Is It Time to End State Licensing of ALL Marriages:

Lars Larsen, Substituting on Michael Savage (6/26) and Today on KXL (6/27) ^ | June 26, 2003 | Lars Larsen

[AntiGuv]

BTW, I'm departing this debate. The government institution & recognition of marriage is not going anywhere, and so I'm not going to expend any more energy on this pointless back & forth.

[freeeee]

I'm departing this debate.

See you soon : )

The government institution & recognition of marriage is not going anywhere

Sure it is. The beauty is, no one has to get a marriage license. It's going out of existence through boycott.

[exodus]

exodus - The only reason to legally prove that you're married is when questions of property are raised.
AntiGuv - Fair enough. Without government recognition of marriage, you still would not have any reason to prove to anyone who you're married to for that reason, either.
*********************

If the man died, his wife wouldn't have to prove legally that she was married, she could just lay claim to all the property in his name, without having to prove that she was married to the man?

I think you're wrong.

Even without government recognition, legal proof of the marriage is necessary in property disputes.

[carenot]

I've gone through two marriages and two cohabitative relationships of equivalent depth.

Then what is the point?

Why pay the State for a license and then pay to get a divorce?

[NathanR]

no one will have to recognize your marriage, either.

Why would I need them to?

Say you come home one day, and find Big Dark and Hairy being fed by your wife and sitting in your easy chair You say "What are you doing here?" He says "I live here" and kicks you out the door and to the curb. What can you do if no one recognizes your marriage? Not much, I think.

[MEGoody]

"Legal recognition does make it easier to prove who you're married to, but recognition by our government is not necessary for the marrage itself to be real."

True. That is why I said in an earlier post that there are two types of recognition generally considered - recognition by the ('a') church and legal recognition (which would require some sort of legal defintion, which would involve the government).

[MEGoody]

"Marriage violates the rights of no one."

LOL If a member of NOW read that statement, her head would probably explode.

[freeeee]

Good one LOL!

Ok, so the wife has left me for big ol' dark and hairy. Whatever will I do? I know, I'll run to the state for protection!

Now let's see what they'll do:

They'll give her the house.
And my car.
And the kids.
And alimony.
And a restraining order against me for the violent behavior she had every motive to make up to get my stuff.

But I get some things, like:

The bills for my her house and car.
Thrown out in the street.
A newfound restriction against owning firearms.
The inability to support a new family because I'm paying her bills.
Thrown in jail if I get anywhere near the house I'm paying for.
A big fat lawyer bill.
Divorce court fees.

What a deal! LOL

[freeeee]

LOL If a member of NOW read that statement, her head would probably explode.

Then I'm doing a good job. ; )

[carenot]

He says "I live here" and kicks you out the door and to the curb. What can you do if no one recognizes your marriage? Not much, I think.

And even if the cops do recognize you are married, if she says go, you have to.
A man doesn't get that option.

[AntiGuv]

Then what is the point?

After two marriages and two cohabitative relationships of equivalent depth, I would have to concede that there is no point....

[NathanR]

You forgot the TRO (Temporary Restraing Order) which has to come before some of the others and it's usually "Child Support" rather than "alimony". LOL

That is why "No Fault" divorce has been so bad.

However, things are much the same if you cohabit.

[PJ-Comix]

IMHO, if the government stops issuing marriage licenses, hetero couples will generally achieve legitimacy by marrying inside churches.

Uh...even if you get married in a church you still have to get a state license. A lot of folks think that a couple are officially married when they say "I Do" in church, temple, mosque, etc.. Actually they are officially married when they file the wedding license. My preference is for those quickie Las Vegas Weddings. No fuss, no muss.

[PJ-Comix]

Luke's nationality is really unknown.

Boricua?

[freeeee]

things are much the same if you cohabit

Maybe, unless you're careful.

If you, not the state define your own contract, you have fair terms.

And no court costs. No (or less) attorney. No restraining order.

I cohabited as married for many years. When it was over, I got a hug, not a summons.

And to those who say: see you cohabited and it ended! Well, our relationship lasted 5 times longer than two legally married couples we were friends with.

[Celtman]

      Does anyone know the history of marriage licenses?  Have they always been around?  (I suspect not.)  I know that many states used to recognize common law marriages.  (No license, no ceremony, but a valid, recognized marriage.  If a man and woman live together, and say that they are married, then they are married.)
      I also know that, according to PECUSA doctrine, the bride and groom are not married by a clergyman - they marry each other, as the ministers of the rite.

[Lorianne]

I'm still undecided on this, giving it much thought. But at the moment I'm inclined to go along with abolishing government sanctioned marriage because it woudl in one fell swoop sideline all the hoopla over same-sex marriage, polygamy, marriage with sheep etc.

Under privatized marriage there would be no such thing as a government sanctioned marriage contract. Any divorce would be strictly a private decision. If one wished, he could say, "I divorce you" three times and he/she would be divorced. (Much as it is today when people simply walk away from marriage without much more effort).

If he/she belonged to a church which didn't recognize divorce, then his church might logically refuse to perform any other marriage ceremony, considering him/her still married. (And, certain churches might decide to share databases on marriages, for the protection of their members.)

In any case, the government would not recognize this divorce, since it never recognized the marriage.

There would be no community property unless the parties (two or many) drew up some sort of partnership agreement. People could still go to civil court to divide assets, much as they would today if they were not married but living together and sharing expenses.

When children are involved, custody and other matters related to the children would be handled by the courts, just as they are now. Men and women would still be bound to support any offspring they produced together, as they are now (or should be) whether they are married or not. The obligation is to the children, not to the adult co-parent. This could actually be a boon to the 1/3 of children who are born outside of wedlock now. The new social contract would be: If you create children, you have an automatic government enforced contract to support and raise them appropriately, whether "married" or not.

Messy? No messier than the present system currently is ..... and certainly less messy than it is likely to become if homosexuals and whoever/whatever else can claim to be "married" under the law.

Under privatization, marriage would return to being a lifelong religious commitment rather than a secular and profane contract--a mere piece of paper to be discarded at will. Wresting this function away from the government would open people's eyes to what they are actually doing when they decide to make such a commitment.

Plus, removing marriage from the legal sphere would mean that people wouldn't have to contribute (by way of taxes etc) in any way to legally support other people's sexual proclivities.

There is still much to think about and iron out. But at present this seems to be a workable solution. I think it could actually STRENGTHEN marriage as a religious institution.

Of course, people could still get "married" at a Las Vegas "church" but it wouldn't mean anything to anyone else but the persons involved. The State would not be involved, and therefore I wouldn't be involved in any way either. If people get married in a real church, the State and the myself would not be involved, just as the State and myself are not involved when a child is baptised. It is a private religious ceremony and a commitment the parents make to raise the child a Christian. I'm not paying the State to enforce that committment.