Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
Status:
"From 31 to 41 Countries Visited: )"
(set 11 days ago)
4,640 posts, read 13,923,623 times
Reputation: 4052
Advertisements
A government still has to be there for society, to help out, and be involved.
To what extent the government should be there for people is an important factor to consider.
People should have plenty of personal freedom in their lives without government intervention oppressing it too much, but people still need the government there to assist them and the country that they live in with some things.
For something such as family/marriage/divorce, that is something the government should be more passive and tentative with, and allow people more personal freedom for that in their private lives.
The situation with family/marriage/divorce and the decisions for that is highly personalized and not usually something always needing to follow the exact laws and procedures.
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.
As far as I am concerned the state has not business marrying anyone. That is a personal decision between individuals. About the only thing the state could require is to to report marrige for statistical purposes if the individuals want to.
I do not agree the state charging for individual to get married or to get divorced.
A couple can simply go online and state they are now married if they want to.
Now, if the state does provide insurance coverage for civil servants for their family members, even then all they have to do is put the nombres of who they want as beneficieries regardless whether they are married or not. Take care.
Why is the government involved in our decision making? Why do people take each other to court? If the mother has loaned the money to her son, why should the government mediate between them?
it's because people are selfish and don't care about others that much
and if the government did not get involved, it would be "the survival of the fittest": whoever is meaner and more conniving would end up getting what he wants and leave the other without anything
we as people, decided that the government should help out
we as people made the decision to create courts
and i agree, since the contract was signed by the courts, then the dissolution of it should be too
and why do we need to sign the contract in the first place? - It's because people do not treat each other fairly voluntarily. they have to have someone force them to do it.
Remember the barbaric times of the wild west: those with more skill and guns took over and had what they wanted, and the rest just had to go along with that.... so that's why we created courts to intervene and to help...
Why is the government involved in our decision making? Why do people take each other to court? If the mother has loaned the money to her son, why should the government mediate between them? Mixing issues here. If two individual get married by let us say by a church, later the wife feels she was wrong by her husband. If there is a law applicable to what he did, then of course she can take him to court. They do not have to be married by the state in order for her to take him to court for something wrong.
it's because people are selfish and don't care about others that much
and if the government did not get involved, it would be "the survival of the fittest": whoever is meaner and more conniving would end up getting what he wants and leave the other without anything The same answer as above. If a couple is not married in today's world and just live together, either party can still sue the other for a wrong and and there is a law that applies. They do not even have to be married or they can be married in order to go to court.
we as people, decided that the government should help out The same answer.
we as people made the decision to create courts The same answer.
and i agree, since the contract was signed by the courts, then the dissolution of it should be too There are many instances where no contract has been written and people still go to court to resolve issues. The same applies with marriage.
and why do we need to sign the contract in the first place? - It's because people do not treat each other fairly voluntarily. they have to have someone force them to do it. Same answer. A couple can get married on their own by simply going to a lawyer, draft a contract between them. If one violates the terms of the marriage contract, the other can take him/her to court. There was no need to go to the state to get married.
Remember the barbaric times of the wild west: those with more skill and guns took over and had what they wanted, and the rest just had to go along with that.... so that's why we created courts to intervene and to help...
This where I think you are completely wrong. Marriage is social arrangement between a couple. The government didn't create "Marraige", it was there long before the government decided to regulate it.
Where you are wrong, is thinking it's one or the other. It's both. It's a social arrangement and a contract between two people. If you don't want to have to live up to the contractual regulations, don't go down and sign the contract.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unseengundam
Last I hear the family courts really don't take into account what a child wants. It usually up to judge to decide what is best for the child.
Depends on the age of the child, and the individual situation.
As far as I am concerned the state has not business marrying anyone. That is a personal decision between individuals. About the only thing the state could require is to to report marrige for statistical purposes if the individuals want to.
So you don't think there should be any restrictions on who can marry? Can a 12-year-old? How about brothers and sisters? Can you marry more than one person at the same time? Those are some of the reasons a license to marry is granted - to make sure they fall within "rules" deemed as "acceptable" by lawmakers. After that, the marriage is simply reported.
So you don't think there should be any restrictions on who can marry? Can a 12-year-old? How about brothers and sisters? Can you marry more than one person at the same time? Those are some of the reasons a license to marry is granted - to make sure they fall within "rules" deemed as "acceptable" by lawmakers. After that, the marriage is simply reported.
Now, now, you are using the exaggerated type reply. Do laws prohibiting polygamy stop people from living that type of life? No. Those that want to live life with different partners can do so if they wan to.
Also, marriying more than one individual is a decision made by ADULTS. Who decides that only two can get married? What is that view based on? Yours? Mine? Who are you or I to decide if two women and two men want to form a family? Are they adults? If so, you want to meddle in other peoples lives? From my angle, if you try to interfere in other peoples lives in a situation like this one I support them if they tell you to stay the fornication out of their lives. Who are you to mandate moral issues on them?
Minors? Good point. We as a society can impose certain mores without any law. However, there is nothing wrong with if we as a society vote to declare who is a minor and when someone is considered an adult. There is nothing wrong if we vote for a certain age and below not to have sex. Nothing wrong with that. We already have those types of laws. Now, marriage? If two families agree with allowing their young ones to get married, what is wrong with that. Let us say for example that a 17 year old young man has sex with a 14 year old girl. Situations like this one have happened. The parents talked about it and decided they will help their young ones because she is pregnant and they do love each other. In some instance the law have sent the guy to jail for ten years and be registered as a pedophile for for doing what young ones have done for millenia and have live productive lives. What happened now? The child has a dad in jail, the girl has in many cases take care of herself without the support of the guy she loves. Both set of parents now have to carry the burden because he is in jail. Why? Because many like you want the government to interfere in many personal issues like this ones that could very easily be resolved by the families.
Now you wrote: " to make sure they fall within "rules" deemed as "acceptable" by lawmakers. " Wrong, lawmakers follow what is acceptable to The People. Marriage is a contract between individuals. Do I need to have a contract to buy a house? No. I simply pay an individual for the house and that is it. If i feel shortchanged in some form, I can then go to court and sue the individual.
If I call you to come to my house to fix the electricity, do we need to have a contract with the government before you and I enter into an agreement? No, if either one of us fail to meet the contract requirements, then we go to court to address the issue. It is as simple as that. I do not have to have any type of agreement before hand with the government for me to call you and enter into a business agreement. It is as simple as that. For millenia in the past marriage was a simple ceremony in the community for all to know and see. That was it. They did not have to have a judge marry them. They simply anounced they were going to get married, invited those close in the community and had a ceremony at the church or in some cases simply in front of the elders. Now, people have complicated things. The one benefiting big time is the government by charging to get you married and also to get divorced. A waste of money that does not need to happen. Take care.
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.
Not true. All states recognize a marriage that was recognized in another state. This includes common law marriages. If Texas said they were married, CA will too.
Civil unions have existed for centuries and No it was not considered legal, since nothing of the sort existed.
Marriage was as simple as a man having interest in a woman and so long as the family did not object it was considered a civil union, forced unions, which were common in our early history where the woman had no say and the marriage was arranged when the women was but a child occurred often.
ALSO during our history dowries were common, were the family would “gift” the groom to be with money, livestock, property for taking on their daughter, often times LOVE was not involved and a man of station with little wealth would latch onto a girl or woman simply for the dowry only to have affairs on the side all the awhile he controlled the woman and her wealth.
Government came into the picture in the 1800’s in order to deter some of the unsavory business I mentioned even though it was not all that fair to the woman there was now laws in effect that would allow the wife to have a little power.
States adopt these laws and all states are different, some states are more lax while others more stringent. Individuals make the conscience choice to enter into matrimony, so it would be common sense to know what one is getting into before making such a big decision.
Government does not BEG individuals to get married legally and there are options as you stated when you made a reference to “Common Law” marriages.
However the thing with Common law marriage is legally no one person owes the other person when they choose to end the relationship other things to consider is that one person has very little say when a loved one gets ill, the next of kin is usually responsible for making these medical decisions. When an individual passes and the SO is not named the beneficiary of their life insurance plan, 401K, or named in their will, has their name in the title of their home they have nothing.
These laws that a legal civil union provide is more for security and fairness.
I.E. when I got a divorce, we were able to walk away with the property we came into the marriage with, gifts that were awarded to us by family members and each of us were responsible for own debts especially because some of the huge credit card racked up by my ex husband was done in his name and when he was overseas, I did not benefit from either nor did I utilize his cards for personal expenses.
I was awarded alimony since the grounds for our divorce was infidelity. It was fair and just.
I did not go after his pension because I did not earn it, he did the time in the military not me, I could have legally but I did not. So this comes to make next point when getting married a individual is well within their right to have their partner sign a prenup therefore securing monies gained before the marriage was well as pension and whatever they choose to add. Some courts will acknowledge a prenup while other judges will not acknowledge.
When REGARDING THE WELFARE OF THE CHILDREN? These laws were created in the best interest of the child since children have no voice of there own in the matters of adults.
This imo is very important when determing the welfare of a child(ren) .
The steps are easy even though it is not always easy for two quarrelling parents so because often times parents have lost objective due to going through this very emotional event ( Divorce) the courts must step in to ensure the health, safety and well being of the child(ren).
1. Mediation
A neutral place where two parents that are divorcing can meet with a MFT /mediator IN A NON BIAS environment.
A pact class is mandatory to inform the parents of what the child is going through during the divorce process, how custody should be a joint decision, how essential it is for the child not to be dragged in their “Adult Business”.
The mediator has no interest in either party, they are neither for or against one person but is there to facilitate a conversation and the resolution process.
Each parent Is allowed to voice their concerns and it is neither here nor there unless legal documentation or declarations are submitted.
I.E. One parent that obviously wants full custody of the child yet has an erratic lifestyle ( military, deployments, ) this is not in the best interest of the child.
Being that that the child needs stability.
If the parent is working full time and is attending school which disables them from taking full physical care of the child without having the child in daycare or in anothers (family members) care over 50% of the time it does not make sense to award this parent FULL physical custody when the other parent is equally able to care for the child.
A parent whom has a past of domestic violence that has been verified through legal documentation.
Previous CWS reports that have been substantiated
Alcohol/drug issues which can be proven through legal documentation ( Arrest records, incident reports, outreach programs)
The child is also instrumental during this process, the mediator will speak to the child separately without his parents and will uphold the child’s anonymity regarding what wa stated since often times the child(ren) will request to live with one parent but are afraid to hurt the other parent.
This can last for hours until the parents can reach an amicable decision, if they are unable to reach a decision? Then and only then does it go to court.
I during the mediation process the mediator finds that one parent in hostile, there was enough legal documentation provided by one parent coupled with the child’s testimony? The mediator has the power to make a referral to the judge as to what their findings were and their personal recommendations to the court.
I for one am glad the justice system is in place it takes the fight out of everything since one parent can merely state “You may ring this up in court” in order to remain as civil as possible since let us face reality divorce can be peaceful but too often it is not that is when the law comes into place.
I find it interesting that governments (usually states) have so much say in martial affairs and internal family matters.
Laws are originated and passed in this country in response to crimes against the innocents. Whenever I look closely into claims made like yours, I find that the claimant resents that the law inhibited them from acting unjustly toward another.
Bottom line: When people stop taking advantage of other people, we can stop passing laws against it. Until then, deal with it. After all is said and done, if you don't take advantage, you have nothing to worry about.
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
