| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In nearly ever culture we know of, the concept of marriage or wedding is "officiated" by some sort of spiritual figure, from a priest to an elder/shaman/medicine worker/etc. . .
It was very uncommon for anyone else to even be involved (outside of friends and family) except for a few reasons. The late Babylonians might have, the mid to late era Romans, and a few other cultures would hold an annual to centenial census, both to see the relative number of people in what areas as well as for taxes, where who was married was a factor. Legally, for the most part the only other real wat it mattered was either for legitimacy of an heir or for political obligation.
But even in those cases, the non-religious government had no actual say on it, it was just a tool that could be used, not controlled.
In middle eastern cultures, but also in many tribal cultures worldwide, the concept of marriage is vedy different than our western one. It is generally not a lifelong assumption, but rather one where one parth assumes complete responsibility over the other for their protection, well-beinh, housing, education, and food, and can often not be sexual at all or even age dependant. Most of those cultures have no governing officials, but rather either a council of elders or heavy social and religious taboos to enforce.
Actually, where marriages in Europe during the Middle Ages were concerned, it was the couple themselves that actually performed the ceremony, no priest needed, unless he was one of the witnesses. Link.
The US Government should switch to recognizing only the legality of Civil Unions, and then let the Churches deal with Marriages.What possible advantage does this offer? All you're doing is not allowing clergy to fill out some paperwork.It allows any group of consenting adults to create a contract on living together that would cover finances, medical access, splitting, inheritance, etc.
It does not. The government can and will still have regulations on which groups of people are allowed to create such a "contract."
To be honest why should the government care whom I set up a permanent or temporary living arrangements with? All a Marriage Certificate is, is a contract that covers certain things.
Actually, no. Marriage is substantially more than a contract, and the whole point of marriage law is to create a situation that people outside the marriage are compelled to recognize.
Basically, I can't create a contract that binds a third, non-involved, party. I can't write a contract with my business partner that gives him the right to live in my apartment -- the landlord isn't obliged to respect our agreement and probably won't. The point of marriage is that there is a set of laws involved where the government says that a spouse has certain rights that third parties are obliged to respect. The landlord can tell me I can't let my business partner move in, but generally can't say the same thing about my sweetie. (Depending of course upon local law.)
Hey, AMiB! Welcome back, after a long absence.
What happened?
Anyway, prepare for OTD to blow up. Now all we need is Darkwing Duck and we can have ourselves a proper party.
It's true. Did you expect things to change?
I find the sameness here comforting myself. I can count on the same people having the same opinions. It's like having a bunch of dissenting voices in your head shouting over one another. It helps me to figure out where I stand on current events though, being largely unchanging myself, the process tends to reinforce my biases.
I've come to much the same conclusion.
I once considered myself libertarian. I always thought they were right about a lot of things (civil liberties, mostly) but somehow glaringly wrong on environmental policy. And then I studied economics and I can't abide laissez-faire capitalism.
Thus, layer by layer the onion peeled away to show nothing inside.
I also feel as though even libertarianism has become more radical, and ancaps are loony tunes.
[Reshuffles Post Order]
Libertarian Scorecard for A Stooge in Black
Comrade Thorn pops by occasionally, in between work stints I gather, dumps about 25 posts in Bride of Gov't Folly, gets yelled at by, let's say, Citizen K(e)rensky, goes back to work.
The White Knife disappeared after Citizen Betts called him a monster in a gun control thread and hasn't been seen since, which makes me sad because one pro-union Wal-Mart picker is worth 2 dozen Obama apologists even if he did canvass for Ron Paul. Since he appeared, to me anyway, to only be a libertarian on social and foreign policy issues (he kept saying that "we" could pay for all of the welfare programs "we" wanted if "we'd" drop the wars, drones and spying) I'd up that to he was worth about 4 dozen Obama apologists.
Citizen Duck, I am convinced, returned as Justin Rocket (unless there are 2 gay Christian libertarian Paizo fans with back problems in love with the 10th Amendment running around out there, which, I suppose, is possible) but has since disappeared again.
Citizen R. is, of course, still Citizen R. To be honest, after all these years I think I love Citizen R.
Btw, you don't seem to have changed much either. Not that I'm one to talk. I haven't changed much since I was 16. It's been brought to my attention that this really isn't a good thing, but, pfft, whatever.
I also feel as though even libertarianism has become more radical, and ancaps are loony tunes.Ancaps have been looney toons from day 1, though. Free market in babies and so on.
Agreed, I guess what I mean is that the population of self-identified libertarians is leaning more towards anarcho-capitalism. As in, the more rational among self-identifying libertarians jump ship over the passage of time.
15 years ago, when the logic of hookers and blow swayed me in my adolescence, no one was extolling the virtues of a stateless nation, corporate sovereignty, et al. I used to hear a lot of "the state often interferes needlessly, causing problems because it is too heavy-handed" rather than "if we let corporations do what they want, (something), then we'll all live in a utopia!" type underwear gnome logic.
Citizen Duck, I am convinced, returned as Justin Rocket (unless there are 2 gay Christian libertarian Paizo fans with back problems in love with the 10th Amendment running around out there, which, I suppose, is possible) but has since disappeared again.
What's funny is that when we called him on it he vehemently denied it then took his toys and left.
Oooh, that's too bad, I missed that. And I was waiting it for, too.
Hee hee!
And I am reminded of why I run the other way from libertarians now. I used to be interested in the movement.
On the topic question: Eh, don't care. Not going to get married anyway.
Yeah I can't remember what thread it was in. I was absent from the boards for a good long while recently as well. I said something about him being DD and he was like "never heard of him" or something.
It's quite possible it was a flamey sort of post exchange that was excised from the court records.
On the topic question: Eh, don't care. Not going to get married anyway.
Too right, son. Too right.
Well, if we're gonna get back on topic, anyone got any more on this? 'Cuz it's pretty hawt.
No trained scientist nor anthropologist, I, but fun debate in academia:
Vs.
EDIT: But maybe we're not.
Sex at Ducks?
Too short. My woman and I are nearing the end of our 10 year trial period.
I'm with you there, bud*, It will be 9 years this coming March for my Woman and I.
I was absent from the boards for a good long while recently as well.
Well then, a heart Welcome Back! to you, too, Comrade Meatrace.
I should've WB!d you before, but you tend to come and go, I've noticed. Probably comes from having a life and shiznit.
Yeah. It was like exams and stuff. And then it was christmas.
Actually, I was still lurking on the "normal" boards a fair bit, but OTD had lost my interest for maybe 2 months?
Everyone is different. Everyone's relationship is different. Everyone's circumstances are different. This may work for some people, but not for everyone.
It might prevent a few stupid marriages. In turn, it might prevent a few good ones too.
|
To go waaay back, to the original topic...
Someone said that a cooling off period would allow checks to be made that the two parties weren't already married.
That's true, but there are some other things that need checking as well. Like, you're not close blood relatives, neither of you are under age or have a mental condition that makes you incapable of giving informed consent, are you both registered citizens, or in the country with a valid visa, etc.
So there are good reasons for having a short break between applying for the licence and doing the deed, but you should be able to get all of those ducks in a row a damn sight quicker than two years.
The cooling off period only makes sense if there are legal and tax ramifications for being married.
Maybe THATS what we should do away with.
Because none of this stuff is going to keep two close relatives, or two otherwise married people (to other individuals) from falling in love, cohabitating, or getting bizzay.
Well then, a heart Welcome Back! to you, too, Comrade Meatrace.
That should, of course, been a "hearty Welcome Back!" Although, in the context of this thread...
[Waggles eyebrows]
Hate to fuel a derail, and not necessarily libertarianism per se, but, nevertheless, The San Diego Chicken Explains Free Market Economics
Why? That would be my thought about it. If it is something to add sanctity to marriage, that is misplaced. Sanctity of marriage is between the two people getting married. If it is to prevent stupid marriages giving the institution of marriage a bad name, it won't help. And if it's a stop gap measure to give various legislatures time to make homosexual weddings illegal again, it's downright evil.
I think there would be good things and bad with a wait that have NOTHING to do with homosexual weddings and everything to do with the current divorce rates in the US.
I actually think it WOULD help in regards to divorces. Divorces seem to come at the one year, two year, five year, 10 year, and 20 year marks.
A LOT of them are prior to the one year mark if I recall, so actually reaching the one year mark can be cause for celebration.
However, in some cases, those who got married and divorced prior to one year had been dating for longer than that before getting married. So perhaps there's some small change (though even smaller now in the West that more and more people are living together...you live together one day, get married, and then you are still living in the same conditions together that you were before getting married) that makes them decide to separate AFTER getting married (which seems a LOT more expensive to me than if you simply decided prior to getting married).
Perhaps if it were at the one year mark instead, especially if they haven't dated or been with each other longer than that already?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Separation of Church and State, except that a clergyperson can sign off on that Government issued marriage certificate.The US Government should switch to recognizing only the legality of Civil Unions, and then let the Churches deal with Marriages.
I actually would agree with this. ALOT. Except perhaps have one termed government/civil marriage and the other the religious or traditional marriage.
I think if this was done, it would solve a LOT of the debates regarding issues that surround definitions and freedoms in regards to marriage rights.
Separation of Church and State, except that a clergyperson can sign off on that Government issued marriage certificate.The US Government should switch to recognizing only the legality of Civil Unions, and then let the Churches deal with Marriages.
I actually would agree with this. ALOT. Except perhaps have one termed government/civil marriage and the other the religious or traditional marriage.
I think if this was done, it would solve a LOT of the debates regarding issues that surround definitions and freedoms in regards to marriage rights.
The debate has literally nothing to do with the words. It's a straight argument over whether non-heterosexual relationships are worthy of the same treatment as heterosexual relationships are. The words are just a poll-tested way of saying answering that question in the negative.
The debate has literally nothing to do with the words. It's a straight argument over whether non-heterosexual relationships are worthy of the same treatment as heterosexual relationships are. The words are just a poll-tested way of saying answering that question in the negative.
Separation of Church and State, except that a clergyperson can sign off on that Government issued marriage certificate.The US Government should switch to recognizing only the legality of Civil Unions, and then let the Churches deal with Marriages.
I actually would agree with this. ALOT. Except perhaps have one termed government/civil marriage and the other the religious or traditional marriage.
I think if this was done, it would solve a LOT of the debates regarding issues that surround definitions and freedoms in regards to marriage rights.
I'm not certain I understand what you are saying?
I think the current Western debate over marriage definitions has everything to do with civil and government contracted marriages and people's religious views of marriage. The reason most (not all, there are those who take a biological or natural slant view also) have problems with changing a definition isn't that it's changing a definition overall...but in their view, normally a religious view, it IS changing a definition from what THEY understand that definition to be.
They understand marriage from a religious definition. The push however is in regards to the civil definition.
So, instead of continuously pushing the battle forwards and having the two sides constantly argue and try to outlaw the other's views...it would be much simpler simply to divide the two ideas into two separate categories.
Have Religious marriage for the churches and those that have that religious definition.
Have the government utilize it's marriage definitions in regards to civil law in accordance with a more universal understanding. Other nations have separation of government and religious marriage...I don't see why that would be a bad thing for the US to adopt.
I certainly think it would stop a lot of the antagonism over the issue from both sides.
Recognize that there are two different angles instead of trying to mesh everyone into a single viewpoint.
I think the current Western debate over marriage definitions has everything to do with civil and government contracted marriages and people's religious views of marriage. The reason most (not all, there are those who take a biological or natural slant view also) have problems with changing a definition isn't that it's changing a definition overall...but in their view, normally a religious view, it IS changing a definition from what THEY understand that definition to be.
They understand marriage from a religious definition. The push however is in regards to the civil definition.
So, instead of continuously pushing the battle forwards and having the two sides constantly argue and try to outlaw the other's views...it would be much simpler simply to divide the two ideas into two separate categories.
Have Religious marriage for the churches and those that have that religious definition.
Have the government utilize it's marriage definitions in regards to civil law in accordance with a more universal understanding. Other nations have separation of government and religious marriage...I don't see why that would be a bad thing for the US to adopt.
I certainly think it would stop a lot of the antagonism over the issue from both sides.
Recognize that there are two different angles instead of trying to mesh everyone into a single viewpoint.
Unfortunately, we've done that experiment. Bear in mind that the majority of US states have not only made no provision for gay marriage, but they've also made no provision for civil unions and in many states actively outlaw civil unions as well as marriage.
These states include Nebraska, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Dakota, Ohio, Kansas, Texas, Alabama, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Florida, and North Carolina. Michigan and Virginia go further yet and outlaw any legal status, not just civil unions, that give the rights of marriage to same sex couples. Utah and Oklahoma have such rules on the books but they've been ruled unconstitutional at the Federal level.
So the idea that civil unions would be fine and uncontroversial as long as we don't call it "marriage" is simply wrong. Apparently it's so important to keep a gay man from visiting his lover in the hospital that it is necessary to ban any and all legal effects that would grant that right.
The debate has literally nothing to do with the words. It's a straight argument over whether non-heterosexual relationships are worthy of the same treatment as heterosexual relationships are. The words are just a poll-tested way of saying answering that question in the negative.
Separation of Church and State, except that a clergyperson can sign off on that Government issued marriage certificate.The US Government should switch to recognizing only the legality of Civil Unions, and then let the Churches deal with Marriages.
I actually would agree with this. ALOT. Except perhaps have one termed government/civil marriage and the other the religious or traditional marriage.
I think if this was done, it would solve a LOT of the debates regarding issues that surround definitions and freedoms in regards to marriage rights.
I'm not certain I understand what you are saying?
I think the current Western debate over marriage definitions has everything to do with civil and government contracted marriages and people's religious views of marriage. The reason most (not all, there are those who take a biological or natural slant view also) have problems with changing a definition isn't that it's changing a definition overall...but in their view, normally a religious view, it IS changing a definition from what THEY understand that definition to be.
They understand marriage from a religious definition. The push however is in regards to the civil definition.
So, instead of continuously pushing the battle forwards and having the two sides constantly argue and try to outlaw the other's views...it would be much simpler simply to divide the two ideas into two separate categories.
Have Religious marriage for the churches and those that have that religious definition.
Have the government utilize it's marriage definitions in regards to civil law in accordance with a more universal understanding. Other nations...
The government already recognises that they are 2 different things. You can be married in a church and not legally married, and vise versa. Not calling the legal one marriage would never hold up. People would still consider themselves married, and talk about being married. This would still upset the people who have issues with LGBT marriages and would solve nothing except to try to legitamize the opposition to gay marriage more. It would be a consession of defeat for homosexuals, saying that what they have is not equal to marriage.
The government already recognises that they are 2 different things. You can be married in a church and not legally married, and vise versa. Not calling the legal one marriage would never hold up. People would still consider themselves married, and talk about being married. This would still upset the people who have issues with LGBT marriages and would solve nothing except to try to legitamize the opposition to gay marriage more. It would be a consession of defeat for homosexuals, saying that what they have is not equal to marriage.
You misunderstand what I am saying.
They are BOTH called marriage. One is religious or traditional marriage.
The other is the Civil or Government marriage.
The government recognizes civil marriages for purposes of taxes and other government recognition.
It recognizes religious marriages in regards to religion and religion only...hence truly separating religion and state.
For example, in some nations, just because you are married in a church does not mean you are married civilly, and vice versa.
If I recall, in the states, they allow you to be married civilly and religiously by clergy. Many of the obstructions these states have are based upon a religious definition of marriage. The two are combined at the hip.
If they were separated...I don't know why the states in the US would have as much contention as they are using two separate definitions of marriage at that point.
You misunderstand what I am saying.
They are BOTH called marriage. One is religious or traditional marriage.
The other is the Civil or Government marriage.
Except when it isn't. For example, when it's called a "civil union."
If they were separated...I don't know why the states in the US would have as much contention as they are using two separate definitions of marriage at that point.
Nice theory. But, as I said, we've done that experiment, and the states generally do have as much contention even when different words are used.
Not-marriage-but-civil-unions is generally a failed experiment everywhere it's been tried (in the US, at least). It's not enough to satisfy the couples that want to be married and it's too much for the people who want gays simply to shrivel up and die.
You misunderstand what I am saying.
They are BOTH called marriage. One is religious or traditional marriage.
The other is the Civil or Government marriage.
Except when it isn't. For example, when it's called a "civil union."
If they were separated...I don't know why the states in the US would have as much contention as they are using two separate definitions of marriage at that point.Nice theory. But, as I said, we've done that experiment, and the states generally do have as much contention even when different words are used.
Not-marriage-but-civil-unions is generally a failed experiment everywhere it's been tried (in the US, at least). It's not enough to satisfy the couples that want to be married and it's too much for the people who want gays simply to shrivel up and die.
Civil unions are not a Civil Marriage however.
Civil Marriages are marriages, but not necessarily as the same as a religious definition of such. Normally in nations that have both in effect, in order to be married civilly, it has to be done in front of a government officer. You can have both types of marriage, but it's the government one that counts for the government regulations.
From what I understand, Civil Unions don't necessarily have all the rights that a married couple does. A Civil marriage is a marriage, literally, but as per government definitions...and applies equally to ANYONE married under the civil laws.
Religious marriages ALSO have legal rights, but they are in relation to religion, freedom of it and expression of it, as well as other rights that are regarded the domain of religion.
It's true. Did you expect things to change?
I find the sameness here comforting myself. I can count on the same people having the same opinions. It's like having a bunch of dissenting voices in your head shouting over one another. It helps me to figure out where I stand on current events though, being largely unchanging myself, the process tends to reinforce my biases.
Correction: We are the hands typing messages in your head. We're like an old-fashioned consciousness or something.
Also: You should really get the apple pie tomorrow. Just sayin'.
There is a critical mass to this, and it is going to settle the issue soon enough, whether the anti-gay-marriage people like it or not. There are enough people getting married in other countries now. Unless they want to claim the right not to respect the legality of a marriage, which my intuition says is somewhere they don't want to go, it's going to be a non-issue before too long.
At least the mildly political left is successfully wielding the cudgel of a wedge issue and making genuine progress for once.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still say marriage is either a religious thing that has NO place in our government or it is NOT religious so you cannot fight over how people getting married hurts your religion. Either way two guys getting married is better than a straight couple workng on wedding number 6
If I recall, in the states, they allow you to be married civilly and religiously by clergy. Many of the obstructions these states have are based upon a religious definition of marriage. The two are combined at the hip.
Well, I know both NY and MA allow any clergy to be the state representatives at wedding ceremonies. I have a multiple friends who are ministers at online churches (fill out the paperwork online and they mail you your certificate, no actual church affiliation necessary) that have legally wed people in MA. Of course, those states have all kinds of problems with gay marriage.
If they were separated...I don't know why the states in the US would have as much contention as they are using two separate definitions of marriage at that point.
As others have pointed out, this is just wrong. They are already using 2 different deffinitions.
A. It doesn't matter what the government says if the people of the state don't understand the distinction.B. The people opposed to gay marriage are opposed to current civil unions for gays as well. Why would they allow a different legal recognition?
There is a critical mass to this, and it is going to settle the issue soon enough, whether the anti-gay-marriage people like it or not. There are enough people getting married in other countries now. Unless they want to claim the right not to respect the legality of a marriage, which my intuition says is somewhere they don't want to go, it's going to be a non-issue before too long.
They aren't recognising the legality of marriages of other US states, since marriage law is defined at the state level. What makes you think they care about what other countries are doing?