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!
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.
In other words, a marriage license that doesn't happen to be called a "marriage license."
"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.
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!
Actually if this did that, I'd be all for it.
Marriage should confer no benefits, nor should government have any position on who marries to whom, or not.
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!
So what should we do first? Cut off survivor benefits to widows or toss military spouses out on base housing?
Survivors benefits are related to family, thus there's no reason to not extend that to persons considered family by the person who is eligible for benefits, survivors benefits can go to children, parents, why not someone nominated by the eligible party. Base housing should be available to anyone in a relationship. Why does marriage confer the right to rent such a residence, but long term cohabitation does not? Remove the marriage restriction.
I’m curious to see how this would play out with immigration. Currently one of the required pieces to show a bona fide marriage when it comes to spousal immigration benefits is a copy of your marriage certificate. I suppose anyone from Alabama who bring someone on a K-1 or adjust their spouses status would have to go get married out of state
Albritton said the language about "licensed minister" is ambiguous and the requirement for a ceremony entangles the state unnecessarily in what should be a private affair. His bill abolishes the requirement for a ceremony.
I like that. It has always bothered me that we need a big brother of some sort to "solemnize" marriage through a forced ceremony. It's just weird. Let people sign the papers like adults, like other contracts.
Marriage should confer no benefits, nor should government have any position on who marries to whom, or not.
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.
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.
