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)
 
Old 02-10-2015, 08:34 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,054 posts, read 29,419,657 times
Reputation: 7829

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by fireandice1000 View Post
I don't get it. Why does a person need a license to get married? It seems retarded to me. I think the whole license thing is just some Big.Gov intrusion into people's lives. Is it some national security thing? Just dump the whole thing and let people marry their boyfriend/girlfriend/martian/cousin/sister/whatever in any way shape or form.
A marriage license is a legal document that binds two people together. If you don't want to have a legally binding document and your state doesn't have common law marriage, then you are free to get married without the government's involvement, but you won't be able to have the same benefits as a legally binding civil marriage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-10-2015, 09:53 AM
 
Location: McKinleyville, California
6,413 posts, read 9,103,507 times
Reputation: 4220
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeywrenching View Post
marriage would not be abolished, it would just be put in the hands of religion where it belongs and out of the hands of government.
Why does it belong in the hands of religion? Religion is what screws it up, too many religions, too many spoons in the pot, it would create chaos. Government took control over marriage to prevent one religion from dominating the others, as it has happened in the past. Who's religion makes the rules, or does each one make their own rules? That is how it would be screwed up.

Last edited by TheDragonslayer; 02-10-2015 at 10:23 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2015, 09:58 AM
 
Location: McKinleyville, California
6,413 posts, read 9,103,507 times
Reputation: 4220
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeywrenching View Post
strange, my last marriage was recognized by my church but was not recognized by the government. even tho according to my churches laws I was married.
Nothing strange about it, it has always been that way. Want a legal marriage, get a license, just want a wedding, do it in the church, but it will not stand up in court without that civil marriage license. All your church can do is marry you before your god, the government issues the license and rights.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2015, 10:04 AM
 
14,920 posts, read 11,132,503 times
Reputation: 4828
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeywrenching View Post
civil unions is where the government should get involved, and government should stay out of marriages.
And since we have separation of Church and State in the US, that's exactly what we have. Civil marriage and religious marriage are separate institutions. Civil marriages in the US ARE civil unions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2015, 10:06 AM
 
14,920 posts, read 11,132,503 times
Reputation: 4828
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeywrenching View Post
please do not say that. after all, it was democrats that pushed no interracial marriages between whites and blacks for so long. heck democrats even made it a crime to have a marriage between white and black persons.
And were Democrats in that era right-wing conservatives, or left-wing liberals???
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2015, 10:09 AM
 
14,920 posts, read 11,132,503 times
Reputation: 4828
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqueg View Post
Legally, common-law is exactly what you had - a marriage w/out a government marriage license, but with the intent of both parties to live as spouses. So yes, most states will honor the parties' intent.
I think something like only 8 states still recognize common-law marriages.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2015, 10:14 AM
bUU
 
Location: Georgia
11,906 posts, read 8,619,356 times
Reputation: 8374
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33 View Post
And were Democrats in that era right-wing conservatives, or left-wing liberals???
I think a lot of younger folks don't realize that the two parties used to be differentiated on other issues, don't know that both parties had conservatives and liberals back then, and that roughly in that time period the parties were in the process of effectively switching sides with regard to which most strongly supported civil rights for minorities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2015, 11:06 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
66,145 posts, read 33,571,533 times
Reputation: 14138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mwahfromtheheart View Post
Without marriage, government doesn't recognize your spouses right as your family member. The only liberty it is restricting is whoever is trying to deny your decision to take in that person as your spouse.

I cannot believe how much resistance people have over homosexual couples being married. They'd rather throw away marriage law. I wonder if anybody even dreamed of doing that before homosexual marriage became a possibility.

There is that government word....

A natural right, becomes a privilege when government gets involved.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2015, 11:09 AM
Status: "It is the nature of grotesque things you canít look away" (set 27 days ago)
 
Location: Old Hippie Heaven
17,988 posts, read 8,117,349 times
Reputation: 10434
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33 View Post
I think something like only 8 states still recognize common-law marriages.
You are right. I should have said that in the absence of a third-party objection, most courts would honor the parties' intent when it came to apportioning property, debts, and custody. But no court would be *bound* to do so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2015, 11:11 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,054 posts, read 29,419,657 times
Reputation: 7829
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
There is that government word....

A natural right, becomes a privilege when government gets involved.
The only involvement government has is issuing the legally binding document between two people.
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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:38 PM.

© 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