Marriage as a legal contract

amcolph

Posts: 13,344

May 26, 2012 -- 9:58AM, TENAC wrote:

May 26, 2012 -- 9:29AM, amcolph wrote:

May 26, 2012 -- 9:24AM, TENAC wrote:

Thanks for the post.

You realize lgbt will oppose that, but I am with you (dont adjust your eye wear). I can live with those definitions, I think.

Any two (for the time being) non-consanginous adults

Why for the time being? Do you see a point in time where relatives may intermarry?

No, I see a point, perhaps, where more than two people may form civil households.

Once again, this is not about marriage. In my opinion, the state cannot perform marriages--only certify civil unions.

Could you go to a church and have a civil union?

You would have to go to church of you wanted to be married. If you wanted a civil union you would have to apply to the state for it. If you wanted both you would have to go both places.

Under my definition, marriage of itself would confer no legal rights or privileges, only moral and religious ones. The legal rights and privileges would stem from the civil union.

For most people, both the church and the state play a role in what we now call 'marriage' anyway. But to my mind, the role that the state now plays in 'marriage' constitutes the sort of thing that the courts have deemed 'excessive entanglement.'

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.

amcolph

Posts: 13,344

May 26, 2012 -- 9:57AM, TENAC wrote:

Ok, I see the logic here. Two women who lost their husbands and in their old age form a civil household, for whatever reason.

Excellent post.

Exactly.

I see no reason that a civil union should necessarily require or imply a sexual relationship.

That would be up to the parties involved, and if their religious sentiments required that they be married to engage in one, they are free to go to their church for it.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.

amcolph

Posts: 13,344

May 26, 2012 -- 9:48AM, Ed.W wrote:

That's why I was confused. The state has never performed a marriage nor a church for that matter. The state licenses it, the church solemnizes it, but the couple makes the sacramental vows to each other.

I agree, with the cavil that the state has no business licensing 'marriage' but only civil unions.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.

amcolph

Posts: 13,344

May 26, 2012 -- 9:52AM, TENAC wrote:

Sign a poa. Could be included in legislated civil unions automatically just as it is in marriage.

Its not about rights.

The point has been made here by better legal minds than either of ours that there are no present arrangements--including civil unions--that provide all of the legal privileges and obligations now attendent on 'marriage.'

What my definition attempts to do is to get the state out of the marriage business altogether. Nobody should be married by the state, heterosexual or not.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.

Ed.W

Posts: 9,067

May 26, 2012 -- 10:19AM, amcolph wrote:

May 26, 2012 -- 9:48AM, Ed.W wrote:

That's why I was confused. The state has never performed a marriage nor a church for that matter. The state licenses it, the church solemnizes it, but the couple makes the sacramental vows to each other.

I agree, with the cavil that the state has no business licensing 'marriage' but only civil unions.

I don't see any reason why the state would have an interest in licensing a civil union at all. If no children can come of the union then there is no interest.

Discretion is the better part of valor.

Roodog

Posts: 9,732

May 26, 2012 -- 10:33AM, Ed.W wrote:

May 26, 2012 -- 10:19AM, amcolph wrote:

May 26, 2012 -- 9:48AM, Ed.W wrote:

That's why I was confused. The state has never performed a marriage nor a church for that matter. The state licenses it, the church solemnizes it, but the couple makes the sacramental vows to each other.

I agree, with the cavil that the state has no business licensing 'marriage' but only civil unions.

I don't see any reason why the state would have an interest in licensing a civil union at all. If no children can come of the union then there is no interest.

Ed,

There are civil matters involved with marriage such as inheritance, child support, and division of property during a divorce. In fact, if there was no civil element in marriage, the wronged party would have no redress if his her partner was unfaithful because there would be no divorce.

And unbelievers would not be able to get married.

For those who have faith, no explanation is neccessary.
For those who have no faith, no explanation is possible.

St. Thomas Aquinas

If one turns his ear from hearing the Law, even his prayer is an abomination. Proverbs 28:9

amcolph

Posts: 13,344

May 26, 2012 -- 10:33AM, Ed.W wrote:

May 26, 2012 -- 10:19AM, amcolph wrote:

May 26, 2012 -- 9:48AM, Ed.W wrote:

That's why I was confused. The state has never performed a marriage nor a church for that matter. The state licenses it, the church solemnizes it, but the couple makes the sacramental vows to each other.

I agree, with the cavil that the state has no business licensing 'marriage' but only civil unions.

I don't see any reason why the state would have an interest in licensing a civil union at all. If no children can come of the union then there is no interest.

What about the other legal aspects--visitation, surviviorship, etc.? What about non-religious heterosexuals who intend to produce children or SS couples who intend to adopt?

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.

TENAC

Posts: 20,528

Poa would take care of it.

Any man can count the seeds in an apple....
.......but only God can count the apples in the seeds.

amcolph

Posts: 13,344

May 26, 2012 -- 11:09AM, TENAC wrote:
Poa would take care of it.

I don't know that. As I said before, better legal minds than ours have opined that it would not.

In any case, what's wrong with civil unions for the purpose? There is no reason that any couple, gay or straight, should require more than that from the state.

It appears that you want more from the state for heterosexual couples than for SS couples--or for anybody else who wants to form a statutory household.

I don't think the state has it to give. If you want more you will have to go to God for it.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.

Find1Answer

Posts: 6,292

May 26, 2012 -- 11:09AM, TENAC wrote:
Poa would take care of it.

Civil unions convey 350 give or take rights as opposed to the over 1300 civil marriage conveys. POA do not come close to covering everything which is the reason civil unions came to play. Why should one class of citizens have to pay an attorney an exorbinate fee to write an instrument that cannot even begin to address the rights that civil marriage conveys? DOMA guts civil unions in many instances. Is it because you think that gays are second class citizens? because you conflate your idea of traditional religious marriage with the concept of civil marriage? Why reinvent the wheel because you think that some citizens are second class. Gays are not felons, pedophiles, bestiality followers nor polygymists or incestuous players like Ed keeps bringing into the picture. hetero white guys are the predominate demographic there.

Keep your religion out of civil affairs.

and for further clarification I am not protecting Obama and blaming Bush. The entire political process is nothing more than a boondoggle and pay for play. Not only has it been going on for a long time but has achieved epic levels and will get worse with each succeeding presidency.

Beliefnet On Facebook

What's Hot