The Govt should get out of the Marriage

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

The Govt should get completely out of the marriage debate and make no laws defining marriage what so ever. Let's discuss

Also I have several buddies who have realized that being married now is a penalty. They have wives that don't work. If they ere not married the wife could get EIC, and Free Bama care.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

They have wives that don't work.

I read on VJ that you can send defective wives back.

But seriously, although I can see the argument in removing the state from marriage, ultimately the state has an interest in all marriages, as it does impliedly in all contracts.

[Pooky 3,782]

But seriously, although I can see the argument in removing the state from marriage, ultimately the state has an interest in all marriages, as it does impliedly in all contracts.

I agree that the State has an interest.

The question is, should it?

Or should the State level the legal and financial playing field, then withdraw from the relationship question altogether?

[luckytxn 2,264]

Marriage is religion based. State and religion must be separate.

[TBoneTX 45,273]

impliedly

This is now my second-favorite legal term. The first is "tortfeasor."

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

Why is it states will let you marry pretty much anybody, no contract needed (just a piece of paper without any rules on it), but if ye seek to get a divorce, suddenly a judge gets to step in and decide who gets what? But they sure as heck don't help with paying the mortgage nor with making the wife get out of bed and cook some breakfast. Who needs state interference?

[luckytxn 2,264]

I think liquor was involved.

This is now my second-favorite legal term. The first is "tortfeasor."

[TBoneTX 45,273]

I think liquor was involved.

There's a boozefeasor in our midst?!

[mngoalie 10]

Marriage is religion based. State and religion must be separate.

There are way too many benefits given by the government to consider it religion based.

Some churches do believe in other marriages besides a man and woman. Would you be ok allowing those to exist, because their church agrees with it?

Edited February 15, 2014 by mngoalie

[Pooky 3,782]

There are way too many benefits given by the government to consider it religion based.

That is more a result of government encroaching on what was, traditionally, religious territory. If you take government involvement, both legal and financial, out of marriage, then religious dogma can be left to the church.

By law, all relationships between two people would then be equal under the eyes of the law and the church definition of marriage would have no bearing on the legal and financial ramifications of the relationship, as there wouldn't be any.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Yes. If a church says it is OK then the state has to allow it since the state is now encroaching into religious.

There are way too many benefits given by the government to consider it religion based.

Some churches do believe in other marriages besides a man and woman. Would you be ok allowing those to exist, because their church agrees with it?

[GandD 5,966]

Marriage is religion based.

It doesn't have to be.

Why is it states will let you marry pretty much anybody, no contract needed (just a piece of paper without any rules on it), but if ye seek to get a divorce, suddenly a judge gets to step in and decide who gets what? But they sure as heck don't help with paying the mortgage nor with making the wife get out of bed and cook some breakfast. Who needs state interference?

Like everything in the world, some folks in the past f'ed someone else over and then we had to have laws/judges/lawyers.