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.
If they are bitching about government involvement in government sanctioned marriage, yes.
This merits repeating: "In legal terms, all it means is that if a couple wants to be legally married, if they meet the qualifications, the gov will recognize it. The couple then has legally enforceable rights and responsibilities toward each other, and are eligible for certain benefits, and many of those rights, responsibilities and/or benefits don't apply to non-legally-married couples.
Many couples are choosing to forego legal marriage"
jacqueg
Then why marry?
People get married for the many governmental benefits of marriage.
You do not have to marry. You can live with, have sex with, have kids with and build a life with whomever you wish without government.
I don't understand why people say this.
Why should those benefits, if earned by and owed to the recipient, require a marriage license?
If I live with a woman and we have children together, why should our children be denied benefits just because their parents haven't walked down the isle?
Why should those benefits, if earned by and owed to the recipient, require a marriage license?
If I live with a woman and we have children together, why should our children be denied benefits just because their parents haven't walked down the isle?
I don't have a problem with that.
Talk to your legislator, and see if you can figure out what their problem is. Report back to us, please, I'm sure just about all of us are curious.
Why should those benefits, if earned by and owed to the recipient, require a marriage license?
If I live with a woman and we have children together, why should our children be denied benefits just because their parents haven't walked down the isle?
Well they are not earned or owed.
If you choose to have the government recognize your relationship as committed one aka marriage and you meet the requirements then it does so and extends certain enforceable benefits, protections and responsibilities upon that union.
If you choose not to have the government recognize your relationship you are not extended certain enforceable benefits, protections or responsibilities.
I have two grandkids. They both want a new smartphone. I say to them, "you know how to get a new smartphone? Get a job and I will match your earning until you have enough to purchase a smartphone". In doing this I am recognizing their commitment to that new phone. One of them gets a job and earns the money and is able to buy a new smartphone. The other chooses not to get a job or earn any money but instead keeps his old phone but still expects the same financial benefit. Why should I afford the same benefit to the second grandchild?
^^^^^
A poor analogy - it's more like both grandkids got a job and are contributing to their new phones, but you have chosen to fund only grandchildren that accept your stipulation that they must join the communist party to receive funding.
You're not rewarding effort and hard work, only obedience - that seems at odds with American values.
^^^^^
A poor analogy - it's more like both grandkids got a job and are contributing to their new phones, but you have chosen to fund only grandchildren that accept your stipulation that they must join the communist party to receive funding.
You're not rewarding effort and hard work, only obedience - that seems at odds with American values.
Spoken like a true liberal.
Point is no one is entitled to something for nothing.
Spoken like a true liberal.
Point is no one is entitled to something for nothing.
By nothing, what you mean is not being obedient to regulation meant to enforce certain types of behaviour.
You show disdain for the notion of hard work and initiative, and believe that even if one has contributed more by way of tax, than another, that any benefit paid back via entitlements, should be on the basis of obedience, rather than contribution.
I'll happily accept the label of liberal, and in return , shall label you a communist - I'm assuming that even if couple A (not married), worked extremely hard, made lots of sacrifice,paid lots of tax, you would dem them less worthy of entitlement than couple B(married), who seldom worked, were involved in crime and anti social behaviour, solely on the basis of a regulation that isn't an essential activity of the State ?
"The probate judge would record the form as the official marriage document..."
yeah, and then the judge will refuse to accept or record the document because it violates his/her beliefs and back to square one.
The law would remove discretion from the process. Now a judge does have discretion when issuing licenses. If the law passes they cannot refuse to record the document.
It would be the most libertarian marriage law of any state. They all require some sort of solemnization which some officiant has to sign off on. One less bit of government involvement is a good thing.
By nothing, what you mean is not being obedient to regulation meant to enforce certain types of behaviour.
You show disdain for the notion of hard work and initiative, and believe that even if one has contributed more by way of tax, than another, that any benefit paid back via entitlements, should be on the basis of obedience, rather than contribution.
I'll happily accept the label of liberal, and in return , shall label you a communist - I'm assuming that even if couple A (not married), worked extremely hard, made lots of sacrifice,paid lots of tax, you would dem them less worthy of entitlement than couple B(married), who seldom worked, were involved in crime and anti social behaviour, solely on the basis of a regulation that isn't an essential activity of the State ?
You dont know what your talking about. This has nothing to do with working hard or making sacrifices or paying taxes. It has nothing to do with obedience. No one give a rats behind if you choose to have a legal state recognized marriage or if you choose to simply cohabit or anything in between.
My analogy clearly supports making an effort in order to achieve what you want. You want the state to recognize your union you apply for a marriage license. In recognition of your union and the commitment you made the state offers certain benefits, protections and responsibilities.
You dont want the state involved in your union. Fine. But you dont get the same benefits, protections and responsibilities. Its a pretty simple concept.
On the flip side there are benefits provided for not having the state recognize your union. Medicare will pay 100% of medical cost for having a child, WIC, FS, subsidized housing, utilities, education, etc. You can live together as husband and wife and not have to claim the others income. And what some men seem to think is very important, if you decide to split, your other has no claim to "your stuff" and you are not automatically, defacto the father of children born during your union.
Its a choice. What your advocating is just extended government benefits for everyone.
Well they are not earned or owed.
If you choose to have the government recognize your relationship as committed one aka marriage and you meet the requirements then it does so and extends certain enforceable benefits, protections and responsibilities upon that union.
If you choose not to have the government recognize your relationship you are not extended certain enforceable benefits, protections or responsibilities.
I have two grandkids. They both want a new smartphone. I say to them, "you know how to get a new smartphone? Get a job and I will match your earning until you have enough to purchase a smartphone". In doing this I am recognizing their commitment to that new phone. One of them gets a job and earns the money and is able to buy a new smartphone. The other chooses not to get a job or earn any money but instead keeps his old phone but still expects the same financial benefit. Why should I afford the same benefit to the second grandchild?
What?
Are you saying unmarried people are undeserving of benefits and/or lazy?
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.
