[Brad C.]

(Donning flame suit)

I agree that the state should not be giving anyone benefit for being married, but it is the state that for all practical purposes marries people. If any of you think it is a religious thing, just ask your local clergy to marry you. I am sure he will ask to see your marriage license, which is of course issued by the state.

On the other hand, run on down to the court house and ask a judge to marry you, and again with a state issued license the ceremony will be held. A marriage just does not happen until two people go and get permission from the state to enter into a legally binding contract to share their resources and wealth. (This is were the flames will start) A marriage should be just that, a legally binding contract between two consenting adults, who chose to share their lives and fortunes together "till death do they part".

And as you pointed a decent will would handle everything after that.

[xzins]

just ask your local clergy to marry you

I am my local clergy...LOL.

Marriage does not require the stamp of the state to be valid. It existed long before the state came along. The union is between the parties of the marriage. In the Christian faith, of course, we consider God to be one of he parties to the covenant. With God and the husband and wife in the presence of the church affirming their marriage, there is no need for the state.

The marriage license itself is viewed an unnecessary by the state. The "common law" marriage recognizes that the reality of a union precedes the intrusion of the state.

As a Christian bound by scripture to follow human laws which offer no offense, I struggle with determining if this "marriage license" requirement is an intrusion in God's domain. I've come to believe that it is.

The taxation/benefits issue grows out of the "marriage license" question. No one should be asking for or getting special infusions of tax money.

[Protagoras]

If any of you think it is a religious thing, just ask your local clergy to marry you. I am sure he will ask to see your marriage license, which is of course issued by the state.

The clergy is not exempt from having government guns aimed at them. They must gain the permission of government to proclaim people married or suffer the consequences.

If you notice, the licence doesn't make you married, the ceremony does, whether it is performed by clergy or government employees who are appointed for that and other purposes.

You might also give some thought to the legal standing of common law marriages.

Government permission doesn't make one married, it allows it. It is totally illegitimate.

[2sheep]

>(This is were the flames will start) A marriage should be just that, a legally binding contract between two consenting adults, who chose to share their lives and fortunes together "till death do they part".

Your position is in direct opposition to the Bible but is consistent with the dark spiritual forces which have turned America into another Sodom and Gomorrah.  The flames may start above, but they will go on forever and ever and ever and ever.

[chance33_98]

A marriage should be just that, a legally binding contract between two consenting adults, who chose to share their lives and fortunes together "till death do they part".

No flaming, just obersavtions.

• Some things are rooted deep in culture, not just ours but nearly every culture. The liberals lambast the US, et al, when they try to change the culture of other countries - calling it imperialistic. Yet they wish to do that very thing for their own interest.
• No one is stopping them from living together, if they want to partake of marriage then they should honor what it means to the culture and government (and has meant for centuries). THEY choose not to conform to it and instead want it to change. They have rejected our notion of what marriage is, which is fine, but for them to want to force an entire culture/society to change to fit their desires is suspect. Some things come with benefits, having kids gets you a tax deduction, should we consider pet's as children for those who choose to have a dog instead of a kid?
• Marriage as it is has a historical base, a religious base, and a world wide culture base from which we as a society have learned and benefitted from and chose to embrace. If people wish to live together, fine, but we have placed value on procreation in a family unit and the brining of children into society to continue said society. We see that act, or trying to do that act in a marriage, as a benefit to society which puts a burden on those doing it - raising kids and being committed to one spouse is a trying task which rewards all involved but the most work is on those directly doing it.
• Some people choose to opt out of this, they either stay single, get married and decide they don't think they can handle kids, or live together. Fine. They contribute to society in their own way, then die leaving only personal possessions behind. That is their right. But those who procreate keep the human race alive and going, and to do so in a marriage creates a more stable society which is the bulding block of all socieites. Marriage is the starting point for all of this. It may not lead to kids, but it is the first step. The entire human race benefits from this.
• No one is punishing anyone for making the choice to not get married, to be gay, to live alone, etc and so on. We as a group have said that those who wish to come together and commit to keeping the human race going and commit to one another to work on it together deserve a small token of status which we have named marriage.

  Of course, there are always exceptions to rules, but exceptions should not define the rules.