Amendment 1 in North Carolina
Replies
-
[...]And the benefits extended to those who are married are mostly a regulatory, "state" issue. Homosexuals are fighting for the right to see their loved ones in a hospital. To be able to file taxes jointly. To have fair access to each others health benefits, etc. That's what they want.
They're not demanding the church recognize their marriages, just the state. They aren't demanding church weddings presided by a priest or rabbi. YES some of that is happening within respective faiths, but that's not what any of this legislation is about. It is simply an issue of equality.
It's why I support the state getting out of the marriage business. It isn't something the government needs to encourage with tax breaks or anything. People don't get married for that reason.
I agree for the most part. The whole reason of the marriage license is to grant benefits and provide protection for both parties. Who else would issue this, though, (and be a third-party arbiter) besides state or federal government? Joe Blow's discount marriage license company?
what if we did away with marriage licenses altogether and make it a contract? You go to a lawyer with your prospective spouse, the two of you negotiate the terms of the contract, and both of you sign it. Ta-DAAAAAA you're legally married. Now if you want a wedding, go have one. If you don't, no need for a trip to the courthouse or anything else.
If either of you violate the terms of the contract you signed, then you may file a lawsuit for divorce. Just like any other contract, you must be a consenting adult to enter into it.
Thoughts? Protests?
I think this solves the problem elegantly. Gets the government out of it, and still provides for a way to track who has entered into a legal marriage contract and who hasn't. Just like if you create a corporation, you go to a lawyer and they register the proper paperwork with your state, the lawyer who draws up your marriage contract would file it with the state.
That only works if you tell the clergy of every religion in America that they have no authority to marry anyone, that only legal marriage contracts are recognized by the government. That will not go over well.
A marriage isn't recognised unless there is a marriage certificate anyway (issued by a civil legal entity - the state, the federal government, the city council/town hall, depending where you are!) , unless you have very different rules in America? In most countries a religious ceremony alone is not legally recognised without the legally-required piece of paper, and can't take place without the civilly-issued marriage license anyway, so what's the difference?0 -
It doesn't really matter. The history of Gay Marriage voting proves that.
It passed. It will be appealed.
If it had not passed, it would have been appealed.
The democratic process of voting means little to the losing side. They will gather up their forces and start again. And, if Gay marriage passes next time, the losing side will appeal, and so on, and so on.
Personally, I'm sorry it didn't pass, but it really doesn't affect me. It's not likely to be resolved in the next few decades.0 -
[...]And the benefits extended to those who are married are mostly a regulatory, "state" issue. Homosexuals are fighting for the right to see their loved ones in a hospital. To be able to file taxes jointly. To have fair access to each others health benefits, etc. That's what they want.
They're not demanding the church recognize their marriages, just the state. They aren't demanding church weddings presided by a priest or rabbi. YES some of that is happening within respective faiths, but that's not what any of this legislation is about. It is simply an issue of equality.
It's why I support the state getting out of the marriage business. It isn't something the government needs to encourage with tax breaks or anything. People don't get married for that reason.
I agree for the most part. The whole reason of the marriage license is to grant benefits and provide protection for both parties. Who else would issue this, though, (and be a third-party arbiter) besides state or federal government? Joe Blow's discount marriage license company?
what if we did away with marriage licenses altogether and make it a contract? You go to a lawyer with your prospective spouse, the two of you negotiate the terms of the contract, and both of you sign it. Ta-DAAAAAA you're legally married. Now if you want a wedding, go have one. If you don't, no need for a trip to the courthouse or anything else.
If either of you violate the terms of the contract you signed, then you may file a lawsuit for divorce. Just like any other contract, you must be a consenting adult to enter into it.
Thoughts? Protests?
I think this solves the problem elegantly. Gets the government out of it, and still provides for a way to track who has entered into a legal marriage contract and who hasn't. Just like if you create a corporation, you go to a lawyer and they register the proper paperwork with your state, the lawyer who draws up your marriage contract would file it with the state.
That would make it a bit more expensive, which might help lessen the failed marriages, not that I really care about that.
As for the religious having to have their say, the church can always say to their members that they have to have a ceremony and classes (that has to be paid for) in order for the church to recognize their union. Being good church members you'd have to do that as to not look like you were living in sin in the eyes of god.0 -
[...]And the benefits extended to those who are married are mostly a regulatory, "state" issue. Homosexuals are fighting for the right to see their loved ones in a hospital. To be able to file taxes jointly. To have fair access to each others health benefits, etc. That's what they want.
They're not demanding the church recognize their marriages, just the state. They aren't demanding church weddings presided by a priest or rabbi. YES some of that is happening within respective faiths, but that's not what any of this legislation is about. It is simply an issue of equality.
It's why I support the state getting out of the marriage business. It isn't something the government needs to encourage with tax breaks or anything. People don't get married for that reason.
I agree for the most part. The whole reason of the marriage license is to grant benefits and provide protection for both parties. Who else would issue this, though, (and be a third-party arbiter) besides state or federal government? Joe Blow's discount marriage license company?
what if we did away with marriage licenses altogether and make it a contract? You go to a lawyer with your prospective spouse, the two of you negotiate the terms of the contract, and both of you sign it. Ta-DAAAAAA you're legally married. Now if you want a wedding, go have one. If you don't, no need for a trip to the courthouse or anything else.
If either of you violate the terms of the contract you signed, then you may file a lawsuit for divorce. Just like any other contract, you must be a consenting adult to enter into it.
Thoughts? Protests?
I think this solves the problem elegantly. Gets the government out of it, and still provides for a way to track who has entered into a legal marriage contract and who hasn't. Just like if you create a corporation, you go to a lawyer and they register the proper paperwork with your state, the lawyer who draws up your marriage contract would file it with the state.
That would make it a bit more expensive, which might help lessen the failed marriages, not that I really care about that.
As for the religious having to have their say, the church can always say to their members that they have to have a ceremony and classes (that has to be paid for) in order for the church to recognize their union. Being good church members you'd have to do that as to not look like you were living in sin in the eyes of god.
Still won't go over with religions. One of their big magical voodoo powers is taking two people and making a new, holy union sacred unto the great spaghetti monster in the sky. They want that power recognized, no matter what form His Noodlieness takes in their particular doctrine.
Can you see them letting anyone tell them that their ceremony is not valid?0 -
I'm not getting your point. What is your problem with the Holy Sacrament of marriage in the Church? It often happens that marriages in churches are not valid for various reasons. Please, help me understand what you're saying here.Still won't go over with religions. One of their big magical voodoo powers is taking two people and making a new, holy union sacred unto the great spaghetti monster in the sky. They want that power recognized, no matter what form His Noodlieness takes in their particular doctrine.
Can you see them letting anyone tell them that their ceremony is not valid?0 -
[...]And the benefits extended to those who are married are mostly a regulatory, "state" issue. Homosexuals are fighting for the right to see their loved ones in a hospital. To be able to file taxes jointly. To have fair access to each others health benefits, etc. That's what they want.
They're not demanding the church recognize their marriages, just the state. They aren't demanding church weddings presided by a priest or rabbi. YES some of that is happening within respective faiths, but that's not what any of this legislation is about. It is simply an issue of equality.
It's why I support the state getting out of the marriage business. It isn't something the government needs to encourage with tax breaks or anything. People don't get married for that reason.
I agree for the most part. The whole reason of the marriage license is to grant benefits and provide protection for both parties. Who else would issue this, though, (and be a third-party arbiter) besides state or federal government? Joe Blow's discount marriage license company?
what if we did away with marriage licenses altogether and make it a contract? You go to a lawyer with your prospective spouse, the two of you negotiate the terms of the contract, and both of you sign it. Ta-DAAAAAA you're legally married. Now if you want a wedding, go have one. If you don't, no need for a trip to the courthouse or anything else.
If either of you violate the terms of the contract you signed, then you may file a lawsuit for divorce. Just like any other contract, you must be a consenting adult to enter into it.
Thoughts? Protests?
I think this solves the problem elegantly. Gets the government out of it, and still provides for a way to track who has entered into a legal marriage contract and who hasn't. Just like if you create a corporation, you go to a lawyer and they register the proper paperwork with your state, the lawyer who draws up your marriage contract would file it with the state.
That would make it a bit more expensive, which might help lessen the failed marriages, not that I really care about that.
As for the religious having to have their say, the church can always say to their members that they have to have a ceremony and classes (that has to be paid for) in order for the church to recognize their union. Being good church members you'd have to do that as to not look like you were living in sin in the eyes of god.
Still won't go over with religions. One of their big magical voodoo powers is taking two people and making a new, holy union sacred unto the great spaghetti monster in the sky. They want that power recognized, no matter what form His Noodlieness takes in their particular doctrine.
Can you see them letting anyone tell them that their ceremony is not valid?
I refer to my post above when I point out that a religious ceremony alone is not a legally valid/recognised 'marriage' in most countries without a civil, legal component as well. What is often forgotten in this debate is that regardless of where the ceremony takes place, all marriages in most western countries have a civil component - the 'legal' bit; a licence, a marriage certificate, the requirement to register the marriage with the government or a civil body - and SOME have a religious component as well. You can 'get married' in every church/temple/synagogue/mosque in town, but legally, you aren't married unless you have fulfilled whatever civil/governmental regulations are in force in your place of residence. When you sign the register in church? That's the civil component right there. When you apply for your license, when you are given your marriage certificate, those are the legal requirements for a marriage to be declared valid. In purely legal terms, members of the clergy can only declare people married in the eyes of the church, not in the eyes of the government, which is essentially what homosexual couples are asking for - to have their marriages recognised as such in the legal sense, in terms of access to spouses, shared taxes etc.0 -
[...]And the benefits extended to those who are married are mostly a regulatory, "state" issue. Homosexuals are fighting for the right to see their loved ones in a hospital. To be able to file taxes jointly. To have fair access to each others health benefits, etc. That's what they want.
They're not demanding the church recognize their marriages, just the state. They aren't demanding church weddings presided by a priest or rabbi. YES some of that is happening within respective faiths, but that's not what any of this legislation is about. It is simply an issue of equality.
It's why I support the state getting out of the marriage business. It isn't something the government needs to encourage with tax breaks or anything. People don't get married for that reason.
I agree for the most part. The whole reason of the marriage license is to grant benefits and provide protection for both parties. Who else would issue this, though, (and be a third-party arbiter) besides state or federal government? Joe Blow's discount marriage license company?
what if we did away with marriage licenses altogether and make it a contract? You go to a lawyer with your prospective spouse, the two of you negotiate the terms of the contract, and both of you sign it. Ta-DAAAAAA you're legally married. Now if you want a wedding, go have one. If you don't, no need for a trip to the courthouse or anything else.
If either of you violate the terms of the contract you signed, then you may file a lawsuit for divorce. Just like any other contract, you must be a consenting adult to enter into it.
Thoughts? Protests?
I think this solves the problem elegantly. Gets the government out of it, and still provides for a way to track who has entered into a legal marriage contract and who hasn't. Just like if you create a corporation, you go to a lawyer and they register the proper paperwork with your state, the lawyer who draws up your marriage contract would file it with the state.
That would make it a bit more expensive, which might help lessen the failed marriages, not that I really care about that.
As for the religious having to have their say, the church can always say to their members that they have to have a ceremony and classes (that has to be paid for) in order for the church to recognize their union. Being good church members you'd have to do that as to not look like you were living in sin in the eyes of god.
Still won't go over with religions. One of their big magical voodoo powers is taking two people and making a new, holy union sacred unto the great spaghetti monster in the sky. They want that power recognized, no matter what form His Noodlieness takes in their particular doctrine.
Can you see them letting anyone tell them that their ceremony is not valid?
Actually, I kind of can. No one would be saying their ceremony isn't valid. The church would be saying they don't recognize a marriage to be valid unless a ceremony is performed there. To me it's similar to the Catholic church requiring an annulment (sp?) in order for someone to get remarried there. They don't recognize that the first marriage is no longer valid until that point. *disclaimer - my knowledge of this is pretty limited. I have no idea if all Catholic churches are this way or if it's changed since I had a friend go through it.*0 -
You are correct on the annulment statement.Actually, I kind of can. No one would be saying their ceremony isn't valid. The church would be saying they don't recognize a marriage to be valid unless a ceremony is performed there. To me it's similar to the Catholic church requiring an annulment (sp?) in order for someone to get remarried there. They don't recognize that the first marriage is no longer valid until that point. *disclaimer - my knowledge of this is pretty limited. I have no idea if all Catholic churches are this way or if it's changed since I had a friend go through it.*0 -
I am not saying I have a problem with only civil marriage ceremonies. I am trying to respond to this partwhat if we did away with marriage licenses altogether and make it a contract? You go to a lawyer with your prospective spouse, the two of you negotiate the terms of the contract, and both of you sign it. Ta-DAAAAAA you're legally married. Now if you want a wedding, go have one. If you don't, no need for a trip to the courthouse or anything else.
of a post that asks if we should A) change marriage licenses into marriage contracts and
cut churches out of the marriage process for all official legal purposes.
Cutting churches out of the legal process of marriage entirely will lead to more religious outrage than the thought that consenting adults can have a life with whoever they want.
Right now you have to have a marriage license to get married, but the license isn't complete until a qualified person performs the ceremony, be that person secular or ordained. To say that a religious official will not be legally recognized for what is one of its traditional magical and social powers attacks almost every religion's creed and threatens their power.
I mean what next, churches have to pay property tax to pay off the USA's national debt?0 -
Cutting churches out of the legal process of marriage entirely will lead to more religious outrage than the thought that consenting adults can have a life with whoever they want.
We've already done this. That's the way things are currently. You need a marriage certificate, issued by the state. But you need no religious ceremony to be considered married. I can't see the church getting that upset over something that is current policy.
Example: People getting married at the courthouse or in Vegas. No church involvement. Still recognized as a legally married couple.0 -
Cutting churches out of the legal process of marriage entirely will lead to more religious outrage than the thought that consenting adults can have a life with whoever they want.
We've already done this. That's the way things are currently. You need a marriage certificate, issued by the state. But you need no religious ceremony to be considered married. I can't see the church getting that upset over something that is current policy.
Example: People getting married at the courthouse or in Vegas. No church involvement. Still recognized as a legally married couple.
Yes, but saying Elvis can legally marry you isn't the same thing as saying Reverand Bob can't legally marry you. None of the gay marriage legislation is forcing churches to marry gay couples, it just says that gay couples can be married. Do you really expect religion to be anything other than petty with that as the starting point?0 -
I am not saying I have a problem with only civil marriage ceremonies. I am trying to respond to this partwhat if we did away with marriage licenses altogether and make it a contract? You go to a lawyer with your prospective spouse, the two of you negotiate the terms of the contract, and both of you sign it. Ta-DAAAAAA you're legally married. Now if you want a wedding, go have one. If you don't, no need for a trip to the courthouse or anything else.
of a post that asks if we should A) change marriage licenses into marriage contracts and cut churches out of the marriage process for all official legal purposes.
Cutting churches out of the legal process of marriage entirely will lead to more religious outrage than the thought that consenting adults can have a life with whoever they want.
Right now you have to have a marriage license to get married, but the license isn't complete until a qualified person performs the ceremony, be that person secular or ordained. To say that a religious official will not be legally recognized for what is one of its traditional magical and social powers attacks almost every religion's creed and threatens their power.
I mean what next, churches have to pay property tax to pay off the USA's national debt?
We already had the "tax the churches" debate. I'm all for it, but I recognize the impracticality.
The way I understand it, it's the signing of the license that constitutes the legal marriage, not the ceremony itself. At least it's that way in Ohio. My first wife was Jewish and we decided on a Jewish ceremony (since I didn't care one way or the other). We didn't care to do a lot of advance planning, so we set the date about 5 weeks after the decision. That meant that invitations were sent out before we spoke to the rabbi. When we mentioned the date was on a Saturday, he said he couldn't do "work" on the Sabbath (he was a liberal, Reform rabbi, but even he couldn't go that far).
After we had our panic attack, we discussed alternatives. He said the problem wasn't performing the ceremony, but signing the license. Signing the license was a legal act, and thus constituted "work". Officiating the ceremony was just having a party, and that was fine. It was an interesting distinction that even my wife was not aware of.
So we had a small ceremony Friday night before sundown and he signed the license, and then the larger ceremony with all the people the next day. The only problem was wondering which date to use for our anniversary.0 -
I am not saying I have a problem with only civil marriage ceremonies. I am trying to respond to this partwhat if we did away with marriage licenses altogether and make it a contract? You go to a lawyer with your prospective spouse, the two of you negotiate the terms of the contract, and both of you sign it. Ta-DAAAAAA you're legally married. Now if you want a wedding, go have one. If you don't, no need for a trip to the courthouse or anything else.
of a post that asks if we should A) change marriage licenses into marriage contracts and cut churches out of the marriage process for all official legal purposes.
Cutting churches out of the legal process of marriage entirely will lead to more religious outrage than the thought that consenting adults can have a life with whoever they want.
Right now you have to have a marriage license to get married, but the license isn't complete until a qualified person performs the ceremony, be that person secular or ordained. To say that a religious official will not be legally recognized for what is one of its traditional magical and social powers attacks almost every religion's creed and threatens their power.
I mean what next, churches have to pay property tax to pay off the USA's national debt?
I'm simply suggesting that the ceremony is only necessary for those who want one. If all you want is to legally join with another person, it is just a legal matter. So a lawyer can draw up the contract, and you're done, if you want to be done. You don't need to have a ceremony if you don't want one. But if you want to have one, go have one.
This way, the government doesn't have to sanction (or not) anyone's relationship, and the churches are still free to decide who they want to perform marriage ceremonies for.
Someone mentioned cost. I only know the costs in Nevada, a marriage license was $55. In the scenario I proposed, I imagine that lawyers would offer a basic no-frills marriage contract for a similar basic fee. You can create a corporation for only $99, and that involves a lot more paperwork and effort than a marriage contract would. If you want a more detailed contract, a customized one, I imagine it would be worth it to you to pay a bit more, just like people who draw up a prenup.0 -
....
How can you have a legal contract that isn't sanctioned by the government?0 -
I guess the word sanctioned isn't right. How about: a legal contract that isn't issued by the government.
Just like a corporation, or an LLC. You don't need the government's blessing to incorporate, you just go to a lawyer, make sure the name is available, and file the necessary paperwork. Then, poof! You have a corporation.0 -
The government has laws that define what a corporation and LLC are. Legal contracts follow laws which are formed in the government.
Laws do not come form a magical fairy land devoid of government. Laws ARE government.0 -
The key is the "file the necessary paperwork" part. When you "File the paperwork", you don't file it in your sock drawer, you file it with the court. The court's part of the government. I can't "file the paperwork" to marry my guitar,,, the court won't take it, it's not a legal marriage. They'll only accept and recognize paperwork and contracts that are legal.I guess the word sanctioned isn't right. How about: a legal contract that isn't issued by the government.
Just like a corporation, or an LLC. You don't need the government's blessing to incorporate, you just go to a lawyer, make sure the name is available, and file the necessary paperwork. Then, poof! You have a corporation.0 -
Nobody has a problem with the holy yada yada yada,,, I'm not married in the eyes of the Catholic church. I'm also not a licensed prospector in the state of Nevada. Both are profoundly irrelevent to me, and I do not need, want or desire either certification,
I'm not getting your point. What is your problem with the Holy Sacrament of marriage in the Church? It often happens that marriages in churches are not valid for various reasons. Please, help me understand what you're saying here.Still won't go over with religions. One of their big magical voodoo powers is taking two people and making a new, holy union sacred unto the great spaghetti monster in the sky. They want that power recognized, no matter what form His Noodlieness takes in their particular doctrine.
Can you see them letting anyone tell them that their ceremony is not valid?
I think what she was trying to say was that if we were to split the marriage apart into it's two halves, and have the (legally irrelevent) religious ceremony at the church,,, and the (legally binding) 'paper signing' at the courthouse, that would strip the churches of their current right to perform a 'legal' marriage, and they wouldn't be happy about it.
BTW - the 2 ceremony thing is very common in other countries. You can be religiously married if not legally,,, we Unitarian Universalist folks have been observing same sex "Commitment ceremonies" for eons,,, and 2 atheists can get legally married with no religious rites. And most couples do both, but they're 2 separate things.0 -
I'll bite here. Not sure how "gay men make money" is a good argument to support SSM. So, poor gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry? Not really a logical argument for me, anyway.- Gay men make money. It's a fact. People are more likely to settle down in a state, and spend money in a state, where their rights are fully recognized.
- SSM are overwhelmingly (so far) less susceptible to divorce. This is likely attributed to the fact that many SSM couples were living in a psuedo-marital relationship long before SSM and DP was legal.
Sure, this is not always the case, so I'll bring up "Brittney Spears 55 Hour Marriage" preemptively.
Regarding SSM being far less susceptible to divorce. Where are you getting statistics on this? I'm sure this is a low number because of the low number of legal, SSM ending in divorce compared to the high number of legal marriages between man and woman.
The Brittney Spears 55 Hour Marriage line is getting old.
Sorry, I had to log off and work.
I have no evidence for Gay Men Make Money, other than my own experience, so I'll drop it.
No SSM divorce records are kept in any state. In Massachusetts, the Family Law bar estimates less than 1% of the roughly 10,000 SSM performed in the last 8 years have ended in divorce. The California Bar Association Family Law Section estimates that number around 8% in CA where SSM was only legal for a short time. It's early still, but nationwide, 20% of hetero marriages end in divorce in the first 5 years. (For reference, MASS has had the lowest divorce rates in the country since 2007, around 20%; CA ranks very high at around 70%.)
I'll happily stop using the "Brittney Spears 55 Hour Marriage" line when SSM opponents stop with the "Sanctity of Marriage" line.0 -
Cutting churches out of the legal process of marriage entirely will lead to more religious outrage than the thought that consenting adults can have a life with whoever they want.
We've already done this. That's the way things are currently. You need a marriage certificate, issued by the state. But you need no religious ceremony to be considered married. I can't see the church getting that upset over something that is current policy.
Example: People getting married at the courthouse or in Vegas. No church involvement. Still recognized as a legally married couple.
Yes, but saying Elvis can legally marry you isn't the same thing as saying Reverand Bob can't legally marry you. None of the gay marriage legislation is forcing churches to marry gay couples, it just says that gay couples can be married. Do you really expect religion to be anything other than petty with that as the starting point?
Ok... Reverand Bob CAN'T legally marry you. A church wedding, of any denomination, is meaningless without a marriage license issued by the state.
I simply do not understand why you think "the church" (any and all of them) are going to be upset by something that is currently law and common accepted practice.0 -
One more try.
NOW: a couple has to go purchase a marriage license from a governmental entity in order to enter into a legally valid marriage. With the license, they have a ceremony performed by (someone: clergy, or a governmentally approved person). There are two steps, the obtaining of the license, and the ceremony itself.
The activity of issuing the license is one being carried out by a governmental agency. Issing the license to the couple implies approval, or at the very least, a lack of protest. Cousins can't have one.
WHAT I AM PROPOSING: a couple who desires to enter into a marriage goes to a lawyer. They both sign a marriage contract. If they are satisfied with the boiler-plate form, they use it. If they want a more customized agreement (like a prenup) then the lawyer draws up a contract that they both agree to, and upon signing it, they are now legally married. The lawyer files the paperwork to inform such entities as SS and IRS, but the couple is not required to do anything else, as they are legally married. If they want to have a wedding, in a church, on a beach, whatever, they can. They would show the contract to the person performing the ceremony to demonstrate their legal eligibility.
The activity of drawing up the contract is a private one in this scenario. Each couple is free to draw up a contract that suits them. Governmental agencies are notified of this after the fact.
This removes any agency or group from having to approve of anyone else's marriage. No church's opinion needs to be considered, no implied approval is needed because it is no longer a governmental agency issuing the licenses.
Does that clear up my proposed idea?0 -
Marriage isn't and wasn't primarily a religious practice.You're Christian, you oppose gay marriage and homosexuality in general. Got it. So what? Your religion has no influence on government policy and it DEFINITELY has no bearing on how I choose to live my life.
I think the issue there is that marriage is (or was) a religious practice. And I think there is a valid argument to be made that the government should not get involved at all in marriage. But there's no question that if the government *does* get involved (which it has), it must be equal for everyone, not just heterosexuals.
Interesting. Where do most weddings take place?
Depends on who you ask. Out of the last 10 weddings I've attended and the 4 I have this spring, 2 were in a church. I'm Christian and my own wedding wasn't even in a church. Marriage is about love but it's also a contract based on trust, partnership, and mutual shared beliefs. Sometimes it's also about religion, but not always.
If marriage was primarily a religious practice, we would all be paired off into marriages arranged by our priests and pastors, as they saw fit.0 -
It's really hard to keep up on this thread. But I am enjoying reading the different ideas on alternatives to defining marriage as a religious institution!0
-
One more try.
NOW: a couple has to go purchase a marriage license from a governmental entity in order to enter into a legally valid marriage. With the license, they have a ceremony performed by (someone: clergy, or a governmentally approved person). There are two steps, the obtaining of the license, and the ceremony itself.
The activity of issuing the license is one being carried out by a governmental agency. Issing the license to the couple implies approval, or at the very least, a lack of protest. Cousins can't have one.
WHAT I AM PROPOSING: a couple who desires to enter into a marriage goes to a lawyer. They both sign a marriage contract. If they are satisfied with the boiler-plate form, they use it. If they want a more customized agreement (like a prenup) then the lawyer draws up a contract that they both agree to, and upon signing it, they are now legally married. The lawyer files the paperwork to inform such entities as SS and IRS, but the couple is not required to do anything else, as they are legally married. If they want to have a wedding, in a church, on a beach, whatever, they can. They would show the contract to the person performing the ceremony to demonstrate their legal eligibility.
The activity of drawing up the contract is a private one in this scenario. Each couple is free to draw up a contract that suits them. Governmental agencies are notified of this after the fact.
This removes any agency or group from having to approve of anyone else's marriage. No church's opinion needs to be considered, no implied approval is needed because it is no longer a governmental agency issuing the licenses.
Does that clear up my proposed idea?
That clears it up. I was giving you too much credit in your original post.
This does not remove any agency from having to approve marriages, this steps it sideways and has the lawyers fill out a form that gets approved by several different government agencies in a very *kitten* backwards manner.
The IRS is still the government. Social security is still the government. The government is big, my friend. As-is, when I got married I had to take my marriage license around to--the SS office(new card), the Department of Public Safety (new driver's license) and several other places.
The license itself was a snap, posting it with every government agency the marriage affected took a month. I'm still luckier than my neighbors, who can't legally marry and have to have a folder the size of a phone book to carry all of the secondary legal documents they filed to get a fraction of the same rights. The churches around here still have a problem with people doing that.
I have absolutely no problem with separating legal and religious marriages with only legal marriages getting legal benefits. To state it once again, it would be harder to get the religions in America to give up the ability to wed people (as well as a1st Amendment law suit) than it is to get religious institutions to allow gay civil marriage.0 -
Cutting churches out of the legal process of marriage entirely will lead to more religious outrage than the thought that consenting adults can have a life with whoever they want.
We've already done this. That's the way things are currently. You need a marriage certificate, issued by the state. But you need no religious ceremony to be considered married. I can't see the church getting that upset over something that is current policy.
Example: People getting married at the courthouse or in Vegas. No church involvement. Still recognized as a legally married couple.
Yes, but saying Elvis can legally marry you isn't the same thing as saying Reverand Bob can't legally marry you. None of the gay marriage legislation is forcing churches to marry gay couples, it just says that gay couples can be married. Do you really expect religion to be anything other than petty with that as the starting point?
Ok... Reverand Bob CAN'T legally marry you. A church wedding, of any denomination, is meaningless without a marriage license issued by the state.
I simply do not understand why you think "the church" (any and all of them) are going to be upset by something that is currently law and common accepted practice.
Simply put, I live in the South. That's "let's put the 10 commandments in every courthouse," "well, I think they're Catholic, or Mormon... one of those non Christian religions" and "what do you mean, "'happy holidays'? It's Merry Christmas! You must hate God!" territory.
I also read the news, and realize that religious institutions are just that: institutions that make money, lobby the government, and hold onto every morsel of power that they have.0 -
To state it once again, it would be harder to get the religions in America to give up the ability to wed people (as well as a1st Amendment law suit) than it is to get religious institutions to allow gay civil marriage.
To state it for the last time, religious entites would not be giving up anything. People who want to have a religious ceremony now, have one. People who don't, don't.
In my proposed idea, DITTO.
No powers or abilities are being taken from any church.
I'm married. Even without a church, I managed to get myself into a legal marriage. And this would be the exact same in my proposed idea, except I would not have had to purchase a license from a governmental agency. My husband and I could have gone to a private (READ NOT GOVERNMENT) attorney to draw up the parameters of our marriage.
But then I wouldn't have a "Heart of Reno Wedding Chapel" bumper sticker.0 -
This does not remove any agency from having to approve marriages, this steps it sideways and has the lawyers fill out a form that gets approved by several different government agencies in a very *kitten* backwards manner.
what's *kitten* backwards here? No government agencies would be in the position to "approve" the marriage, they would simply be informed that it took place. Much as SS had to take a look at my documents to change my name, but they had no authority to approve/deny my marriage from taking place.
My contention is the issuing of licenses gives the idea that the government agency that issues them is endorsing or approving of this union, because if they don't (you're gay,you're related too closely, etc.) then you can't have one.
Under my proposed idea, there is no need for that endorsement/approval/consent, because the contract you entered into with the help of a private lawyer has parameters that only the partners of the marriage have to agree to. No outside entity would have the power to deny any marriage, since the terms of the contract would be applicable only to the parties who agreed to them.0 -
I'm married. Even without a church, I managed to get myself into a legal marriage. And this would be the exact same in my proposed idea, except I would not have had to purchase a license from a governmental agency. My husband and I could have gone to a private (READ NOT GOVERNMENT) attorney to draw up the parameters of our marriage.
Sorry, the government would still be involved because the lawyer would have to file the contract with the government and a lawyer would probably charge you more for a contract than the probate court did for your marriage license.0 -
Someone mentioned cost. I only know the costs in Nevada, a marriage license was $55. In the scenario I proposed, I imagine that lawyers would offer a basic no-frills marriage contract for a similar basic fee. You can create a corporation for only $99, and that involves a lot more paperwork and effort than a marriage contract would. If you want a more detailed contract, a customized one, I imagine it would be worth it to you to pay a bit more, just like people who draw up a prenup.
Figured quoting myself was way easier than typing it again. SInce you must have missed it the first time.0 -
This does not remove any agency from having to approve marriages, this steps it sideways and has the lawyers fill out a form that gets approved by several different government agencies in a very *kitten* backwards manner.
what's *kitten* backwards here? No government agencies would be in the position to "approve" the marriage, they would simply be informed that it took place. Much as SS had to take a look at my documents to change my name, but they had no authority to approve/deny my marriage from taking place.
My contention is the issuing of licenses gives the idea that the government agency that issues them is endorsing or approving of this union, because if they don't (you're gay,you're related too closely, etc.) then you can't have one.
Under my proposed idea, there is no need for that endorsement/approval/consent, because the contract you entered into with the help of a private lawyer has parameters that only the partners of the marriage have to agree to. No outside entity would have the power to deny any marriage, since the terms of the contract would be applicable only to the parties who agreed to them.
So are you saying any consenting adult could enter into the contract even if they are not in a romantic relationship? Cause i am ok with that!0
This discussion has been closed.