Posted on 04/12/2021 9:01:33 AM PDT by ebb tide
All you need to marry nowadays is that you “love” each other.
Up next delusionals will want to marry their dogs.
I don't think that's accurate at all. Government has been involved in marriage in this country since at least 1629, when the Massachusetts colonial legislature passed its first law governing divorce. Even earlier if you consider the legal treatment of marital property, or common-law dower and curtesy rights for surviving spouses.
And during and before that time there was an established Church, and so government could not "intrude" into the "sacred arena of religion," because there was no dichotomy between the two.
Just due to marital property rights alone, I don't think there is any realistic scenario where government does not have some involvement in marriage.
The media push the musings of the mentally ill as the cutting edge of an avant garde and hip society.
I agree. I think it’s about the money.
We were told this would never happen.
Yes, but the rest is after the fact, dealing mostly with property division. It was the Church, in Judeo-Christian tradition, that authorized and sanctified marriage. It probably varies from culture to culture. But in Christianity, it is a religious rite, not a legal right.
The Jim Crow licensing of marriage by the state was a critical turning point in US legislative history.
Well, if there was no intent to consummate the marriage, then that would be the case.
Love is love.
This, of course, was one of the obvious consequences of that inane movement.
And there may not be, regardless of what is claimed in the filing.
Are they going to be adding an “I” to the LGBTA acronym, or have they already?
One way to beat inheritance tax.
Why not. The sodomites were crowing about “marrying the person you love” and demanding the same benefits, their strongest argument. Well?
Probably a Cloward-Piven move with no intent of consummation. Just messing with the IRS.
“Their” in the context of the article is used to avoid indicating what the sex of the parent is in this situation. Rather than being specific, they’re being arbitrary...
Instead of: “Parent in New York sues to ‘marry’ parent’s adult child,”
they say: “Parent in New York sues to ‘marry’ their adult child.”
Also eligibility for healthcare past 26 and a tax related deduction past 16.
Leviticus 18:6 - None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.
Reminds me of the last episodes of Boston Legal. William Shatner was starting his slide into Alzheimer’s. James Spader was Shatner’s best friend. Shatner wanted Spader to have full end-of-life decision making authority, tax free inheritance, as well as spousal privileges protecting their communications, so in the final episode they got married by (an actor playing) Justice Scalia.
Combined PING! and DANG!
First thought was health insurance coverage.
So what, exactly, is wrong with a Hapsburg lip?
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.