There is a growing constituency arguing for the "privatization of marriage". Essentially they argue that the government should have no hand in marriage and that marriage should be treated as a private contract. They believe that this will essentially put marriage into private hands and therefore eliminate government interference and challenge the notion that "government" has the right to define marriage for the individual. Here's an article:
There is a growing constituency arguing for the "privatization of marriage". Essentially they argue that the government should have no hand in marriage and that marriage should be treated as a private contract. They believe that this will essentially put marriage into private hands and therefore eliminate government interference and challenge the notion that "government" has the right to define marriage for the individual. Here's an article:
Great idea... right up until you need a divorce and the Attorney General to help you collect child support from a deadbeat in another state or to sort through your varrious baby daddies to see who gets the bill.
There is a growing constituency arguing for the "privatization of marriage". Essentially they argue that the government should have no hand in marriage and that marriage should be treated as a private contract. They believe that this will essentially put marriage into private hands and therefore eliminate government interference and challenge the notion that "government" has the right to define marriage for the individual. Here's an article:
Unfortunately the Supreme Court will no doubt rule that they DO have the power to regulate marriage -after 5 of its members decide that marriage is actually a tax and the Feds have the power to tax.
Great idea... right up until you need a divorce and the Attorney General to help you collect child support from a deadbeat in another state or to sort through your varrious baby daddies to see who gets the bill.
__________________
If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
2 Chronicles 7:14 KJV
He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? Micah 6:8 KJV
Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. 1 John 3:2 KJV
OK... to be more serious about it... Marriage, divorce, remarriage, child custody and support, visitation, inheiritence, survivors benefits, etc. are complex societial issues that at this point in our history often require oversight.
What I'd like to see is a requirement for a class on commitment before marriage and one on child rearing before you can have your implantable birth controll device removed. JK... well...maybe...
Great idea... right up until you need a divorce and the Attorney General to help you collect child support from a deadbeat in another state or to sort through your varrious baby daddies to see who gets the bill.
Each marriage would be treated like a contract and a breach of contract (divorce) would be handled in civil court. It would still take the courts to ensure justice.
Each marriage would be treated like a contract and a breach of contract (divorce) would be handled in civil court. It would still take the courts to ensure justice.
so would i have to go and register and state i am married to the court clerk after i got married in my private institution? at the same token what kind of proof would we have to show for our marriage besides word of mouth.
I mean i see two people living together even though they are not married i treat them personally as being married. we have a couple at church that have lived together for like 35 years with no state marriage yet i would consider them married. Isnt that also observed as the common law marriage I do realize some states dont have that
OK... to be more serious about it... Marriage, divorce, remarriage, child custody and support, visitation, inheiritence, survivors benefits, etc. are complex societial issues that at this point in our history often require oversight.
What I'd like to see is a requirement for a class on commitment before marriage and one on child rearing before you can have your implantable birth controll device removed. JK... well...maybe...
The answers to these questions are quite simple.
First of all, contract law exists. So if government extacates itself from the word "marriage" that does not mean that the law of primary relationship is removed. we simply have redefined things.
Marriage as a concept becomes what it should be. A religious question. Primary relationship (or civil union) then becomes the law of the land.
divorce remains in place. There is something akin to divorce in business where business partnerships are disolved... it happens all the time.
Parents are required to support their children. That should not be related to divorce at all. If there is a kid, you support the kid. period. if not go to jail.That isnt that hard to figure out.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
First of all, contract law exists. So if government extacates itself from the word "marriage" that does not mean that the law of primary relationship is removed. we simply have redefined things.
Marriage as a concept becomes what it should be. A religious question. Primary relationship (or civil union) then becomes the law of the land.
divorce remains in place. There is something akin to divorce in business where business partnerships are disolved... it happens all the time.
Parents are required to support their children. That should not be related to divorce at all. If there is a kid, you support the kid. period. if not go to jail.That isnt that hard to figure out.
I dunno... I still question how many undissolved partnerships some people may wind up with as they move into other partnerships without benefit of divorce. I mean now people get divorced because they are legally 'married' and must to settle property, custody, etc.... if they are just living together they just move out and move on. So without governmentally sanctioned marriage how will we determine whom needs a divorce? Will those who jump over a broomstick be considered as married as those married by a minister?
I guess the long and short of it is I would have to have details about how exactly partnerships would be handled to actually form an opinion because it sounds as if you are saying that those only married by religious standards but not united civilly would not need a divorce but could just walk away and that feels very weird to me.
Last edited by Titus2woman; 06-28-2012 at 07:07 PM.
There is a growing constituency arguing for the "privatization of marriage". Essentially they argue that the government should have no hand in marriage and that marriage should be treated as a private contract. They believe that this will essentially put marriage into private hands and therefore eliminate government interference and challenge the notion that "government" has the right to define marriage for the individual. Here's an article:
Whatever you call it the government will have to be involved because there has to be a structure to handle benefits, when couples break up, death, etc.
__________________ "I think some people love spiritual bondage just the way some people love physical bondage. It makes them feel secure. In the end though it is not healthy for the one who is lost over it or the one who is lives under the oppression even if by their own choice"
Titus2woman on AFF
"We did not wear uniforms. The lady workers dressed in the current fashions of the day, ...silks...satins...jewels or whatever they happened to possess. They were very smartly turned out, so that they made an impressive appearance on the streets where a large part of our work was conducted in the early years.
"It was not until long after, when former Holiness preachers had become part of us, that strict plainness of dress began to be taught.
"Although Entire Sanctification was preached at the beginning of the Movement, it was from a Wesleyan viewpoint, and had in it very little of the later Holiness Movement characteristics. Nothing was ever said about apparel, for everyone was so taken up with the Lord that mode of dress seemingly never occurred to any of us."
Quote from Ethel Goss (widow of 1st UPC Gen Supt. Howard Goss) book "The Winds of God"
Linear Mode
