Posted on 05/29/2015 6:48:25 AM PDT by shove_it
They have done that in many places. I imagine you never heard to ‘Civil Unions’. That wasn’t good enough anywhere it was tried and the gay lobby continued to push for ‘full marriage equality’ even in the face of such laws.
Better that the state simply has no part in marriage whatsoever so the heavy hand of the state not be used against those who only want traditional(real) marriage.
which destroys all tax planning
utterly fails to address children (or worse makes them all accessories as the left wants)
totally rewrites inheritance laws.
opens the door WIDE for rampant fraud and criminal conduct.
I have an ancestor there who had to post a bond in the equivalent in today's money of about $20K to get a license to marry. His father had to mortgage the family grist mill to come up with the money. It was returned after either spouse died or they remained married for a specified time, about three years. But, of course, the government had use of the bond money all that time and returned only the face value of that bond.
Interesting stuff and could explain why so many moved into the high country, just shacked up or married with the local Cherokee who didn't require such bonds.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3294695/posts?page=2#2
The particular state isn’t the only one giving up revenue; the feds tax married hetero couples more.
That’s why a lot of hetero couples got married in church & didn’t file paperwork with the county clerk.
I agree, get the state & feds out of it & let em lose the $.
Nonsense, licenses go back 800 years, and are another option to a bann, Thomas Jefferson did not buy a marriage license because of alimony.
Finally. Why should anyone have to buy a “license” to get married? It is none of the States business.
Period.
L
So you want Muslim clerics and gay clergy, and Mormons, along with priests to decide what is a legal marriage?
See post 25.
Lousy consequences, I agree. But see post #21 to see why the current road we are heading down makes for even worse consequences.
How does this change anything?
Just as in 1760, 1860, 1960, and today, either a marriage will be recognized by law, or it won’t.
There has never been a time in America where you were forced to seek to make your marriage “legal”, if you didn’t want to.
I'd call it a "civil union" since they already have that legal term (and it's more polite than the more accurate term - "perversion pact").
I didn't say I'm endorsing that. I said I'm bookmarking and watching it.
Interesting. My husband’s Eastern TN ancestors include a Cherokee great-grandmama.
Of course there is legal marriage, aside from having to know what is legal for immigration and military service and so on, what about divorce, child custody, inheritance, division of property and so on?
The point is the purpose of state involvement is to impose an obligation not to grant a right. The gays have been allowed to change the argument to one of rights rather than one of obligations.
The first federal laws in regard to marriage were about federal benefits.
That was legislation by the Continental congress, and then the United States Congress, in 1780, 1794, and 1798 and so on.
I know very little about the history of marriage and family law. I understand Mary Ann Glendon has written a pretty comprehensive book on the subject: The Transformation of Family Law: State, Law, and Family in the United States and Western Europe
I see it's available used for about $10. I might get it.
An even bigger driver was the high country's shortage of marriageable women and the Cherokee viewing such marriages as a way to accommodate a growing number of white immigrants and ensure survival of the tribe. Many actually betrothed their children at a young age to children of influential white families, as in my mother's Georgia ancestor's case.
The children, of course, didn't actually get married until they reached the mature old age of 13, 14, 15 or so.
The Cherokee weren't the old tribe which did this, just one of the more successful. Others, such as the Lenape, kidnapped white children outright and impressed them into the tribe. Many didn't want to go back when rescued, particularly when years had passed. Those which didn't make the transition were still good for ransom income, especially in the southwest where Mexican half-breeds would pay good money and/or trade goods on the spot and take them to towns such as Sante Fe where they could turn a quick profit.
Still others, such as the Sioux and Cheyenne, targeted older kids, mid to preteens. They would bribe them away with a pony, comely maiden or sometimes just the promise to lead a life easier than the tough work of farming, ranching or even driving in a wagon train. This happened to my father's great grandfather.
I love family stories like this. So many would make great books or movies.
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.