Originally posted by rwingettTo me, "official recognition" is completely synonymous
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.
with "government recognition." And I don't think
it is necessary. Further, doing away with it would
resolve a lot of problems.
You seem to have an alternate notion of "official."
If a husband and wife acknowledge that they are
married, is that official? What if they and their
friends and family do? How about if their church's
congregation does? Do you call those official?
I don't.
Dr. Cribs
Originally posted by CribsAs I understand it, marraige is made official either by a religious official pronouncing the bride and groom to be man and wife, or by a governmental official doing it. There is always one or the other. A couple are not entitled to pronounce themselves man and wife.
To me, "official recognition" is completely synonymous
with "government recognition." And I don't think
it is necessary. Further, doing away with it would
resolve a lot of problems.
You seem to have an alternate notion of "official."
If a husband and wife acknowledge that they are
married, is that official? What if they and their
friends a ...[text shortened]... out if their church's
congregation does? Do you call those official?
I don't.
Dr. Cribs
If you remove the option of having a government official preside over a wedding, you will only be left with a religious alternative. Am I mistaken in this?
2 edits
Originally posted by rwingettYou are mistaken in your interpretaion of my proposal.
As I understand it, marraige is made official either by a religious official pronouncing the bride and groom to be man and wife, or by a governmental official doing it. There is always one or the other. A couple are not entitled to pronoun ...[text shortened]... only be left with a religious alternative. Am I mistaken in this?
There would no longer be a religious alternative in the government's
eyes.
The priest could bang on the courthouse door all night long
screaming at the top of his lungs "I just married these people"
and under my proposal, the government would completely
ignore him. In essence, the legal notion of marriage would
completely vanish.
Dr. Cribs
3 edits
Originally posted by rwingettBy the way, currently, this is not sufficient.
As I understand it, marraige is made official either by a religious official pronouncing the bride and groom to be man and wife
A government-issued license is currently
required, even for a religious ceremony to
be official.
So even currently, there is no religious alternative
as you claim.
Dr. Cribs
I think two of the most important reasons for getting married are to have unamiguous legal rights to care for children and for each other in case of illness. There are also good reasons for health insurance. I am married, in part for these reasons, in part because it makes life a little easier socially. How else do you register except through the government?
As far a commitment goes, paper doesn't add to it, and neither does a wedding. But for me, children do.
Here in the S.F. Bay Area, there is much talk of civil unions and gay marriage. It seems to me that the state should get out of the marriage business, but it should record civil unions, and leave the religious aspects of marriage to churches. I would be just as happy to have such a civil union or registration (instead of a marriage) in order to get the same legal and insurance benefits.
2 edits
Originally posted by CribsRadical thinking there Cribs.
You are mistaken in your interpretaion of my proposal.
There would no longer be a religious alternative in the government's
eyes.
The priest could bang on the courthouse door all night long
screaming at the top of his lungs "I just ma ...[text shortened]... legal notion of marriage would
completely vanish.
Dr. Cribs
I think government approved weddings is just a way of tying up loose ends. It makes it easier to control poeple - for instance, children are supported by the mother's husband and if one of the two are unemployed, the other provides support. Sure you can get the same result with common law or de facto marriages but you have to find out who is sleeping with whom and where those children really come from. Much easier if people declare it up front.
On a related topic - if a man marries a single mother, he has becone her husband and has to support her and the child. A lesbian lover does not . Fair?
1 edit
Originally posted by CribsWould you also do away with the legal recognition of marriage?
To me, "official recognition" is completely synonymous
with "government recognition." And I don't think
it is necessary. Further, doing away with it would
resolve a lot of problems.
You seem to have an alternate notion of "offi ...[text shortened]... gation does? Do you call those official?
I don't.
Dr. Cribs
It's all very well doing away with the piece of paper that explains why you are unrelated but have the same surname.
DNA testing does away with the concerns over children, the father (husband or no) is the one held responsible.
However that doesn't deal with the commitment between these two people. Common law marriage is nice and simple, but very ambiguous. Without legally declaring the relationship it's open to fraud and gross misinterpretation.
How about pre-nuptials? without marriage they wouldn't exist, pre-common-law-relationship contracts not only sounds terrible, but would probably also be open to fraud and gross misinterpretation.
I'm all for the concept of never sharing property with anyone, but practically speaking, two long term partners are going to have a hard time distinguishing between each other's property...fuel for even bigger fights than you already get for divorces methinks...
Although I fully understand your reasons for wanting the government out of the marriage business, I'd like to hear what the benefits of doing so are going to be...so far I can only see consequences.
MÅ¥HÅRM
Originally posted by pradtfYour story of your wedding only confirms my core belief about the ritual of a wedding: it should be an ordeal with meaning.
well that's the interesting thing about it.
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 kno ...[text shortened]... ut of having to go to a party!
and we all live happily ever after ...
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by CribsSay a little bit more about your lifelong commitment and how you might put that into vows. My wife and I wrote our own vows as well as the ceremony. I also picked out the music and we had no involvement from our parents on how the cremony should be. I think that made it more meaningful to us. It was our statement about us to them.
Here's what I mean. I currently live with my fiancee,
and I have for almost two years. We could simply continue
to do this for our entire lives, and the government would
never step in and say, "Hey Cribs, sometime you're going
to have to make it official." We could also have a private
ceremony to make a lifelong commitment to each
other before our ...[text shortened]... ing convenience for probate court?
What is the government getting out of the deal?
Dr. Cribs
1 edit
Originally posted by kirksey957I haven't really composed my vows yet, so I can't
Say a little bit more about your lifelong commitment and how you might put that into vows. My wife and I wrote our own vows as well as the ceremony. I also picked out the music and we had no involvement from our parents on how the crem ...[text shortened]... it more meaningful to us. It was our statement about us to them.
transcribe them here. But functionally, they will
be a statement from us to them, as yours were,
about whatever promises we wish to make to each
other regarding how we will live our lives as a unit,
and not a petition to the government to bless
our union.
Dr. Cribs