Obama czar: Abolish marriage!?

[Nitehawk013]

I wish they would have gotten all this worked out a year ago. I am getting married in April and getting rid of licenses and such would have made the whole process easier and cheaper I think. LOL.

Someone once said that all you would have to do to get married would be have a witness and fill out the marriage page in the front of your family Bible. That would be so much cheaper than what church weddings have turned into!

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Aquila

How was marriage and divorce handled prior to marriage licenses and government's involvement?

That's not an easy question to answer. I assume you mean in the Western world.

Early church writers had a variety of views on marriage which have had some level of acceptance in Western society at different times in different places. Early church fathers were dealing with marriage in relation to the society that they lived in and were more concerned with marriage in relation to temple prostitution, homosexuality, incest, and polygamy. They sometimes urged changes in the law, I guess you might say a liberalization of marriage customs, decrying Roman practices of coercion of young women into marriage, arranged marriages, and maybe the most shocking to some was the opposition to rights of husbands alone for divorce. There was a gradual development of a preference for chastity over marriage as being the best a man or woman could do.

During the Papel Revolution at the end of the 11th Century, the Catholic Church became the authority in marriages determining who could and couldn't be married or have their marriages annulled. Cannon Law ruled supreme, overruling local customs, they were the Supreme Court of sorts having the final say over any local laws regarding marriage or divorce. The problem's were many, forbidding marriages, refusing annulments, etc. to those they determined unworthy. The Cannon law had a sacrimental view of marriage. Marriage was made up of a series of oral promises followed by sexual relations to fulfill the final step.


Martin Luther proposed a new thought, well new to the Catholics at that time, on marriage as part of the earthly kingdom marriage should be subject to the state and civil law rather than Cannon law having authority over marriage. Civil marriage courts began to replace church courts in Germany. Luther saw it as a social model.

Calvin proposed a dual system Christian marriages were handled by the church while others could be subject to civil laws. If someone would not bend to the spiritual discipline of the church they would be subject to the civil laws. From Calvin we get the traditions two of witnesses, the promise to each other and to God, and a minister officiating the wedding. It was the civil authority's job to register the marriage and protect their property rights. There was a civil norm as well as a distinctly Christian tract for marriage. I believe Louisana may have a similar kind of thing, or at least it was proposed at one time, with the idea of Covenant Marriages this is directly from Calvin's teachings on marriage, he pushed the covenant idea of marriage.

Anglican's proposed a commonwealth model of marriage that was abandoned fairly quickly in England. England returned within a few decades to Cannon law for their marriages.

In America we inherited the Anglican Model, for the most part, that created a hierarchies of State over church, Church over household, husband over wife, and parents over children. Marriages was appointed by God as a little commonwealth. Divorce was essentially prohibited.

The Contract model of the enlightenment period is where most of our current laws come from. The idea is just like it sounds a contract between two people that they set the terms on and could dissolve them upon agreement. the positive aspects of the contract model was increased rights for women, and protection of their rights as well as ideas of marital property, child support and child abuse laws. Though our current laws are a representation of those proposed during the enlightenment period, there was no massive embracing of these concepts until the beginning of the 1900's.


For a full development of the marriage tradition in western society check out the book, From Sacrament to Contract; Marriage, Religion, and Law in the Western Tradition, By John Witte, Jr.

[Aquila]

Thanks Baron! Very interesting!

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

That's not an easy question to answer. I assume you mean in the Western world.

Early church writers had a variety of views on marriage which have had some level of acceptance in Western society at different times in different places. Early church fathers were dealing with marriage in relation to the society that they lived in and were more concerned with marriage in relation to temple prostitution, homosexuality, incest, and polygamy. They sometimes urged changes in the law, I guess you might say a liberalization of marriage customs, decrying Roman practices of coercion of young women into marriage, arranged marriages, and maybe the most shocking to some was the opposition to rights of husbands alone for divorce. There was a gradual development of a preference for chastity over marriage as being the best a man or woman could do.

During the Papel Revolution at the end of the 11th Century, the Catholic Church became the authority in marriages determining who could and couldn't be married or have their marriages annulled. Cannon Law ruled supreme, overruling local customs, they were the Supreme Court of sorts having the final say over any local laws regarding marriage or divorce. The problem's were many, forbidding marriages, refusing annulments, etc. to those they determined unworthy. The Cannon law had a sacrimental view of marriage. Marriage was made up of a series of oral promises followed by sexual relations to fulfill the final step.


Martin Luther proposed a new thought, well new to the Catholics at that time, on marriage as part of the earthly kingdom marriage should be subject to the state and civil law rather than Cannon law having authority over marriage. Civil marriage courts began to replace church courts in Germany. Luther saw it as a social model.

Calvin proposed a dual system Christian marriages were handled by the church while others could be subject to civil laws. If someone would not bend to the spiritual discipline of the church they would be subject to the civil laws. From Calvin we get the traditions two of witnesses, the promise to each other and to God, and a minister officiating the wedding. It was the civil authority's job to register the marriage and protect their property rights. There was a civil norm as well as a distinctly Christian tract for marriage. I believe Louisana may have a similar kind of thing, or at least it was proposed at one time, with the idea of Covenant Marriages this is directly from Calvin's teachings on marriage, he pushed the covenant idea of marriage.

Anglican's proposed a commonwealth model of marriage that was abandoned fairly quickly in England. England returned within a few decades to Cannon law for their marriages.

In America we inherited the Anglican Model, for the most part, that created a hierarchies of State over church, Church over household, husband over wife, and parents over children. Marriages was appointed by God as a little commonwealth. Divorce was essentially prohibited.

The Contract model of the enlightenment period is where most of our current laws come from. The idea is just like it sounds a contract between two people that they set the terms on and could dissolve them upon agreement. the positive aspects of the contract model was increased rights for women, and protection of their rights as well as ideas of marital property, child support and child abuse laws. Though our current laws are a representation of those proposed during the enlightenment period, there was no massive embracing of these concepts until the beginning of the 1900's.


For a full development of the marriage tradition in western society check out the book, From Sacrament to Contract; Marriage, Religion, and Law in the Western Tradition, By John Witte, Jr.

Nice cut and paste.

There is a pontoon boat at the marina with a sign. "Marriages performed on this boat are good for the duration of the voyage."

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by coadie

Nice cut and paste.

There is a pontoon boat at the marina with a sign. "Marriages performed on this boat are good for the duration of the voyage."

It is not a cut and paste job. It is based on the book cited at the end of my summary. While that is your way of handling such things, I on the other hand did not cut and paste a single line of what was written. If I had I wouldn't have had to go back and edit several typos.

I believe you owe me an apology Mr. False Witness.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by coadie

Nice cut and paste.

There is a pontoon boat at the marina with a sign. "Marriages performed on this boat are good for the duration of the voyage."

OH MY WORD - - this wins the "Most Ironic Post EVER"

[Falla39]

Originally Posted by coadie

The safe schools czar is connected with a circle that is working on
lowering the age of consent to get rid of the pedophilia problem

NAMBLA is the group that claims this endeavor.

Very interesting book authored by a woman that can tell you firsthand
about the predator that betrayed her and her children.
This lady is a professional. She works with someone VERY close to me.

http://www.darleneellison.com/predator-next-door.php

[Light]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

It is not a cut and paste job. It is based on the book cited at the end of my summary. While that is your way of handling such things, I on the other hand did not cut and paste a single line of what was written. If I had I wouldn't have had to go back and edit several typos.

I believe you owe me an apology Mr. False Witness.

Baron why read any thing this guy has to say? I placed him on ignore and now my blood pressure is back to normal. To bad one has to see is goofy posts when others post his comments.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by DerechHashem

Obama czar: Abolish marriage!?

CZAR WARS

Sunstein urges: Abolish marriage
Adviser compares institution to country club membership

"Under our proposal, the word marriage would no longer appear in any laws, and marriage licenses would no longer be offered or recognized by any level of government," wrote Sunstein and co-author Richard Thaler in their 2008 book, "Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness"

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=113802

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=113802

There are two other czars worthy of note.

Jennings the Safe schools czar is a marriage destroyer also.


Feldblum, meanwhile, is an outspoken homosexual rights activist and Georgetown law professor. She offered her sex remarks at a UCLA symposium on homosexuality available on YouTube.

Obama two weeks ago announced his intent to nominate Feldblum for commissioner of the EEOC. Feldblum previously served as legislative counsel to the AIDS Project of the American Civil Liberties Union and clerked for Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun, who famously authored the controversial Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.

She also famously praised polygamy, WND reported.

Feldblum is not shy about her ideas for "revolutionizing" America's workplace and the country's social mores.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=112585

Feldum is more like a czar for human resources. It is out side her area to render opinions on marriage.

Guess she is calling for a war.

"

This is a war that needs to be fought, and it's not a war overseas where we are killing people in the name of liberating them. It is a war right here at home where we need to convince people that morality demands full equality for gay people," she said at the symposium.

[SOUNWORTHY]

Someone said a marriage license is not required in the Great state of Texas. Is that true? I have often wondered if God would recognize marriage vows between a man and woman if there was no license. I understand there are many senior citizens living together in Florida without marriage because if they married they would loose deceased spouses retirement benefits. I think with most of us the marriage license is not what keeps us faithful to our mates anyhow.