U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-19-2011, 07:13 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,703 posts, read 9,800,583 times
Reputation: 9731

Advertisements

For the record, let's make one thing clear - no one has a clue what marriage is about.

A marriage CONTRACT is a legal joining, under the common law, of two adult's property rights for the benefit of the issue of the marriage. There are related common law rights of the surviving spouse, as in curtesy and dower. (That's where the term dowager comes from)

However, if you have paid attention, since 1935, "Common law marriages" are no longer common, or "officially" recognized.

What changed so that two free adults can no longer contract a common law marriage, and must get a LICENSE (permission from government)?
What changed so that two free adults can no longer merge property rights, without becoming obligated to perform to government rules and regulations?

Hint: In the dim past, the only people obligated to get licenses were those who ...

No. I will not make it that easy.

Let me start over.

Let me preface this with the simple observation that marriage is not for love. Two people in love, do not need the bindings of matrimony to keep them together. The real beneficiary of marriage are the children emitted from the marriage.
MARRIAGE - Legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. Singer v. Hara, 11 Wash. App. 247,522 P.2d 1187,1193. Marriage, as distinguished from the agreement to marry and from the act of becoming married, is the legal status, condition, or relation of one man and one woman united in law for life, or until divorced, for the discharge to each other and the community of duties legally incumbent on those whose associations is founded on the distinction of sex. A contract,
according to the form prescribed by law, by which a man and a woman capable of entering into such contract, mutually engage with each other to live their whole lives (or until divorced) together in state of union which ought to exist between a husband and a wife.
- - -Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P.972
In short, the "legal union" of each adult's property into one, for the benefit of the next generation, is the true purpose of marriage.
MARRIAGE LICENSE - A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to INTERMARRY, usually addressed to the minister or magistrate who is to perform the ceremony, or, in general terms, to any one authorized to solemnize marriages. By statute in most jurisdictions, it is made an essential prerequisite to the lawful solemnization of the marriage.
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P.973

INTERMARRY - see Miscegenation.
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P.815

MISCEGENATION - Mixture of races. Term formerly applied to marriage between persons of different races. Statutes prohibiting marriage between persons of different races have been held to be invalid as contrary to equal protection clause of the Constitution. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010.
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P.999
If you will please note, that the "legal reason" for a marriage license was for intermarrying (miscegenation). Free adults do not need a "license" (permission) to marry. As stated in earlier post, the reason why a "license" was needed, was that one or both parties to the marriage lacked common law standing to absolutely own. A slave that is owned, cannot absolutely own a thing, let alone endow a child with property rights.
SOLEMNIZATION - To enter marriage publicly before witnesses on contrast to a clandestine or common law marriage.
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P.1392

COMMON LAW MARRIAGE - One not solemnized in the ordinary way (i.e. ceremonial) but created by an agreement to marry, followed by cohabitation. A consummated agreement to marry between persons legally capable of making marriage contract, per verba de praesenti, followed by cohabitation...
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P.277
A common law marriage is a private unceremonial agreement to marry (join property) and cohabit. It is an agreement between persons LEGALLY CAPABLE of making such a contract. A license is required of people who are legally incapable of making said contract.

For those who are not interested in endowing children of their union, it was called concubinage
CONCUBINAGE - Living together (i.e. cohabitation) of persons not legally married.
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P.290

CONCUBINE - A woman who cohabits with a man to whom she is not legally married. A mistress. A sort of inferior wife, among the Romans, upon whom the husband did not confer his rank or quality.
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P.291
A mistress was supported by her man, thus enjoying his property, but any children of that union did not inherit from the father.

Is it becoming clear, yet?

An illegitimate child has no claim upon the father, nor inherit the father's property.
A legitimate child has a claim upon the father, and inherits his father's property.
In either case, the child is supported by the mother, and inherits his mother's property.

The legal beneficiary of a marriage, common law or licensed, was the child(ren) of the union.

But since 1935, and national socialism, enumerated Americans no longer have standing to enter into common law marriages, because they're sureties (human resources) on the public debt (in other words, voluntary slaves).

Remember "intermarry"?
It was presumed to mean marriage between races, but was really only applicable where one or both parties LACK property rights to themselves and thus cannot endow their offspring. It required government intervention to determine inheritance (after the government gets a cut - via inheritance tax).

Now you know why "everybody" has to get government permission (marriage license). It has everything to do with loss of common law standing, and nothing to do with "private sector", religion, or morality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-19-2011, 07:18 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
66,196 posts, read 33,604,999 times
Reputation: 14158
When we get government out of the marriage business, is the day we gain a lot of liberty and freedom!

They lose the control.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2011, 07:22 PM
 
2,447 posts, read 2,670,422 times
Reputation: 2203
"When are folks gonna understand that marriage should ONLY be a religious ceremony?"

LogicFail.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2011, 07:24 PM
 
Location: Southern California
15,088 posts, read 17,513,050 times
Reputation: 10298
Quote:
Originally Posted by PcolaFLGuy View Post
When are folks gonna understand that marriage should ONLY be a religious ceremony? If you're a member of a Church that you want to get married in and they agree to do it, I'm happy for you and wish you the best.

I can't say I'd can even wrap my head around what's going on here (Sister Wives), but many would say that about me. So, get the Government out of our private lives!

'Sister Wives' describe harm of bigamy probe - Yahoo! News

Marriage Privatization is the only way to move forward with all 'marriages', 'unions', etc. Let folks have their ceremonies at Church and go draw up personal contracts with a lawyer.
Nobody should be involved in marriage except the consenting adults getting married.

[simpler]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2011, 07:25 PM
 
15,924 posts, read 17,378,228 times
Reputation: 7641
Couples move to states that allow same sex marriages, simple...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2011, 08:16 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
66,196 posts, read 33,604,999 times
Reputation: 14158
Another case of a collective group getting more rights, above and beyond individual rights.
Only a ruler can grant that permission, for a price.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2011, 03:18 PM
 
Location: Pensacola, Florida
711 posts, read 686,798 times
Reputation: 470
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33 View Post
This is a HUGE issue for my best friend, and if gay couples were allowed to marry (and have the federal rights of a civil marriage) everything about his life would change drastically.

Ben (my friend) got a Fulbright Scholarship out of college to study retrovirus assembly at a college in Prague (he's brilliant). While there, he met and fell head-over-heels in love with a man - Lukas. They've been "together" 5 years now, although it's been incredibly difficult to do so.

They go back and forth between the two countries as best and as often as they can - tourist visas when they're eligible, Ben occasionally makes a bunch of phone calls and manages to get a job and a temporary work visa, etc. But that usually gives them 2-6 months together followed by months apart. It's also financially devastating and career killing. While in the US, Ben has to support them both and vice-versa for when they're in the Czech Republic since only one can generally working - not to mention the airfare. Also, neither can really have a career. Ben could have been a star cancer researcher or college professor, or MD by now, but instead he just hops from lab-tech job to lab-tech job when he's in the US.

Every year for the past 5 years Lukas has entered the immigration visa lottery (your "other avenue"), but his number has yet to be drawn and very likely never will.

I like this right of marriage. I think it's a good think. I don't want it taken away from everybody. I want it expanded to cover more couples - namely homosexual ones.
This is a sad story and I truly understand. Yet, discrimination against the LGBT community in America is obviously going to prevent Federal Gay Marriage/Civil Union for the near future.

I'd suggest that this couple reside most of the time in the Czech Republic. They are much more 'liberal' than America on this matter and I hear Prague is wonderful.

I'm not sure of their Immigration laws but they do have registered partnerships there or would probably give the US Citizen asylum there due to the persecution of gays in the America.


Quote:
I don't really understand what you're saying here. In the military, families get to live together. Legal spouses get to live in base housing with their military husband or wife, they get to shop at military commissaries and the PX. You call it a "random point" - I call it an extremely important thing for military families - and right now only for heterosexual military families. Even legally married gay couples are denied these things (makes you wonder what kind of legal mess will occur when a gay Marine legally adopts his husband's child).

What happens in your no "public" marriage world? Is my marriage and my family is whatever I say it is and the military has to play along? If I tell the Army I've married 14 other men, do we all get to live together on base? Do we just not let military members have families - at least ones they can be around when on leave?
Well, I assume the military would adjust their rules and regulations accordingly. Possibly they would have a one-spouse cohabitation rule for enlisted folks? I don't know. Maybe they have to stop providing housing for married folks on base and provide them with private housing?

There are ways to deal with this. We can't continue to have these intrusive laws just because it's would trouble the military or any other Federal Bureaucracy to adhere to the repeal of them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2011, 03:20 PM
 
Location: Pensacola, Florida
711 posts, read 686,798 times
Reputation: 470
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
Another case of a collective group getting more rights, above and beyond individual rights.
Only a ruler can grant that permission, for a price.
That's my point. I'm tired of married people getting special rights.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2011, 03:20 PM
 
Location: southern california
55,521 posts, read 74,415,857 times
Reputation: 47916
many will insist in getting gov involved in marriage. for 1 the martial industrial complex.
big money in divorce.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2011, 03:21 PM
 
Location: Occupied Georgia CSA
535 posts, read 292,337 times
Reputation: 170
I agree with you Pcola. 100% the government does not need to have anything to do with marriage they can't even manage money how they expect to inspect everyone's marriage.
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 $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top