What would your guys'* thoughts or reactions be if a law was implemented that required a 2 year waiting period before a marriage or civil union could be gained? That includes the benefits and power of attorney.
*I use the term gender neutrally just as I do in real life.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not the government's business which two adults get married nor WHEN they get married.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
^^ What he said. Our entire lives, we are told what to do. Love shouldn't be one of them.
It was a stray thought. Largely in line Sissyl, to prevent stupid marriages. Although if it was a buy time measure I would think it wouldn't be very effective.
Thing about opening cans of worms...
Thing about opening cans of worms...
A fair point.
One more thing. There are situations in life where a quick marriage may be very important, due to said legal benefits of the institution. It would also provide a pretty massive obstacle to someone marrying a foreigner. Certainly, people do stupid things, but all in all, I fail to see the point, sum total.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RL in some countries there has (or at least had) to be a certain time between proclaiming the wish to marry and the actual marriage. During this time the intention must be made public.
The reason for that is (or was) that others who knew of a reason against this marriage had the time to make those reasons known.
The serious objection that could be raised was that either party was already married, really. Today, that is usually handled through tax records, as I understand it.
One more thing. There are situations in life where a quick marriage may be very important, due to said legal benefits of the institution. It would also provide a pretty massive obstacle to someone marrying a foreigner. Certainly, people do stupid things, but all in all, I fail to see the point, sum total.
As I said it was a stray thought. A What If.
Nothing serious meant and no fear of this actually happening, but going off how you guys reacted and a little common sense, it would not be taken well.
It probably wouldn't. At least by significant segments of the population. And I am not worried. =)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i see no reason for a wait period. making civil marriage a five year contract at the end of which you have the option to renew would probably save a lot of pain and suffering, however.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or, you know, tying ALL marriage legal advantages to the civil union, then letting the churches do whatever they like so long as they do not in any way aspire to having their stuff legally binding. Optional renewing sounds like a great thing too.
I don't know if the rest of these girls* feel the same way, but I think making divorces more accessible would do more for solving marriage issues than making marriages more difficult to obtain.
*I use the term gender neutrally just as I do in real life.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am all in favor of stupid marriages.
My favorite, I think, was between Dennis Hopper and Michelle Phillips.
After a week of what I imagine was truly epic drug abuse and, allegedly, handcuffs, they got divorced. When Hopper asked what he could do to become a better person, Phillips allegedly responded "Have you considered suicide?"
I think it would be interesting, but I would prefer a regular schedule for renewal of marriage as opposed to the wait period to get married. I'm viewing this from a purely legal perspective, mind. I think there would also be interesting ways around this waiting period.
*I use the term gender neutrally just as I do in real life.
(With politeness) I can't tell how this is supposed to be red.
I don't know how I feel about a renewal option. I'll have to think about it a little.
I'm not really in favor of laws to protect people from their own stupidity. That's a problem education (in the most general sense of the word, not simply schooling) is supposed to be attending to.
Also, two years from when? When they first meet? When they first apply for a marriage license? Why would two people that have been living together unmarried for five years have to wait another two?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Florida has a 3-day waiting period, and you're required to read the state 'Family Law Handbook' (the bulk of which is spent telling you how much divorce sucks for everyone).
i see no reason for a wait period. making civil marriage a five year contract at the end of which you have the option to renew would probably save a lot of pain and suffering, however.
How would this be any different from a divorce? It still takes a lot of time and effort to disentangle the finances of a married couple.
What would your guys'* thoughts or reactions be if a law was implemented that required a 2 year waiting period before a marriage or civil union could be gained? That includes the benefits and power of attorney.
*I use the term gender neutrally just as I do in real life.
My parents got married within weeks of meeting each other and recently celebrated their 60th Anniversary.
One of brothers dated his wife for about 6 years and have been married 30 years.
So when would this two year waiting period start?
Or, you know, tying ALL marriage legal advantages to the civil union, then letting the churches do whatever they like so long as they do not in any way aspire to having their stuff legally binding. Optional renewing sounds like a great thing too.
Isn't that the case already?
Around here in Chile, for instance, Civil Marriage and Religious Marriage run in parallel, and you can get one without the other (though the Catholic Church prefers if people get the civil part done before, in order for the family structure, particularly the kids, to be protected by the law). There are no legal advantages to a Religious Marriage, and this is a country where 90% of the population is religious.
I was under the assumption this was the system used in most countries?
Or, you know, tying ALL marriage legal advantages to the civil union, then letting the churches do whatever they like so long as they do not in any way aspire to having their stuff legally binding. Optional renewing sounds like a great thing too.Isn't that the case already?
Around here in Chile, for instance, Civil Marriage and Religious Marriage run in parallel, and you can get one without the other (though the Catholic Church prefers if people get the civil part done before, in order for the family structure, particularly the kids, to be protected by the law). There are no legal advantages to a Religious Marriage, and this is a country where 90% of the population is religious.
I was under the assumption this was the system used in most countries?
Not in the US, at least, with our "Separate church from state" statute written into the Constitution. I have several friends who are married in civil unions but have not bothered to have the bond sanctified by the church. Me, I had no choice, with my Dad being a priest and all (Protestant, not Catholic, but still).
Or, you know, tying ALL marriage legal advantages to the civil union, then letting the churches do whatever they like so long as they do not in any way aspire to having their stuff legally binding. Optional renewing sounds like a great thing too.Isn't that the case already?
Around here in Chile, for instance, Civil Marriage and Religious Marriage run in parallel, and you can get one without the other (though the Catholic Church prefers if people get the civil part done before, in order for the family structure, particularly the kids, to be protected by the law). There are no legal advantages to a Religious Marriage, and this is a country where 90% of the population is religious.
I was under the assumption this was the system used in most countries?
Not in the US, at least, with our "Separate church from state" statute written into the Constitution. I have several friends who are married in civil unions but have not bothered to have the bond sanctified by the church. Me, I had no choice, with my Dad being a priest and all (Protestant, not Catholic, but still).
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.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2 years seems excessive, especially if there's children involved, and not having both parents have the full rights of a married couple regarding finances and stuff.
What would seem to be ripe for updates are laws around divorce and division of assets to be more based on the duration of a marriage. If you get married and a year later realize it's a horrible mistake, I don't see why you should have to split things 50/50 the way you would after 10-20 years or more. A more gradated scale of asset division would be more reasonable.
What would your guys'* thoughts or reactions be if a law was implemented that required a 2 year waiting period before a marriage or civil union could be gained? That includes the benefits and power of attorney.
*I use the term gender neutrally just as I do in real life.
My parents got married within weeks of meeting each other and recently celebrated their 60th Anniversary.
One of brothers dated his wife for about 6 years and have been married 30 years.
So when would this two year waiting period start?
To both couples I give high regards.
I imagine two years from the declaration of intent to marry.
What would your guys'* thoughts or reactions be if a law was implemented that required a 2 year waiting period before a marriage or civil union could be gained? That includes the benefits and power of attorney.
*I use the term gender neutrally just as I do in real life.
Too short. My woman and I are nearing the end of our 10 year trial period.
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. Then the if those people want a marriage they can go find a church to marry them. The government no longer has to worry about the gay marriage controversy, they don't recognize any marriages, it solely becomes a religious issue. If your church doesn't want to perform or recognize them it doesn't have to, if it does than it can.
I also tire of the smug libertarian "Well, the government shouldn't be regulating marriage anyway." There are many legal benefits to being married. Which of the benefits of having the government recognize marriages in general is a bad thing for anyone? Many of them can't practically be simulated by contracts, like guaranteeing access to each other in extreme circumstances (particularly hospitals or prison). I don't like that equal protection under the law isn't offered to gay couples in too much of the US, but I also don't see how the solution to any problem with a government institution is BLOW THAT MOTHER UP.
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.
Queer Kids of Queer Parents Against Gay Marriage
Trolling website beloved by my trans comrade.
Also, A Stooge in Black tires of smugness?!?
|
Too short. My woman and I are nearing the end of our 10 year trial period.What would your guys'* thoughts or reactions be if a law was implemented that required a 2 year waiting period before a marriage or civil union could be gained? That includes the benefits and power of attorney.
*I use the term gender neutrally just as I do in real life.
Damn my wife thought our 7 was bad...
Or, you know, tying ALL marriage legal advantages to the civil union, then letting the churches do whatever they like so long as they do not in any way aspire to having their stuff legally binding. Optional renewing sounds like a great thing too.Isn't that the case already?
Around here in Chile, for instance, Civil Marriage and Religious Marriage run in parallel, and you can get one without the other (though the Catholic Church prefers if people get the civil part done before, in order for the family structure, particularly the kids, to be protected by the law). There are no legal advantages to a Religious Marriage, and this is a country where 90% of the population is religious.
I was under the assumption this was the system used in most countries?
Not in the US, at least, with our "Separate church from state" statute written into the Constitution. I have several friends who are married in civil unions but have not bothered to have the bond sanctified by the church. Me, I had no choice, with my Dad being a priest and all (Protestant, not Catholic, but still).
My late mother in law was a primitive baptist minister. I miss her dearly.
|
I think it's at the least an interesting idea. I'm not sure how much would change, particularly if the power of attorney is involved. I do know that in a few states that would make the legal age an issue, as you can get permission to marry before you can consent to a power of attorney, but those seem like fringe cases.
Despite what others have claimed, marriage has always been a religious institution, and only became a civil one, periodically, later. And a lot of people, particularly Americans really misunderstand the concept of separation of church and state. They like to think about it as only kicking religion out of government, but it's actually meant just as much to kick government out of religion, and not to favor one religious group or view over another, which includes atheism. So what that means is that the government can not establish that one church/faith/group has the ability to marry when others do not, or to grant special boons to one over the other (in this case to say for example that only catholic marriages are legal, or that catholic marriages grant an extra tax benefit). It also means that they can not require one specific form of religious-based certification be required for state or federal office.
Requiring a time limit prior to marriage that included almost all of the responsibilities involved in a marriage (mutual power of attorney), but without some of the divorce legal issues would be interesting. It wouldn't stop people trying to marry to gain citizenship or people trying to marry to gain access to finance and property in the divorce, but it might slow that down and make it seem like a less viable option. It might also force some people to think about their decision a bit more, particularly the young.
I'm curious though, would the "declaration of intent to marry" count outside of their state. So if two people declared intend in one state, then a year later moved to another, would they need to declare again and start all over?
|
|
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.
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.
Of course, for much of the Catholic Church's history marriages were seen as a necessary evil. In Europe, it was usually only a priest performing the ceremony because he was the only one litterate, performed at the church because it was the only building large enough for community celebrations. Even then, many priests refused to perform marriages in the church, often holding them on the doorstep, because they felt doing so would be an afront to God.
Then there is always the fact that love was often considered a negative in marriage up until at least the Elizabethan era, and if you further back you can see Jewish wedding ceremonies were litterally a contract of sale between the father of the bride and the husband, with the dowry being payment to the husband for taking the bride off the father's hands.
If you want to use historic justification for marriage, you can't just cherry pick minor facts and ignore how it has continuously changed throughout history.
| 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.
You're wrong. I have the dictionary right here, it defines "wedding" as, "the process of removing weeds from one's garden."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A three day waiting period might not be horrible
But otherwise, people should be free to make there own mistakes, and honestly I can't imagine anything detrimental to society that would be prevented by a two year waiting period.