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.
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 certainly agree with you. I don't understand why the government got into the marriage business in the first place unless it was the fees that it would bring in. Government works that way and that is how they grow and become more powerful and expensive. On divorce, the government should stay out of that. I just learned that Kansas has absolutely medieval laws when it comes to the marriage contract and trying to call it "void" based on one or both partners not complying with the agreement. I would also like to see driver's license and car tags become universal in the US. People's private lives? I kind of remember those from when I was kid about 50 years ago.
No state forces you to become married, so if you don't like the marriage laws, just don't get married. Pretty simple.
Marriage is a legal commitment. You get a marriage license from the state (county), and are then legally married by a judge or minister who has been sanctioned by the state to perform marriage ceremonies. You'd have to be pretty darn dumb to go through all this without knowing that marriage is a state-sanctioned agreement between two people. It carries with it certain responsibilities that the state government will enforce, if necessary. Then it only makes sense that the state government is also involved if you want to end the marriage with divorce. Don't like it? Don't get married.
A pre-nup is an agreement between a (soon-to-be) husband and wife. It is NOT an agreement between either of them and their not-yet-born children. Remember, the unborn child cannot make an agreement. It's the state's duty to protect children by insisting that their parents raise them properly. Unfortunately not all do; that's why you and I pay for social programs to provide food, clothing, housing and medical care for so many children.
As for driver's licenses and vehicle licenses supplied by the feds instead of states? NO!!!! First of all we have a little document called the Constitution. You should read it some time. There are lots of good ideas in it that we should try some time. The federal government has its nose in too much already. If you think your state is interfering in your private life, just imagine what it would be like if you turned over more state rights to the feds!
No state forces you to become married, so if you don't like the marriage laws, just don't get married. Pretty simple.
Marriage is a legal commitment. You get a marriage license from the state (county), and are then legally married by a judge or minister who has been sanctioned by the state to perform marriage ceremonies. You'd have to be pretty darn dumb to go through all this without knowing that marriage is a state-sanctioned agreement between two people. It carries with it certain responsibilities that the state government will enforce, if necessary. Then it only makes sense that the state government is also involved if you want to end the marriage with divorce. Don't like it? Don't get married.
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.
In fact, you can just have social arrangement like marriage because it will just turn into a common law marraige. Like in Texas where I live if just meet 3 simple test, it can turn into legal marriage!
I also don't see what right the government has to decide what obligations in a marriage contract at all. The confines of marriage contract should be left entirely up to couple.
Quote:
A pre-nup is an agreement between a (soon-to-be) husband and wife. It is NOT an agreement between either of them and their not-yet-born children. Remember, the unborn child cannot make an agreement. It's the state's duty to protect children by insisting that their parents raise them properly. Unfortunately not all do; that's why you and I pay for social programs to provide food, clothing, housing and medical care for so many children.
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.
Governments make marriages possible. What is a marriage today after all? It's a legal, recorded by state union of two people that complies with the laws, regulations, etc. Governments grant marriage licenses to the people on their (governments) terms. People eagerly apply for government licensure of their cohabitation because and only because states would apply repressive machinery to enforce state laws applicable during (and after) a marriage. I'm amazed at this so called "libertarian" approach, people want government out of their affairs, yet, people don't mind, actually people demand government action if they are screwed.
Want government out of your marriage, it's simple, don't marry. Marriage was never an informal "social" arrangement, it was always very formal, heavily regulated (by law, tradition or both) arrangement.
It would be nice if government didn't have to get involved, but the truth of the matter is people don't care and they want and want and want and want. So people need a mediator that is usually the court... which determines what they believe is best for everyone involved.
If you don't want the government ever involved in your marriage/personal life - then don't have kids, don't get married, don't have a live in and don't live with anyone to form any type of union... simple as that.
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.
Marriage is a three-party contract between natural persons of legal capacity and the state, which acknowledges its consent to the marriage contract through the issuance of a license. Few persons realize that the state is a party to their marriage until they want to get divorced, which they consider a great inconvenience, not to mention the legal expense. However, the state has a legitimate, even compelling, interest in the incidents of the marriage, i.e., marital property rights, custody and care of minor children (whether born of the union or adopted), and obligations of support; which issues are subject to the jurisdiction of the several states based upon the parties’ residence or domicile.
Marriage is a CONTRACT like anything else, and guess where those other broken/disputed contracts end up ~ in court! I don't necessarily think divorce should rely on a judge's decision, so perhaps the marriage contract itself should be revised to absolve government involvement. Howevre, the idea of "resolving child custody" before marriage is, again, a contract. I see no other way to make something like that stick.
You can say all the lovely committed things, have anyone preside over your vows, have everyone there you want there, sacrifice a chicken if you want to- but it's not marriage unless you sign a paper with the state. Nothing romantic about that, eh?
Many states have ended common-law marriage, Massachusetts included. I don't know if every state has "palimony," which I think was first coined when some live-in with a rich movie star sued for the equivalent of alimony for her years with him.
When I understood that anyone, myself included, can get a Universal minister certificate and perform marriages, I started to really wonder, what is this marriage thing, anyway?
It's kind of circular. It's more of a commitment than not, because people feel it is, and because the state signs off on it. I don't know. If I wanted to share life with a man who wouldn't marry, I guess I'd feel like our relationship was "less than." However, I can see myself sharing life with a man with all the promises in a marriage without the state signing off on it.
For that matter, one could have a totally religious ceremony and it's not a marriage unless the state signs off on it. How sacred is that?
You don’t 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: "I’m 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, I’ll 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 government’s role in defining and enforcing marital rights by law is the solution to the problems posed by marriage.
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.
