Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 18 Jul '15 23:13 / 1 edit
    http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/a-brief-history-of-marriage-licenses-in-the-us/blog-393357/

    As Pastor Trewhalla mentions, “George Washington was married without a
    marriage license.” This is true. In fact, before the middle of the
    nineteenth century, no license was required to marry at all. Then,
    horror of horrors, some people started wanting to marry interracially!
    What a concept! Miscegination up until that point had been totally
    illegal, then some states started to adopt marriage licenses - specifically
    for interracial couples. Meaning that, basically, anyone could get
    married… unless you had different skin colors. That, of course,
    required permission from the state.

    The reason any license throughout history has been
    instituted was so that it could be denied to some people. In the
    mid-1800s, this happened to be interracial couples. Then, in 1923, the
    “Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act” was passed by the federal
    government – 6 years later, marriage licenses were being distributed in
    every state to ALL people, not just interracial couples. Marriage had
    become a government institution.

    Let me say that again for clarity. Marriage licenses have only
    existed on any significant scale since 1929. No
    one in the US before that was required to have a marriage license in
    order to practice their fundamental right to marry.
  2. 18 Jul '15 23:18
    As we have seen in the abortion thread, Progs at the turn of the century were ardent racists. Margaret Sanger used the eugenics of abortion to try and quell the black population, and then the marriage license was created in order to try and stop interracial marriage.

    The mere presence of a marriage license inhibits some from marrying, so why have it at all? It's only a matter of who you wish to exclude. So will you exclude gays, polygamists or will you give married folk rights that single folk don't have?

    So if marriage was created by the state as a means to oppress blacks, then should the state now do away with it like they have the Confederate flag?

    Interestingly, Dims created both the Confederate flag and the state sponsored marriage license.

    Coincidence?
  3. 18 Jul '15 23:41
    Originally posted by whodey
    http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/a-brief-history-of-marriage-licenses-in-the-us/blog-393357/

    As Pastor Trewhalla mentions, “George Washington was married without a
    marriage license.” This is true. In fact, before the middle of the
    nineteenth century, no license was required to marry at all. Then,
    horror of horrors, some people started wanting ...[text shortened]... as required to have a marriage license in
    order to practice their fundamental right to marry.
    wow! this just blew my mind.


    you mean to tell me that people were doing something one way until they thought of another way to do it? tell me more, i am intrigued!
  4. 19 Jul '15 03:11
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    wow! this just blew my mind.


    you mean to tell me that people were doing something one way until they thought of another way to do it? tell me more, i am intrigued!
    Exactly what a person raised in a society totally dominated by the government would say.

    What can you expect from people who have never been free? These people have always had the government to tell them what to do and what to believe.
  5. 19 Jul '15 08:46
    Originally posted by whodey
    Let me say that again for clarity. Marriage licenses have only
    existed on any significant scale since 1929. No
    one in the US before that was required to have a marriage license in
    order to practice their fundamental right to marry.
    You also appear to be claiming that marriage licences were introduced with the sole intention of discrimination. Is that correct?
    If they were married without a marriage licence, what did that entail? What do you even mean by 'practice their fundamental right to marry'? Are you referring to some sort of Church service? The act of living together? What was the difference between a married couple and an unmarried couple living together?

    I think you will find that there is nothing stopping you getting married today without a marriage licence. It just won't be legally recognised.
  6. 19 Jul '15 09:51
    That's amazing, so in the 19th Century people were getting married without legal recognition. If only that option were still available today............
  7. 19 Jul '15 10:29 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    That's amazing, so in the 19th Century people were getting married without legal recognition. If only that option were still available today............
    Why do you reckon the federal government got involved?

    By definition, a license excludes people from something. Why would you want to exclude anyone from marriage?

    Those who are religious may exclude certain people based upon theological reasoning, but there is no entitlement attached to it either. Those who are religious simply refuse to marry certain people in the sight of God. But why does the state deny people the right to marry?

    The answer is politics is by design a system where you have winners and losers. After all, if everyone was treated equally, why would anyone vote? Who would send millions to Barak Obama so that they could get special tax breaks or be afforded the entitlement of marriage while others are denied such things?

    Politicians like Barak Obama survive on inequality. Without it, they would not exist.
  8. 19 Jul '15 13:19
    Originally posted by whodey
    Why do you reckon the federal government got involved?
    I bet it has something to do with abortion, Muslims and the IRS.
  9. 19 Jul '15 13:28 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by whodey
    Politicians like Barak Obama survive on inequality.
    So can we take it that as a staunch anti-Obama campaigner, you are in favour of equality? Are you a closet lefty?
  10. 19 Jul '15 15:38
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    So can we take it that as a staunch anti-Obama campaigner, you are in favour of equality? Are you a closet lefty?
    I suppose that depends on your definition of equality.

    If your definition of equality, for example, is forcefully taking everything you own and then redistributing it the way one person or group of people thinks is best I don't think is equality, that is theft.

    Not everyone would agree, however.
  11. 19 Jul '15 17:09
    Originally posted by whodey
    I suppose that depends on your definition of equality.
    What is your definition of equality, and are you for it?
  12. 19 Jul '15 17:13
    I take it from this thread that you are not in favour of marriage licences. How do you propose dealing with the legal issues of marriage (divorce, inheritance, children, property etc)?
    Do we just take peoples word for it that they are married, or do we simply not attach any legal status to it whatsoever? No more bigamy, adoption must be done individually etc?
  13. Subscriber KingDavid403
    King David
    19 Jul '15 17:21 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Exactly what a person raised in a society totally dominated by the government would say.

    What can you expect from people who have never been free? These people have always had the government to tell them what to do and what to believe.
    These people have always had the government to tell them what to do and what to believe. Black Kettle, meet black pot! Funny how that is all you do in these forums. LOL
  14. 19 Jul '15 18:43
    Originally posted by KingDavid403
    [b]These people have always had the government to tell them what to do and what to believe. Black Kettle, meet black pot! Funny how that is all you do in these forums. LOL[/b]
    Where exactly do I espouse the government telling people what to do?
  15. 19 Jul '15 22:13 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I take it from this thread that you are not in favour of marriage licences. How do you propose dealing with the legal issues of marriage (divorce, inheritance, children, property etc)?
    Do we just take peoples word for it that they are married, or do we simply not attach any legal status to it whatsoever? No more bigamy, adoption must be done individually etc?
    Easy, children go to the biological parents and parents who are no longer a couple can arrange custody issues.

    What you have is your own, whether it be a bank account, furniture, etc. Just be sure and keep your receipts.

    Who you wish to leave your belongings to you can. If you do not obtain a will of any kind then your belongings should be divided equally among next of kin.

    Next?