Originally posted by CribsThe only thing I can come up with , Cribs , is control. Marriage, by its very nature, is an arrangement in which there is a commitment that is "binding." I do not dispute that there are couples who live together who are very loving and committed to one another. While the goal of marriage is not to put someone in a relationship of "binds", it serves the purpose of creating obligations that I guess benefit the state in some ways. Married couples produce children who go to public school. Married couples make more money and pay more taxes. Married couples for the most part create a climate of stabiltiy. I know there is a "but" after everyone of these, but to get back to your question why the state is involved in marriage, I have long felt that this belongs in the category of "render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God." Marriage for me is something that belongs to the realm of the church. Now before Rob jumps all over me because he may be thinking that he has t lower himself to get married in an institution he doesn't believe in, I think that there should be civil ceremonies or some type of civil recognition for poeple like him that would provide him the same rights and protection as those who are married in a church, mosque or synogogue.
Now we're getting closer...
Why do you suppose the state prefers married couples to
non-married couples? Why would they want to give an
incentive for marriage?
Originally posted by kirksey957I fully agree. I think the government should get out of
I have long felt that this belongs in the category of "render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God." Marriage for me is something that belongs to the realm of the church.
the relationship business altogether.
Originally posted by CribsI think there is an element of control and manipulation, but I also think that it's about providing protection for each partner in the marriage. Just like the example of commonlaw marriages, by making it "legal" there are certain legal responsibilities that simply can't be enforced in a live-in situation.
And how does the state benefit? They must in some way,
or else they would not go to all the trouble of having common
law recognition and process.
Dr. Cribs
For example, Cribs, you said that you live with your fiancee. Let's just say you both share a bank account and have lots of furniture and goods. Let's say, playa that you are, you hook up with another fine piece of...er, um, rather, let's say you decide to break it off, and one day while your fiancee is at work, you take the money with you, the computer, and a few other things that weren't necessarily yours. Ms. Cribs-to-be doesn't have much in the way of protection, and at the very least, she has a long, long hard road to reach equal and fair treatment, given your headstart. Mrs. Cribs, however, does have legal protections and, if you tried to disappear, you are going to have to be on the run under an alias. If you stray on Mrs. Cribs, she can demand a fair part of what you collectively own. Ideally, it protects her (and you). (Does the process work well? Not really, but that's at least one of the premises of the marriage license/contract.)
Does the state really benefit directly from giving driver licenses? I don't think so. The system (albeit largely perfunctory) is there so that all people driving a car have a certain modicum of understanding about the responsibilities entailed. It means, if they act in violation of the responsibilities, there are consequences. So, too, with marriage licenses.
Here is are some clips from an article that might shed some light on why the government has historically been involved: (http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/6601927.htm?1c)
In earlier times, marriage contracts were often signed by the parents. Americans embraced the Enlightenment concept that the people getting married should also be required to give their consent, he said.
During most of the country's history, the marriage contract was more than just commitment between two people. It bound the husband to provide for the wife and children, and bound the wife to obey the husband. She gave up her name, her wealth, and some part of her status as an individual.
So at least historically, it was there to enforce that the man would provide for the woman. Now, I think, it's there to ensure that one can't easily screw the other out of their collective property.
Just a few thoughts. I am not sure how substantial they are, though.
Nemesio
P.S. As you might believe, there are more than a handful of pro- and con- "Defense of Marriage" sites out there if you search "History, Marriage, America." Good luck finding something a little more detailed than this article that doesn't try grinding their axe against your forehead.
Originally posted by kirksey957no way!!!
Marriage for me is something that belongs to the realm of the church.
i've been to church weddings - they take a long time and they make you wear a suit and stuff like that even when it's hot! and there are usually all these people who have been invited too.
i went to court to have the deed done. 5 minutes! that's all!
judge said a few things out of this book - bingo said we were married. he did it so well, i shook his hand and said we should have him next time we do this! no hassle no fuss didn't even have to dress up or anything. and you just need a couple of witnesses not entire armies of relatives.
keep churchs for praying - doesn't serve much purpose when it is too late anyway.
in friendship,
prad
2 edits
Originally posted by Paul Diracwell that's the interesting thing about it.
Did your parents or your in-laws (if in fact they were living) express any disappoint at not being there? Or if they were in fact present, were they disappointed in the lack of pomp and fanfare?
all 4 parents were there - and quite happy actually. but it wasn't so always.
this was supposed to have been an east indian wedding (they can go on for 20 days!).
now i can't stand parties, so one evening is bad enough, but 20 - i can't even formulate the equations for it, much less solve them (if you know what i mean, paul).
so i had this great spark of intuition! i suggested that instead of spending all this 'pomp and fanfare' on us, who already had everything and even each other (that's so touching is it not), why not give all that money to Mother Teresa's efforts. of course, my wife was delighted by this (and of course, i am never going to let on my real motivation for the idea).
however, the parents!! oh my god!!! it was like we had killed them (and who knows how many ancestors to boot)!!!
well, my wife's parents gradually started coming around and accepted it as not such a bad thing.
not my parents (particularly my mother). they were making a helluva racket for two people i had supposedly killed.
but as so often happens, providence came to my rescue in the form of my uncle of all people (since we rarely associated with him). he appeared out of the blue and said this was a remarkable thing - the first time anyone in the history of the family, as far as he had researched it, had gotten married wanting to give everything to charity. well, that was all it took - my mother saw the whole thing differently! so did the other 3 parents and the masses of relatives that would have shown up.
from murderous villain to hero overnight!
a lot of money was raised and i got out of having to go to a party!
and we all live happily ever after ...
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by pradtfI get your point and I will be the first to say that I loathe weddings as 1) they are incredibly expensive and 2) they are mostly to benefit the mother - in-laws. The whole climate of conformity is just sickening to me. I like funerals much better. as they are cheaper and quicker, but the food isn't as good though. Couples would be better off eloping and spending money on pre-marriage counseling.
no way!!!
i've been to church weddings - they take a long time and they make you wear a suit and stuff like that even when it's hot! and there are usually all these people who have been invited too.
i went to court to have the deed done. 5 minutes! that's all!
judge said a few things out of this book - bingo said we were married. he did it so well, i ...[text shortened]... s for praying - doesn't serve much purpose when it is too late anyway.
in friendship,
prad
The only advantage I can see to these elaborate weddings is that they are so exhausting you know you don't want to go through it again so you better make this one work.
2 edits
Originally posted by rwingettUmm, I guess, if by civil ceremony you mean a
You've only answered half my question.
What arrangement do you then propose for couples who are repulsed by the prospect of a church wedding? You would deny them the option of a civil ceremony?
ceremony that is presided over and certified by
a government official.
But why do people cry out for the government's
recognition? Everybody is currently entitled to
have a gathering of their friends and family before
whom they can make whatever vows they wish.
For those with a religious persusion, this could be
done in a church. For those who like the outdoors,
this could be done in a park. For those who like
the ocean, this could be done on a beach.
The only change I am suggesting is that the government
no longer hands out marriage certificates, to anybody.
Originally posted by CribsShould the church be the only ones handing out marraige certificates, or do you think that marraige certificates should not be necessary at all?
Umm, I guess, if by civil ceremony you mean a
ceremony that is presided over and certified by
a government official.
But why do people cry out for the government's
recognition? Everybody is currently entitled to
have a gathering of their friends and family before
whom they can make whatever vows they wish.
For those with a religious persusion, this ...[text shortened]... I am suggesting is that the government
no longer hands out marriage certificates, to anybody.
Excuse me for invading your thread. It's just that I disagreed with what was going on over here. I don't have suspect motives. Sorry I can't clean up the mess.
AMERICA VS THE REST OF THE WORLD
Population:
America - 293M
Rest of the world - 6,092M
Land Area:
America - 9.2M sq km
Rest of the world - 139.5M sq km
Finance:
America - 32.9% and declining
Rest of the world - 67.1%
National ethics:
America - Highly questionable
Rest of the world - Worth considering
Originally posted by rwingettThe governemnt should no longer offer or recognize any marriage
Should the church be the only ones handing out marraige certificates, or do you think that marraige certificates should not be necessary at all?
certificates.
This is not to say that a couple cannot write their own symbolic
one, or have the church write one for them. The church issues
lots of documents that are not recognized by the government,
such as baptism records.
Think of it this way. The government gives no legal recognition
to boy and girlfriends. Extend that idea to married people. That's
really the entirety of what I'm proposing.
Dr. Cribs
Originally posted by CribsWhat do I care about baptism records? Baptisms can only exist within a church, since it is a purely religious function. If the church ceased to exist, baptisms would go with it. Marraiges, on the other hand, are perfectly capable of existing outside of church and religion. Unless all marraige certificates are deemed unnecessary and people begin performing their own weddings without a presiding official, then I demand the right to have my marraige recognized by a non-religious official. As long as marraige certificates are required, then I want the right to have a government official preside over my wedding.
The governemnt should no longer offer or recognize any marriage
certificates.
This is not to say that a couple cannot write their own symbolic
one, or have the church write one for them. The church issues
lots of documents that are not recognized by the government,
such as baptism records.
Think of it this way. The government gives no legal recogn ...[text shortened]... that idea to married people. That's
really the entirety of what I'm proposing.
Dr. Cribs
I am having difficulty telling whether you think just government recognition of weddings should be stopped, or whether you think there should be no official recognition of weddings of any kind, whether it be governmental or religious.