This quote came from another thread. http://www.politicalforum.com/political-opinions-beliefs/383026-liberal-logic-101-a-3.html I have a couple of questions. In the US is a marriage still lodged with a government authority even if the marriage was conducted in a church? Is it possible to totally eliminate government licencing of marriages and have only church licenced marriages? My initial argument was - where will non religious folk go if government isn't involved one iota (meaning lodging of marriage) in marriages? It seems the reply was a legally binding contract as opposed to a marriage. Is there a difference?
In my area marriage license taxes must be paid and the officiant will file the completed paperwork with the county. There seems to be no reason beyond taxation for issuing marriage licenses. There seems to be no reason why any two or more individuals can not enter into a contract for power-of-attorney, beneficiaries, wills and probate, etc. That is called a contract. Why redefine the term marriage if these other avenues are available? A poke in the eye?
I understand that Margot. But are marriages lodged with a government authority outside the church? In Australia all marriages whether church or civil are lodged with Registry of Births, Death and Marriages, a government authority.
Look,, my argument is you can't eliminate government entirely out of marriages if the marriage must be lodged at some government authority. My argument wasn't about the definition of marriage whether church or civil. Ergo, you can't eliminate government entirely.
Yes. This stems back to our foundation prior to the Nation's conception. Religious sects left England to practice their style of religion. The State and Church were connected. Marriage was controlled by both.
Why can't government taxation of marriages be eliminated? Why must a license be issued and registered with the government. At one time in U.S. history there were no government issued marriage licenses. People were married in the church. Why can't two or more individuals want to enter into a contract for wills and probate, power-of-attorney, etc? - - - Updated - - - Marriage was not controlled by the state before the Southern Democrats instituted government licensing after the Civil War.
...and BTW, many colonies/states did have a state religion, which is still legal according to the U.S. Constitution. The federal government may not have a federal religion, nor is it permitted to interfere into religious matters.
Who do you propose marriages are registered with? Church or a civic authority? Examples please. - - - Updated - - - Thanks Margot..
In the US, you can get married by a justice of the peace, or a notary public and the church has absolutely nothing to do with it. The STATE issues the marriage license and the person performing the ceremony sign it at the completion. Take it back down to city hall and get it entered into the books. You're married.
As I have been attempting to clarify, churches used to be the recorder of marriage, baptism, death, births. I can understand notice of deaths be registered with the government for voter rolls, births can be acknowledged at the time of the census. I see no reason for baptisms, or marriages to be registered with the state. Any supposed marriage benefits afforded by the state could be repealed then marriage becomes a simple contract or sacrament if within the church.
What if the couple didn't have a church wedding? In all honesty, does the government really have a big hand in marriages? The government has a hand in the registration and lodgment of the marriage and making laws regarding age and polygamy (a good thing) and gender (not such a good thing).
Once again, before the 1860's (+/-) marriages either were preformed by the church or by common law. That system worked fine for the most part up until then. Historical marriage records in the American and European churches are available for genealogists centuries in the past. It would be no different going forward from today. I would agree with legal restrictions on marriage to protect children from statutory rape. Procreation between close relations happens still today in America within small communities to the detriment of many children born with disease, i.e. The Amish. Now as the laws stand, one may enter into a contract within the church's marriage requirements or enter into a private contract naming whomever as the beneficiary of life insurance, heir to their possessions, denote anyone as their next of kin for medical emergencies, appoint anyone with the power-of-attorney. What is missing? Redefining a word to suit a minority within a minority's attempt to poke a hornets nest? That is just silly, considering the important rights and privileges afforded to ANY contract would apply to any two men, two woman and a man, three men and four women, etc. (but maybe not a man and his favorite goat).
Funny nobody said WORD ONE about getting the government out of it until it looked likely that Same Sex Marriage would be legalized. Not. One. Word.
In basic terms, government grants specified religious officials the authority to fulfil part of the legal process of marriage. There is obviously going to be some government involvement, if only regarding record keeping and any legal disputes. Obviously it would be possible to eliminate all government involvement in marriage at all but if there were only religious marriages, no law would be able to differentiate on the basis of them in any way as that would be religious discriminate in general and in breach of your First Amendment in particular. I think the argument is the wrong way around to be honest. It shouldn't be about getting government out of legal marriage but getting religion out of it. If we had a system where the legal recognition of the union was an entirely secular, administrative process, couples would then be free to hold whatever service, ceremony or celebration they wanted, religious or otherwise. Any religious ceremonies would also them be entirely private affairs which should allow them to be restricted on whatever religious principles the organisation in question wishes.
Good point. Maybe the better solution would be to get Religeon out of marriage. With a fifty percent divorce rate it is pretty clear to me that morals and morality are becoming increasingly irrelevant in the conduct of marriage.
common law marriage. To the extent that people insist the government recognize marriage, the only viable solution is to only recognize common law marriage. Make people earn their marriage by being together for a period of time instead of a weekend in Vegas.
Record keeping can be done by the church or the agency that witnessed the contract. Legal disputes can be handled like any other legal dispute, in civil courts. Marriage began as a religious contract. What is wrong with instead, a simple contract spelling out another individual or group as the beneficiary, etc.? I know it won't be a poke in the eye to the traditionalists, but it accomplishes the end goal.
Government bestows married couples with favorable tax advantages, amongst other rights and privileges. As long as they do that, they will need to maintain some 'civil union' functionality to determine who is entitled to the perks. In my opinion, government should treat us all as equal individuals. Handle civil unions as contracts between consenting individuals. Under this method, any person could designate any other person, with their consent, as his 'significant other' for purposes of intestate succession, power of attorney, etc. Let the church figure out who they will marry, and the conditions under which they can marry. This way, any couple can still 'marry' at the courthouse for purposes of legal status, and religious folks can still 'marry' at the church to keep from going to hell and to meet with the expectations of their peers. Marriage, at the church, would convey no legal standing, just as marriage at the courthouse would infer no deity's blessing. Simple.
