Should the state stay totally out of marriage?

[Jozefo]

Jozefo;11045855:

Please allow some patience for me, because some of what you’re saying doesn’t make sense to me. The point about the full faith and credit clause illustrates the national controversy about same sex marriage. The way I understand things to work is, if no one raises the full faith and credit in a court of competent jurisdiction, then yes, it would not be made part of the suit. But that isn’t to say it couldn’t be, or hasn’t been made part of a suit.

Also, I don’t see how you can honestly say that a state licensing a marriage doesn’t make that state a party to the marriage. Above you brought up the example of certain couples losing their protections when moving from one state to another. Plainly the state that granted the license was a party to the marriage.

Finally, I think when you say marriage is not part of modern contract law, you’re skirting around the fact that marriage is indeed a contract. Now modern legal systems have indeed created a subordinate branch in Family Law, but to say marriage has nothing to do with contracts is, well, less than fully explained.

The problem.is.if I have to go and explain to you with detail everything I would be derailing from the issue of the post and I really don’t want to get lost in common law marriage when the issue is gay marriage. But in a nutshell you are confusing certain concepts. Family law is not a subordinated branch of.contracts because the legal obligations are too different. Why do you think the state is a party? What is your understanding of a party? What factors do you think make the state a party? Maybe if you explain to me what do you think party is, I can understand better tour idea.

Thank you for your patience. To answer your questions, I think the State is a party because the couple approached the State, applied for a license, paid ther fees, and accepted certain benefits, duties, and obligations, as did the State. The State issued the license, and now the couple is married in the State. They are one big happy and polygamous family.

Now a party is defined in Blacks as: *: A person concerned or having or taking part in any affair, matter, transac-tion, or proceeding, considered individually. * And the State is a person in law.

 

[Jozefo]

?? I am not really understanding what do you mean here.

I’m saying if a couple living in MA want their common law marriage - that was certified in the District of Columbia or one of the nine states that recognize common law marriage - recognized in MA, their recourse is in the US court.

 

[Jozefo]

Marymary1975 brought up a good point in saying that my part of the discussion has the potential to derail the thread away from the subject, which she said was gay marriage.

I brought up common law marriage, because it is a lawful alternative to legal marriage, and recognized in 9 states and in Washington DC.

To further illustrate how the US feels about marriage: Here is the holding from the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Meister v. Moore 96 US 76 (1877): “As before remarked, the statutes are held merely directory; because marriage is a thing of common right…”

So you see that in 1877, the Supremes held that marriage laws are only directory, and are not meant to control or regulate people’s behavior. Same sex marriages are an issue because gay couples are finding remedy in the laws, entitling them to equal protecction before the law.

Common law marriage, however, might be different in that same sex marriages are not seen in the common law. My point in bringing it up was to hopefully let a few people know that there is more than one way to skin a cat. If a couple wants their marriage to be recognized as a seperate thing, apart from same sex marriage, I think this road is worth exploring.

 

[marymary1975]

I’m saying if a couple living in MA want their common law marriage - that was certified in the District of Columbia or one of the nine states that recognize common law marriage - recognized in MA, their recourse is in the US court.

if you are talking about the Trial courts of the Federal System you cannot bring an action to the Federal courts unless it involves.a Federal question or there is diversity of citizenship.

 

[marymary1975]

Marriage is the foundational building block of all civilized society and pre-dates all governments and religions.

The State has an obligation to protect the common good. Protecting the common good cannot happen without also protecting the foundational building block of society.

Thus, the State cannot “get out of the marriage business” anymore than the State can “get out of the justice for murderers business.”

This topic has come up many times before. I completely understand the impulse. The Christian definition of marriage is losing ground and has been for decades. Thus it can seem desirable to retreat into our bunker and not worry about what the State is doing. That would be a serious mistake and will only lead to a further, more speedy, erosion of marriage and family life.

I agree with what Joe is saying here. Getting the State out of it or looking for other alternatives to gay couples as domestic partnerships etc, only leads to an erosion of family life and marriage.

 

[freiabereinsam]

I don’t know, but I do think that the state’s role should be significantly reduced. As it currently stands, when you marry (in the eyes of the state), you are “marrying” both your spouse and the government. That is unacceptable to me. And in general, the terms of the marriage license are incompatible with those of a true marriage (even without the question of homosexuality).

 

[Jozefo]

if you are talking about the Trial courts of the Federal System you cannot bring an action to the Federal courts unless it involves.a Federal question or there is diversity of citizenship.

A couple could claim that States cannot make any laws that impair the obligations of contracts. Full faith and credit ought to be extended to common law marriage across state lines.

I really like it that you brought up diversity in citizenship, since I can see a diversity in citizenship between people married in the common law, and persons married under statute.

I know that is a thorny issue, and very popular for debate in some circles today, but I think it’s important. You may have noticed that next to my name that I claim my location as in the kingdom of heaven. That is my home. I claim to be domiciled there. My citizenship is in the kingdom of heaven, and I reject pretentious claims made by secular government on my person.

I think if were I to be getting married today, I would choose the common law route, because I would never make a deal with a State that might infringe on my Christian liberty.

I’ve made too many deals like that already in life, and extricating myself from them is proving to be exceedingly difficult.

 

[marymary1975]

A couple could claim that States cannot make any laws that impair the obligations of contracts. Full faith and credit ought to be extended to common law marriage across state lines.

I really like it that you brought up diversity in citizenship, since I can see a diversity in citizenship between people married in the common law, and persons married under statute.

I know that is a thorny issue, and very popular for debate in some circles today, but I think it’s important. You may have noticed that next to my name that I claim my location as in the kingdom of heaven. That is my home. I claim to be domiciled there. My citizenship is in the kingdom of heaven, and I reject pretentious claims made by secular government on my person.

I think if were I to be getting married today, I would choose the common law route, because I would never make a deal with a State that might infringe on my Christian liberty.

I’ve made too many deals like that already in life, and extricating myself from them is proving to be exceedingly difficult.

Diversity means that the plaintiff and the defendant are domiciled in different states therefore your example does not qualify as diversity, unless you have two couples suing each other and the plaintiffs are from NY and Defendants from Texas which is very unlikely as what would be the controversy there? Can’t think about any controversy.

I don’t think your argument in the first paragraph is a good one as as I told you, Courts Di not consider marriage part of contract law, and obligations deriving from.contracts have nothing to do with marriage. Also, add that the FFC clause does not refer to that. I really don’t think any lawyer would that to a Federal court as a suit like that would result in a very aggravated and angry judge yelling at the lawyer. Last thing a layer wants is an angry judge.

And I still don’t understand why you think marriage is a deal with the state or thhe state is a party.

 

[Jozefo]

Diversity means that the plaintiff and the defendant are domiciled in different states therefore your example does not quality as diversity, unless you have two couples suing each other and the plaintiffs are from NY and Defendants from Texas which is very unlikely as what would be the controversy there? Can’t think about any controversy.

I don’t think your argument in the first paragraph is a good one as as I told you, Courts Di not** consider marriage part of contract law, and obligations deriving from.contracts have nothing to do with marriage. Also, add that the FFC clause does not refer to that. I really don’t think any lawyer would that to a Federal court as a suit like that would result in a very aggravated and angry judge yelling at the lawyer. Last thing a layer wants is an angry judge.

And I still don’t understand why you think marriage is a deal with the state or thhe state is a party.

Well, thank you for indulging me and my questions. I’m simply exploring the available options for people like me who want to disassociate from same sex marriage.

I do think you’re mistaken though about the FFC, but I realize it would take a very precise set of circumstances for us to discuss it, and that wouldn’t be productive. I know my views are highly irregular, and bound to conflict with more traditional ways of thinking.

But before we conclude, I would like to know how it is that you don’t see a state being a party to a marriage. It is granting the license. After the persons are married, they must seek to dissolve their union in the state court. Legal marriage is a statutory exercise. The deal is, persons are seeking the states benefits and privileges in return for duties and obligations. It’s quid pro quo.

 

[foolishmortal]

I was only saying that the state would not know the nature of the two sharing assets. It wouldn’t even do weddings or unions, as such. Two people would just file an online doc. or it could be more than two and all the government would know are SSNs. It could be two elderly sisters, a family, a widower and his offspring, etc. A justice of the peace or a minister could do a false marriage, as God knows it, but he would only have two SSNs on the paper, which would not mention marriage. It would not get involved if a straight business doesn’t want to do business with homosexuals, though, if an adult and a kid were being in a contract, as if married, that would still be outlawed. Therefore, the government would not be acting against the public good or for it. Of course, liberals won’t have it, as they need the power to feel relevant.

 

[gardenswithkids]

To the original question: No. The state should return to the traditional definition of marriage-- as a* life-long* relationship between one man and one woman where separation/divorce is only allowed in limited situations. That definition protects society, especially women and children, best. The state’s decision to allow no-fault divorce has brought confusion and serious consequences to the rest of society to the point where now many members of society don’t even know what marriage is! It is the best interest for the majority of citizens that the youngest members of our society (children) be raised in stable families by their own mother and father. It is in the best interest of women when the men having sexual relations with them also have some type of legal relationship and obligation.

That may not be perfect for everyone, (because some people make bad choices), but it would be in the best interest for society as a whole–and women and children in particular. Statistically speaking, ex-wives and their children are worse off financially following divorce than ex-husbands.

If the state stayed totally out of the marriage business, it would continue to be women and children who suffered the most. Pregnancy results form the male/female sexual act associated with marriage. Traditionally, marriage and the benefits associated with it are designed to protect women and their offspring.

Many women* leave the workforce temporarily due to pregnancy and child-rearing; some never return to the workforce, and many women return the workplace for part-time or lower paying jobs with schedules that adjust around their children’s needs. Mothers and fathers spend years of their lives serving the youngest members of society, often providing free of cost many other volunteer activities to the greater community around them. (*Sometimes the husband/father stays home to provide child care, but women are the ones who get pregnant.)

State subsidies associated with marriage, such as tax breaks and social security benefits for spouses, hardly come *close *to covering the benefits that stable married couples raising children provide to society. The “benefits” do not come anywhere close to reimbursing the actual cost of raising children.

Although the pay-off and reward to society for investing in marriage is great, state subsidies associated with marriage does costs the government (and ultimately the taxpayers) money through either direct cost or in lost revenues. Therefore, extending the benefits associated with marriage to just any two people who want to share assets is not in the state’s best interest. Extending those benefits results in cost to the state with little benefit in return. If people want to share their assets, that’s their business, but the state does not need to provide them with subsidies and benefits.

The state should not get out of the marriage business–it should return to marriage policies that support stable families by abandoning “no-fault” divorce laws. That is in the best interest of society, especially in the best of women and children. If more of today’s adults had been raised in stable two-parent families by both their mother and father, and if more adults had honored the life-long commitment they made to another, we would not have the confusion about the definition of marriage that we have today. The state should stay in the marriage business and get out of the no-fault divorce business.

 

[foolishmortal]

I’m just saying that, while we have godless policies being made, which is the reality, we should shut government out of it and work to get right-thinking Christian leaders (Why not others in high places? Because they can’t swear on the Bible and some can’t honestly even swear on the Constitution). Then, we bring government into the picture.