The state cannot marry people, nor can religious institutions.
People commit to marry one another, a state official or a religious official asks the parties several questions, asks them to confirm that they are freely agreeing to be married, and that no one objects to same.
There may be readings and singing and whatnot, but the nub of it is that the parties are agreeing in front of an official witness that they want to be married to each other.
And if the officiant cannot permit the marriage because of reasons particular to the officiant's church, synagogue or mosque, so be it. Or if a state official cannot permit the marriage because it is limited to two humans, not one human and a donkey, for example, then so be it.
The state can't get completely out of witnessing marriages because some people don't want to be married in a religious setting, so its role will need to continue, or it will need to appoint civilians who can do the work.
Back in time, the state issued marriage licenses for three reasons: For the health of the applicants, who had to be free of venereal disease per a physician; to determine property rights; and to determine parentage of minor children.
Nowdays, the children issue seems to have gone moot. The real reason is property rights, and rights in the event of death of a spouse. Beyond that, not so much.
I think this is a great idea. Get the government out of marriage altogether. Only recognize civil unions which will have the effect of marriage without the sacramental overtones.
Let marriage be determined by your religion. Who gets married. How many can be in a marriage for the Mormons and the Muslims.
Uh..we have things called divorce laws. We have a thing called children - who are treated differently under marriage and not. We have tax and welfare laws which are structured based on the concept of "marriage".
So all this, to hell with the state getting involved in marriage is silly. Unless you want to just leave the state out of deciding who's married to who. In which case, you'll have to deal with Polygamy.
"Uh..we have things called divorce laws. We have a thing called children - who are treated differently under marriage and not. We have tax and welfare laws which are structured based on the concept of "marriage"."
Uh, you say that like it's a good thing. Seriously, though, do children really benefit from state ratification of peoples' unions? I think it's an open question at this point. Who really benefits? Women.
Child support and paternity issues can be handled under the rubic of civil unions. It need not be under the title of a state sanctioned "marriage."
Let marriage be solely a religious matter. So we need not have these culture wars. If you believe in same sex marriage find a religion or a sect that approves of it. If you believe in polygamy find a religion or sex that believe in that. If you believe in marrying your dog find a religion or a sect that believes in that.
The rights and responsibilities of marriage will then be a contract under a civil unions.
13 comments:
Saw this on HotAir.
Some Demo wants to get OK out of recognizing what's a marriage.
They're losing it.
"And listen to this one".
The "report" wreaks of bias.
I wish they'd have banned marriages back before I got mine.
They are not 'banning' any marriages, but refusing to have the State involved in certifying them.
It's a libertarian approach.
This will destroy the divorce lawyers.
Its always the innocents who get hurt.
I'm ok with it. Marriages return to being an institute of religion. The state can then worry about contract law.
Of course, all of it sounds nice in theory, but in practice, there will still be problems.
LET'S DO THIS.
Laboratories of democracy. Why not? Who is served by government ratification of personal unions? Get government out of people's business.
The state cannot marry people, nor can religious institutions.
People commit to marry one another, a state official or a religious official asks the parties several questions, asks them to confirm that they are freely agreeing to be married, and that no one objects to same.
There may be readings and singing and whatnot, but the nub of it is that the parties are agreeing in front of an official witness that they want to be married to each other.
And if the officiant cannot permit the marriage because of reasons particular to the officiant's church, synagogue or mosque, so be it. Or if a state official cannot permit the marriage because it is limited to two humans, not one human and a donkey, for example, then so be it.
The state can't get completely out of witnessing marriages because some people don't want to be married in a religious setting, so its role will need to continue, or it will need to appoint civilians who can do the work.
Back in time, the state issued marriage licenses for three reasons: For the health of the applicants, who had to be free of venereal disease per a physician; to determine property rights; and to determine parentage of minor children.
Nowdays, the children issue seems to have gone moot. The real reason is property rights, and rights in the event of death of a spouse. Beyond that, not so much.
I think this is a great idea. Get the government out of marriage altogether. Only recognize civil unions which will have the effect of marriage without the sacramental overtones.
Let marriage be determined by your religion. Who gets married. How many can be in a marriage for the Mormons and the Muslims.
Get the government off our backs.
Uh..we have things called divorce laws. We have a thing called children - who are treated differently under marriage and not. We have tax and welfare laws which are structured based on the concept of "marriage".
So all this, to hell with the state getting involved in marriage is silly. Unless you want to just leave the state out of deciding who's married to who. In which case, you'll have to deal with Polygamy.
"Uh..we have things called divorce laws. We have a thing called children - who are treated differently under marriage and not. We have tax and welfare laws which are structured based on the concept of "marriage"."
Uh, you say that like it's a good thing. Seriously, though, do children really benefit from state ratification of peoples' unions? I think it's an open question at this point. Who really benefits? Women.
Child support and paternity issues can be handled under the rubic of civil unions. It need not be under the title of a state sanctioned "marriage."
Let marriage be solely a religious matter. So we need not have these culture wars. If you believe in same sex marriage find a religion or a sect that approves of it. If you believe in polygamy find a religion or sex that believe in that. If you believe in marrying your dog find a religion or a sect that believes in that.
The rights and responsibilities of marriage will then be a contract under a civil unions.
Post a Comment