Posted on 06/27/2003 9:36:15 AM PDT by litany_of_lies
Ditto. "My Lai" strategies to anything usually end up just as successful.
1. No legal basis for "Miss Sally Smith" automatically becoming "Mrs. Sally Doe" -- she would now need to go through the process of going to court and having her name legally changed. Instead of a $15 license fee, now we are talking about several hundred dollars in court costs.
2. Couples now have to get a blood test prior to marriage. While by no means 100% foolproof, this public health measure does help keep some STDs somewhat under control. No mandatory testing on anyone at any time under any circumstances must inevitably result in a greater incidence of STDs and all their consequences.
3. Abolish marriage as a legal category and you abolish any automatic presumption of paternity and illegitimacy. All children must be assumed to be bastards, sired by who knows what male, unless and until dna testing can conslusively prove paternity. This isn't just an issue of deadbeat dads trying to get off the hook. Now a man has no children of his own, and no paternal rights, unless and until he can go through the trouble of PROVING that they are his. Again, in place of a $15 marriage license we are now talking about hundreds of dollars in court and lab fees.
4. Presently, the laws surrounding marriage provide for default guidance in the absence of a pre-nup agreement for the disposition of a couple's financial affairs if they divorce, providing some protections for each party. If marriage goes away, so do these laws. EVERY couple will need a pre-nup agreement. Actually, every couple will need a legal agreement covering any and every imaginable type of co-habitation arrangement. Once again, in place of a $15 license everyone gets to pay hundereds of $ in legal fees.
5. It has been an ancient tradition in Anglo-American law that a spouse should not be compelled to testify against their spouse in a legal proceeding. Abolish marriage as a legal category, and there is no longer any basis for this exemption. In fact, it could very well be argued that exempting spouses from being called as witnesses against their spouse could be discriminatory against others, and thus would be prohibited. Thus, even if one had been married in the church, anyone would be foolish to share any potentially incriminating confidence with their spouse. Such shared confidences would have far less protection than those shared with attorneys, clergy, or reporters. This creates an environment not all that different from totalitarian societies, where one cannot even trust one's own family members to not be informants.
6. AFDC is premised on the thought that single mothers need the government's help, since there isn't a man to help shoulder the load. If the guy is in the house, then the checks go away. But if the government no longer legally recognizes marriage, then why make that distinction? Wouldn't the government have to just give any mother below the poverty line AFDC benefits, regardless of what relationships she might have or who might be living with her? "A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money."
7. Not to even begin to address the moral, emotional, social, cultural, spiritual damage, etc.
You didn't have to get a federal marriage license did you? Your "correct answer" is incorrect. When being audited, you must prove everything in your tax return. A state-sanctioned.
IRS Publication 501 states (in part):
You are considered married if you are living together in a common law marriage that is recognized in the state where you now live or in the state where the common law marriage began. If you are considered married, then you may file as married filing jointly. If you are not considered married, then you would have to file as single or head of household.
So that means the state where you live is the final arbiter of whether or not you are legally married. If the state doesn't allow common-law marriages, then you have to produce a marriage license.
But thanks for playing and we have some lovely parting gifts for you, including the Home Edition of "Backup That Assertion."
Look at the bold print, are you contradicting yourself?
Didn't you just post in a matter of fact attitude that Revelations and Luke was written by Greeks?...
My question was, did you have to submit any marriage license on any 1040?
That answer is NO. When you are audited, you are not submitting a 1040, are you? You should have already sent it in!...(buzzer sounds) oh, times up, You lose!
Israel not only had an established church, it had an established government. It had priests, but it also had judges and an army. Therefore, the laws given by God at Sinai included laws for the temple and laws for the organization of a society. The priests administered the tabernacle service and were under the authority of Aaron. The civil government was theocratic. But it had its magistrates as well. Originally Moses was the only person Israel went to with its disputes concerning the ownership of livestock and so forth. Over time, elders, appointed by Moses, sat in judgment of most civil disputes and criminal matters. Only those matters of great difficulty were given to Moses for a decision.
The elders even judged on matters concerning the legitimacy of marriage and infidelity. The elders also considered matters relating to inheritance of property flowing from a marriage.
Their religion was their government. There wasn't any governing structure outside of thier religion until Rome occupied Palestine. God laid out the law.
Actually I don't think the argument is for abolishing marriage itself, just the government's role in legitimatizing marriage since it has shown it's no longer able to represent the interests of the majority of the population.
Personally, I believe marriage is ordained by God, so the state's role was a mere formality in my case. That is why homosexuals can claim to have legal rights to be married but will never be truly married in the eyes of God.
But, I have all these copies of "Living History" I got from the 99 cent store!
My question was, did you have to submit any marriage license on any 1040?
And my answer was "if you get audited, yes." Your original post asked about the necessity for a Federal Marriage License. I (I guess mistakenly) thought your point was that a marriage license is irrlevent from a federal perspective (which was the point of my original post).
Wading through the minutia is an old Liberal tactic when the argument can't be won.
Your question is pointless since you don't have to submit ANY supporting documents when you file your 1040. I can claim my cat as a deduction and don't have to prove it at filing time. But if the Tax Man stops by and asks to see my dependent and proof that I am the supporter (from a federal perspective) I must do so.
So I am right and you are wrong.
Which, in the final analysis is all that matters. Nyah.
There was a governing structure outside of tabernacle and temple. It was the system of elders, raised up according to their tribal affiliation, that arbitrated disputes and made judgments.
Solomon, no priest, established taxes, raised armies, and organized trade routes. He settled disputes between conflicting parties. Refer to the case of the two women contending for that baby. If you want to suggest that monarchies do not constitute organized governmental structures, you gotta be smoking something.
Just because the civil law was given at Sinai does not mean it was administered by its priests. Even in Israel there was a structural differentiation between civil and religious government.
http://www.stlukeseastport.ang-md.org/apostle.shtml
St. Jerome (who incidently wasn't with the original Apostles) States that Luke was Greek and from Antioch. No actual evidence to prove either way.
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.