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.
Ah, some poor widdle conservative snowflakes got their fweelings hurt! If you can't have marriage all to yourself we'll make sure no one can have it either!
Same as makes no difference, IMO. The gov is officially recognizing a couple's intent to form a family for legal purposes. You can call it entering into a "state of secular george" if you want. Doesn't change the underlying dynamic that a couple is asking for government recognition of their relationship, and the government is issuing that official recognition.
Notaries need not be government sanctioned. The whole discussion your entering resolves issues for service persons currently restricted from issuing benefits to anyone they're not state married to, or blood related.
So by definition someone working for the military would need government recognition to receive "married" benefits.
That does not apply to non-governmental employment however. And indeed most employers do extend marriage benefits to domestic partners, just on the say so of their employees.
Excuse me, the kind of notary we are talking about is exactly government-sanctioned, and must keep careful records of every document s/he witnesses.
"A Notary Public is an official of integrity appointed by state government —typically by the secretary of state — to serve the public as an impartial witness in performing a variety of official fraud-deterrent acts related to the signing of important documents." https://www.nationalnotary.org/knowl...about-notaries
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
The whole discussion your entering resolves issues for service persons currently restricted from issuing benefits to anyone they're not state married to, or blood related.
So by definition someone working for the military would need government recognition to receive "married" benefits.
That's correct. But it's correct for non-military as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
That does not apply to non-governmental employment however. And indeed most employers do extend marriage benefits to domestic partners, just on the say so of their employees.
Not sure where you get the idea of 'most' here. Many employers offer very little by way of employee benefits, let alone spousal benefits. And some folks are working very hard to get companies owned by religious individuals/organizations off the hook for providing benefits to same-sex spouses.
If it's a notarized paper stating the relationship status. Is that a marriage certificate? Would an official (as in within that organization) form stating NoK be a marriage certificate? Is a will a marriage certificate?
"Instead of applying for a marriage license, a couple would submit a form to the probate judge swearing that they are of legal age, are entering the marriage willingly, are not already married and are not related by blood or adoption. The probate judge would record the form as the official marriage document"
Generally getting a marriage license consists of proof of legal age, swear you are entering marriage willingly and are not already married.
Same thing.
A probate judge records the form.
A ceremony is required and an official signs and records the form.
Basically the same thing. Your doing away with a mandatory ceremony which is good. No one has to actually sign anything removing any responsibility. I doubt it will remove the refusal of the probate judges to accept and record the form if they are so inclined.
Same thing.
Your still married by permission with a piece of paper saying your married. One is a shinny certificate you can display next to your wedding photos, one is zerox copy of a form.
It seems kind of backwards that in order to be legally married you are forced to have a ceremony officiated by some government designated person. In a few states such as Pennsylvania you can self-unite but people have run into problems with the local government, as you need to file different paperwork, and you still need witnesses to attend your vows. In some states you can only do it if you are of certain faiths. A Quaker can self-unite, a Christian or Atheist cannot. It is too much government intervention and restriction for something personal.
I don't see why it has to be so complicated, just let the couple file and sign a legal marriage document, record it and let them have a ceremony on their own, or not.
What if people were forced to have ceremonies before they could enter into other legal contracts. lol. It's a scam/ cash grab, to pressure couples to have a wedding and all that goes with it. So many people make money off of marriage, starting with the officiants.
The government gets involved in the most personal and important aspects of life. In many states a signed, hand written will is invalid. Big brother must strictly oversee and validate what individuals do or it isn't real.
It seems kind of backwards that in order to be legally married you are forced to have a ceremony officiated by some government designated person. In a few states such as Pennsylvania you can self-unite but people have run into problems with the local government, as you need to file different paperwork, and you still need witnesses to attend your vows. In some states you can only do it if you are of certain faiths. A Quaker can self-unite, a Christian or Atheist cannot. It is too much government intervention and restriction for something personal.
I don't see why it has to be so complicated, just let the couple file and sign a legal marriage document, record it and let them have a ceremony on their own, or not.
What if people were forced to have ceremonies before they could enter into other legal contracts. lol. It's a scam/ cash grab, to pressure couples to have a wedding and all that goes with it. So many people make money off of marriage, starting with the officiants.
The government gets involved in the most personal and important aspects of life. In many states a signed, hand written will is invalid. Big brother must strictly oversee and validate what individuals do or it isn't real.
This is true in most states already, and has been for decades. But we're talking Alabama here, so of course they have wanted to require religion to be included in state governance everywhere they can get away with it. Taking a required ceremony out of this process is a baby step forward for them.
This is true in most states already, and has been for decades. But we're talking Alabama here, so of course they have wanted to require religion to be included in state governance everywhere they can get away with it. Taking a required ceremony out of this process is a baby step forward for them.
Whether a religion is involved should be a personal choice.
The government should not legislate one way or another. The government should have no say how or whom I choose to marry, and the government should not provide extra benefit to married or single people.
"Instead of applying for a marriage license, a couple would submit a form to the probate judge swearing that they are of legal age, are entering the marriage willingly, are not already married and are not related by blood or adoption. The probate judge would record the form as the official marriage document"
Generally getting a marriage license consists of proof of legal age, swear you are entering marriage willingly and are not already married.
Same thing.
A probate judge records the form.
A ceremony is required and an official signs and records the form.
Basically the same thing. Your doing away with a mandatory ceremony which is good. No one has to actually sign anything removing any responsibility. I doubt it will remove the refusal of the probate judges to accept and record the form if they are so inclined.
Same thing.
Your still married by permission with a piece of paper saying your married. One is a shinny certificate you can display next to your wedding photos, one is zerox copy of a form.
This is true in most states already, and has been for decades. But we're talking Alabama here, so of course they have wanted to require religion to be included in state governance everywhere they can get away with it. Taking a required ceremony out of this process is a baby step forward for them.
This is not correct, almost all states require a ceremony which the officiant signs off, not necessarily religious but a government approved officiant must perform a ceremony.
This is not correct, almost all states require a ceremony which the officiant signs off, not necessarily religious but a government approved officiant must perform a ceremony.
I think maybe this is just remnants of times past. Maybe this bill with get other stats questioning why a ceremony is required and they will do away with it being mandatory.
I remember my mandatory ceremony at the courthouse. It was quite awful.
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.
