Marriage on the rocks

Jewish World Review ^ | Dec. 9, 2002 | John Leo

[Centurion2000]

bump

[SunnyUsa]

I thought this was about Tony & Carmella's marriage on the rocks ~~ BigTime! ha!

[Brad C.]

Government permission doesn't make one married, it allows it. It is totally illegitimate.

An excellent point, thank you for your response. I would be "married" to my wife without a ceremony of any kind. We were just meant to be together.

[xzins]

If two gay people want to call what they're doing a "marriage" then that's their business. They can call it "integer analysis" for all I care. It will end up being neither a marriage nor integer analysis.

I object to the state giving special tax benefits to anyone for any reason....individual or corporation. That's not their role.

Legal contracts can be entered into to handles reasons you mention....powers of attorney, wills, living wills, etc.

[Mamzelle]

This is an expansion of the notion and practice of "common law" marriages. While it threatens traditional marriage, it also threatens to shackle a lot of men who presently get their "milk for free" without "buying the cow."

[xzins]

2 agreements in one day is more than my system can handle. I'm sure we're close to overload.

[SJackson]

If you'd like to be on or off this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.

[Mr. Jeeves]

That's a very good article - thanks for posting the link. I can hear the Left screaming already...

[Nick Danger]

I can hear the Left screaming already...

The left is hardly screaming. The American Law Institute is an enormously influential organization. While people on this thread argue over whether marriage is sanctioned by God or the State, the states themselves will be quietly adopting these recomendations, mostly by enacting verbatim the Law Institute's model legislation. This is what usually happens when the American Law Institute issues one of these packages on any subject.

Two or three years down the road, men are going to find that the same legal artillery that follows a bride down the aisle and takes up residence in her bedroom, ready to blow the man out of house and home at her whim, has been provided to women in less formal relationships.

Merely avoiding marriage will no longer be enough to defend a man against the State in its never-ending quest to transfer income and wealth from gullible males to the legally-favored sex. Every woman -- married or not -- will soon be empowered to seize bank accounts, homes, cars, whatever, from any man who looks at her twice... all courtesy of the all-powerful state and the Bar Association.

These recommendations from the American Law Institute are a big deal. Nothing is going to stop them, they will be implemented, and their consequences will be huge. Never mind the red herrings in this post about homosexual marriage and all that... yeah, it's in there but it's a nit compared to the societal changes that will come from men having to be wary of even going on a date with a woman.

In five years we'll be reading about men losing their homes to women they barely knew. We'll wonder how things came to such a pass. Well, here's your chance to see it coming, because here it comes.

[Mr. Jeeves]

Maybe men will need to develop some sort of "pre-dating" agreement, like a prenuptial agreement, that limits their liability in the case of a breakup.

Men of any means are simply going to have avoid entering into any kind or relationship without first filling out the required legal paperwork. The lawyers are enriching themselves at the expense of society again, that seems certain.

Men still have some control of the situation, though. We must ensure that a woman we are interested in meets certain standards of character and personal honor BEFORE entering into any sort of relationship with her. Many of the problems we hear about are the result of men doing what men tend to do: having sex with mentally or emotionally unstable women just because they are physically attractive. Men had better wake up fast, and realize that since feminist law is empowering psychotic women (like the feminists, themselves) to take everything they have, those women need to be avoided at all costs, no matter how good they look.

[Brad C.]

If it hasn't happened already, a gay couple will someday in the near future be joined in marriage by clergy in some "forward thinking, progressive" (for lack of a better term) church. After which, they and all in attendance will believe that God has in fact blessed them and their union.

You and I will not believe that to be true, yet our beliefs will not invalidate theirs. The old "What God has joined, let no man...." So then many questions arise. Is the church that joined them really representing God? What right do we have as a society to stop this union, if the people are practicing their faith and their faith blesses the union? Don't we all believe that each of us has a right to follow our own religious path?

And speaking of other paths, I read on another thread the fact that in many countries where Islam is the predominant religion, there is a lot of inbreeding between first cousins. If such a marriage is performed in another country and another religion, and the happy(?) couple relocates to the US, should we recognize that marriage as valid? It is in violation of our legal code, but I am not sure if it violates the dogma of our churches. Should the couple and their children be denied visas?

There are just so many questions, and I hope that we can continue on a reasonable discourse. I am not looking for an arguement of any kind, but I know that all of this is a very touching subject amoungst us conservatives. I am especially glad to be discussing this with a man of God, as I hope to gain a better understanding of these issues.

[Brad C.]

I am sorry that you did not find the happiness that I was able to find in my marriage. I waited many years (38) before I settled down, and I think knowing myself better allowed me to find the perfect match. My joys are better when shared with her, and my sorrows quickly fade when she steps up and takes some of the load off my shoulders.

[hopespringseternal]

The logical root of all this (legal favoring of women) is the ability of a man to walk away and leave a woman and children without support. (The actual root is probably the man hating NAGs agitating for every weapon they can get against men.)

Of course, empowering women to seize that support also empowers women to throw the man out of his own family.

Lost in all this is the emotional well-being of the kids. For that matter, all the wealth seizures surrounding divorce really isn't all that effective for their physical well-being either.

If there are no kids involved, who cares. Let them settle it with pistols at 20 paces.

For the kids, no-fault divorce has to end. The burden should be on the filer to prove that their spouse is abusive or unfaithful. If found guilty, the offender should be sterilized.

If two people are so contentious that they need the state to manage their separation, then the kids probably need a new home anyway. Take custody away from the quarreling miscreants.

[tahiti]

You better read post 29 again, again, and again.

You will be the first casualty of it.

[John O]

I object to the state giving special tax benefits to anyone for any reason....individual or corporation. That's not their role.

I tend to disagree on this point. This is one of the few places where the state does have a constitutional interest under the general welfare clause.

The country is in a far better state when marriage is the norm. Marriages tend to soften the aggressive promiscuous nature of men and provide stable secure places for women to produce children. The next generation of this country's citizens are best raised in married families.

Defense of marriage is one of the few tax breaks that should exist. (preferably in the form of sales tax rebates as the NRST outlines)

[Church attendance is another.]

God Save America (Please)

[John O]

Men still have some control of the situation, though. We must ensure that a woman we are interested in meets certain standards of character and personal honor BEFORE entering into any sort of relationship with her.

Sounds like a return to arranged marriages won't be so bad after all.

GSA(P)

[John O]

Should the couple and their children be denied visas?

Yes. All islamics married or not should be denied visas. In fact, almost all non-Christians should be denied visas.

GSA(P)

[xzins]

Brad, I don't think my views represent the mainstream of most religious folks in the US. They have a great investment in protecting the word "marriage."

I, on the other hand, want to remove ALL financial and legal benefits afforded to those who are married. I shouldn't receive any benefits that others don't ALL receive from the state for any reason. That makes the state my daddy. I don't want a daddy. I want a tool for organizing highways, defense, public health, and commerce.

If some other denomination wants to join a mule and a cow and call it marriage, then, as far as I'm concerned, they can call it whatever they want. God's Bible is not subject to the whim of idiots. If God doesn't accept the covenant, it just happens to be a mule and a cow in the same pasture with a sign that says "marriage" hung around their necks.

Just don't give them my tax dollars to buy their oats.