Posted on 01/24/2014 4:44:08 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist
The state is going to insist on the management of land and real property. You simply are not going to be able to get around that.
“But clearly, homosexuals want to force me to approve of what they do, which I cannot do. And that is the thing that makes them so furious.”
Furious and eager. It’s the stick they know they will never have to put down, because they also know that those they hate most will never accept it and so will be able to be beaten continuously. With the power of the state.
Freegards
Then it's not Private Property is it?
I think it's a brilliant idea. And I think you're absolutely right.
I think its a great idea. Everyone equal. No “Marriage penalty”. Most importantly, no state issued permit, aka marriage license.
Where did you get the notion it ever was? Don't pay the taxes and see who owns the land after a few years.
We just rent land. The State OWNS it.
You can do what you want, you could do that 50 years ago, and 250 years ago, and 2500 years ago.
If you don’t care if the law recognizes your marriage, then don’t comply with the law.
Thomas Jefferson and George Washington wanted legal marriages, but that was their choice, others didn’t, and don’t need to, if they don’t want to.
I agree, but who's going to make the laws regarding all the divorces? And sidetracking a bit, is God also in the mix of a third marriage, for example? I guess it all depends on what one believes!
I think he’s on the right track. The State shouldn’t be in the business of licensing marriage at all. Period.
“Marriage has always had to be legal”
Wrong. States didn’t begin licensing marriage until the 19th century.
Marriage has not always been under the purview of “the state.” That’s why old church documents contain the records of marriages over many centuries. In more primitive cultures, a ceremony before the community (tribe, village, etc) resulted in “marriage.”
It isn’t wrong at all.
A marriage had to be legal, to be legal, if it wasn’t legal, then you were not married according to the law.
You didn’t have to be legally married in the past, and you don’t now, if you so choose.
But if you want your marriage to be legal, then it must be recognized as such.
While America only goes back to “the 19th century” licenses go back to the 1300s, and when it wasn’t a license, it was a bann, or something else, the license isn’t the requirement, even today Americans can marry without a license, yet still have a legal marriage.
If you don’t care if your marriage is legal or not, then don’t worry about any such things, just make up your own definition.
That comes and goes, most Americans who bring that up, are thinking about the relatively modern era of when the Catholic church was the authority, or some state religion, which is not something available to Americans, and not what most of us think would be preferable to us passing our own laws.
Thomas Jefferson, who was involved in marriage/divorce law, did not want the Pope running marriage law and didn't like that they had taken it over from Rome when the Catholic church became powerful enough.
“...thinking about the relatively modern era”
Yes, and that makes for a very shallow understanding.
The first hunter-gatherer and farming states had and enforced marriages.
A well-known example of one reason they had to do so is in the story of David and Bathsheba.
“Unless you want a simple legal status that ties a man to his children and their mother.”
It’s called a birth certificate.
“What about enforcement of laws relating to estates, trusts and wills, etc.?”
Is there any property involved (house, land, bank accounts, investment certificates and the like), and whose name(s) are listed as the owners? In many states, in court, sufficient evidence of life together is enough for a “common law” spouse to make a claim, even if they were not named as owners/holders of a property. And, common law or not, it requires no more effort to list Mark Jones and Mable Smith as owners as it does to list Mr and Mrs Mark Jones. One of my married nephews and his wife, even though they are legally married, has done exactly that - everything they hold in common is listed in both their birth names - property, bank accounts, investments, etc.
I live in America. I don’t give a rat’s ass what they did in Europe in the 13th century.
I don’t need a license from the State to get married. It’s none of their business. This whole gay marriage thing can be laid squarely at the feet of people like you. When you ceded the position that marriage is a State issue you willingly spread your philosophical legs for the screwing your getting.
You made your bed, now lie back and enjoy it.
Exactly, Apaches, Ancient Greece, New Guinea head hunters, everyone had/has marriage law.
Try reading what is posted to you.
“”You didn’t have to be legally married in the past, and you don’t now, if you so choose.””
“”If you don’t care if your marriage is legal or not, then don’t worry about any such things, just make up your own definition.””
If you do want it to be legal, you don’t need a license, contrary to what you think. “”even today Americans can marry without a license, yet still have a legal marriage.””
Why didn’t you just read the post, instead of making me repeat it?
“It’s called a birth certificate.”
That argument is great if you support so called gay marriage.
If marriage isn’t a legal status designed to protect and nurture the children resulting from a union of a man and a woman... then what is the argument against any two people marrying?
Societies have celebrated marriages for thousands of years... at it’s core it’s a fertility ritual and cultures that want to survive need to return to this definition.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.