U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Unread 03-20-2012, 10:41 AM
 
Location: Murphy, TX
587 posts, read 1,229,441 times
Reputation: 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips View Post
You donít want government involved in marriage? Consider the following scenario:

Jason and Jennifer live in the state of Utopia. Unhappily, their life together turns out to be less than blissful, and one day Jason takes their son Jimmy, all their money, and the family car, and goes to the state of Euphoria, where he intends to live with his girlfriend Jessica. Before leaving, Jason told Jennifer: "Iím taking my son, and all the money because I earned it, and the car that was bought with my money; and if you try to stop me, Iíll kill you."

1. Absent the law, what rights does Jennifer have?

2. What is the source of those rights?

3. Absent the law, how would she enforce those rights?

The government is not the problem. To the contrary, the governmentís role in defining and enforcing marital rights by law is the solution to the problems posed by marriage.
What point I am mainly talking about is people should have be able to draw up their marriage contract that is strictly enforced. For example, you write up contract where if one spouse leaves due cheating she/he loses paternal rights and get no money when marriage is dissolved.

The main point is agreement on terms of marriage and its dissolution should be left to people involved. They can draw up legal contract, just like any bussiness contract, which would be enforced in the court.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Unread 03-20-2012, 11:59 AM
 
2,100 posts, read 1,426,068 times
Reputation: 890
Your marital rights exist only as provided by state law. The state is a party to every marriage, and has an important, even compelling, interest in the incidents of the marriage. The parties are entitled to make agreements for disposition of marital property and support inter se to the extent allowed by law; however, the minor children are another matter, for they are not competent parties to the marriage contract. Under the law, marital partners may not contract to limit their liability for support of their children; and the state retains an interest in their protection, as many that have had their children taken away from them can attest.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 03-20-2012, 05:49 PM
 
Location: El Paso, TX
3,128 posts, read 1,927,540 times
Reputation: 2341
Quote:
Originally Posted by unseengundam View Post
I find it interesting that governments (usually states) have so much say in martial affairs and internal family matters. It seems the government decides how property/money/debt are handed in the marriage and divided if divorced. In fact, even many prenuptial agreements are not honored by the divorce courts.

Furthermore, in case of children, looks like family courts seems to have all the power. The courts decide who/how custody will be handled and child support. In fact, there isn't any sort of contract (like prenuptial) you can even sign ahead of time to handle child custody!

In this day and age, where divorce is so common there should be more control of process by those who are directly involved. Honestly, government shouldn't be involved unless some one is being physically/mentally harmed. The terms of marriage and separation should be made by people getting married beforehand. Also, I think there should be way to resolve child custody issue in a contract before having kids.
To me the problem is that people do not get involved in enough numbers to put a stop on so many personal issues. The day people get more involved on issues before they become laws, the more say so we will have on our personal lives.
I do find it interesting that many people do complain about government interference but many of them also keep demanding the government interfere in so many areas of our lives also.
As far as the states doing that? Personnaly it is Constitutionally correct since it is not an issue enumerated as responsibility of the federal government. We just need to kick the states out of our personal lives. We need to focus on ourselves and let others know that the more passibe we are about all these issues, the worst it can get. Take care.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 03-24-2012, 03:51 PM
 
6,815 posts, read 14,608,681 times
Reputation: 6030
Quote:
Originally Posted by unseengundam View Post
What point I am mainly talking about is people should have be able to draw up their marriage contract that is strictly enforced. For example, you write up contract where if one spouse leaves due cheating she/he loses paternal rights and get no money when marriage is dissolved.

The main point is agreement on terms of marriage and its dissolution should be left to people involved. They can draw up legal contract, just like any bussiness contract, which would be enforced in the court.
Now, tell me, do you honestly think that most people would have the intelligence, knowledge, legal expertese, to draw up such a contract? Think about the young teen age girl that wants to get married and will marry anything!

Who do you intend to strictly enforce this contract? The Government (state, city, county, federal) is the ONLY organization that has the power to enforce contracts.

If the Government has to enforce contracts, then Government has the right to insist that the contract be drawn up in a certain way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 03-26-2012, 10:57 AM
 
Location: Aiken, South Carolina, US of A
1,109 posts, read 884,238 times
Reputation: 1915
Unseengundam,
You have never been through a messy divorce or child custody.
I can tell, or you would understand why the local government
has to get involved.
Most divorces are messy, nasty, both people are not thinking
clearly, and the worst part is the parents are usually not thiking
of what is in the best interest of the children at all!
Someone has to look out after the kids.
My God! Do you know how many people don't even pay child support?
In an ideal world, yes, I totally agree with you.
In reality, no.
I wish people were more careful before they married, it would be
much better for society as a whole. (but that's another thread. LOL).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 03-26-2012, 05:24 PM
 
Location: El Paso, TX
3,128 posts, read 1,927,540 times
Reputation: 2341
Quote:
Originally Posted by unseengundam View Post
I find it interesting that governments (usually states) have so much say in martial affairs and internal family matters. It seems the government decides how property/money/debt are handed in the marriage and divided if divorced. In fact, even many prenuptial agreements are not honored by the divorce courts.

Furthermore, in case of children, looks like family courts seems to have all the power. The courts decide who/how custody will be handled and child support. In fact, there isn't any sort of contract (like prenuptial) you can even sign ahead of time to handle child custody!

In this day and age, where divorce is so common there should be more control of process by those who are directly involved. Honestly, government shouldn't be involved unless some one is being physically/mentally harmed. The terms of marriage and separation should be made by people getting married beforehand. Also, I think there should be way to resolve child custody issue in a contract before having kids.
I agree on the concept that the government does interfere to much in private affairs like marriage. However, that happens because people do not vote those laws out of the books.
The courts should simply handle situations when a couple does not agree on what to do when there is a divorce like division of property or bank accounts. Children? Well, also if they do not agree. However, I do not agree the government divorcing you. You simply get divorced but once there is disagreement why not go to court just like any other issue when people disagree.
But for the government to marry you or divorce you I do not see why they should interfere. Take care.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 03-28-2012, 02:17 PM
 
Location: Southern Oregon
1,730 posts, read 1,699,464 times
Reputation: 1144
I find the institution of marriage as defined by the state to be an oxymoron. Ask yourself this question: Why do I need a license to get married, typically you need a license to do something that is concidered illegal by the state. It is illegal to drive a car without a license, or to hunt, you have to show you are competent to get these license. So is marriage illegal without an license, common law marriage and why does the state grant you a marriage license, is it because you are incompetent without one. Now, one must ask, "When a bride and groom are incompetent to be married without a state license and that state grants that license, Who is responsible for the marriage?" Answer, the state is.
Who is responsible for anything created in such a licensed marriage? Answer, the state is.
Who is responsible for the childern created in a marriage, yep, the state.
When a child is born, the doctor must fill out a Record of Live Birth, do you get that, no, you receive a Birth Certificate issued to you by the state. The Record of Birth goes to "BUREAU OF VITAL STATISTICS" and what is this, it is a sub-department of DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, now why does this department need this information, The Department of Commerce is where the US keeps track of its possessions, so your child, you and your parents are all possessions of the United States, why do you think your required to get a SS number upon birth.
This evidence indicates that the state is declaring the children their possession at birth.
Evidence- New statutes require the hospital to effectively assign Social Security Numbers to each child before birth, with or without the natural parents signature or permission.
Evidence - Why are each of the childbirth performing hospitals in the US registered as ports of entry when virtually none of them have incoming foreigners?
Evidence - Watch the social workers and their relations with children born under marriage licenses.
Just something to think about.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 03-30-2012, 07:02 AM
 
2,100 posts, read 1,426,068 times
Reputation: 890
You need a license to be married because the right of marriage, as with all rights, exists only by law. Marriage is a three-party contract between natural persons of legal capacity and the state, which acknowledges consent to the marriage contract by issuing its license. Common-law marriage is only valid to the extent recognized by state law. Each state has the sovereign power to enact law governing marriage, which jurisdiction extends to all citizens based upon residence or domicile. For example: a couple living together at common law in Texas, would not be afforded marital rights if they moved to California, which state does not recognize common-law marriage.

It is a common complaint, whenever someone gets their nose bloodied by some life experience, that: "There aught to be a law!" Well, the truth is that there is; and that’s the way it is with marriage as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 04-02-2012, 02:40 PM
 
Location: Sango, TN
22,166 posts, read 8,804,863 times
Reputation: 6848
I don't believe the government should acknowledge marriage at all. Civil unions, yes, but not marriage.

As far as custody, how would you suggest that those decisions be worked out? A parent isn't willingly going to give up their children, even if they are poor parents. So if a father is a drug addict, the courts shouldn't decide that the mother should be the full time parent? That just doesn't seem to make sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 04-09-2012, 04:13 PM
 
Location: London, NYC, DC
1,054 posts, read 818,738 times
Reputation: 531
Ideally, the government doesn't get involved with marriage. Instead, there should be a completely different setup: any two people, regardless of sex, can get a civil marriage (termed civil union preferably, although civil marriage could work) that is solely legal in nature, in turn with divorce or dissolution proceedings. This must be officiated by a government official. Said couple can then get "married," but it means nothing in terms of the government. This would eliminate the same-sex marriage controversy since it's not marriage. I say this as a gay guy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $74,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top