a better venue to litigate marital problems than say an ecclesiastical court?
“Like, who is responsible for the care and support of the children who re the result of this union? If one or both parents abandon the duties, at what point does the greater community step in?”
How’s it working now when roughly half of kids are born out of wedlock anyway?
Are you living in Israel?
Nice try at blaming conservatives.
It’s Bush’s fault, right?
So where did you find it? I’d like to study it further.
As a lawyer, Thomas Jefferson sometimes dealt in divorce law, he felt that the Catholic church taking over marriage for most Europeans, after Rome collapsed, was relatively new.
The Congress was making marriage law as early as 1780 and 1794, I think they knew a little about their constitution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.