Should the state stay totally out of marriage?

[foolishmortal]

What if they just handled peoples’ documents by their SSN, so that, if one’s church recognizes a “gay marriage” or a justice of the peace does, or the marriage is a true one, one filling out paperwork in an office would just have two SSNs (no names) sharing assets–a merger (as the professor, Philip" in "Back to School put it to his love interest, who actually loved Dangerfield’s character), as far as they know. That way, the state isn’t in the business of recognizing marriages–just shared assets and a shared living space–and any divine punishment for invalid and abominable unions goe to individuals; not the state. Or should we just put our foot down and shut the agenda down?

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

What if they just handled peoples’ documents by their SSN, so that, if one’s church recognizes a “gay marriage” or a justice of the peace does, or the marriage is a true one, one filling out paperwork in an office would just have two SSNs (no names) sharing assets–a merger (as the professor, Philip" in "Back to School put it to his love interest, who actually loved Dangerfield’s character), as far as they know. That way, the state isn’t in the business of recognizing marriages–just shared assets and a shared living space–and any divine punishment for invalid and abominable unions goe to individuals; not the state. Or should we just put our foot down and shut the agenda down?

The state has a vested and legitimate interest in matters such as property rights and division, survivors’ inheritance, tax liabilities, parental responsibilities, and the enforcement of marriage laws such as consanguinity issues and laws against polygamy. Were the state to be totally out of marriage matters, there would be nothing to prevent some religion from conducting multiple-partner marriages, incestuous unions, etc.

 

[JRKH]

It depends on what one means by “marriage”.
The State is involved in the matter primarily as a function of “contract law” and, as pointed out by TR, some matters of health.

If the state were to step out of “marriage”…instead creating a system for registering “domestic partnerships” based on the principles of “contract law” there would be some very interesting fall-out.

The Church’s objection to legalized “same sex marriage” would become moot…because “marriage” would be removed as a legal term and replaced by partnership. Redefining “marriage” has been one of the Church’s main objections.
The problem for state would then be - how would they frame what should be allowed or not?
In this regard the problem - the debate - would not go away but would actually expand.
Two examples of an expanded debate would be…

1. Plural partnerships
2. Limited time partnerships.

Yes - it could become quite a discussion/debate…

Peace
James

 

[Jozefo]

The State is actually a party to the marriage contract in legal marriages. If people didn’t seek its blessing, then they wouldn’t be legally married. But they could still be lawfully married, if their arrangements met the criteria set up in the common law.

Some states certify common law marriages, and all the states recognize common law marriages originating in the common law marriage states. I think it’s interesting that no one ever talks about common law marriage, and that there is no rush to… reinvigorate common law marriage in all the states.

 

[Joe_5859]

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.

 

[Jozefo]

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.

That’s very true, the State does have an interest in promoting the general welfare. But in promoting legal same sex marriage it is attacking the public good, if Christians are counted among the public people.

The solution I see is withdrawing from the State. The kingdom of heaven is at hand.

 

[marymary1975]

The State is actually a party to the marriage contract in legal marriages. If people didn’t seek its blessing, then they wouldn’t be legally married. But they could still be lawfully married, if their arrangements met the criteria set up in the common law.

Some states certify common law marriages, and all the states recognize common law marriages originating in the common law marriage states. I think it’s interesting that no one ever talks about common law marriage, and that there is no rush to… reinvigorate common law marriage in all the states.

While marriage indeed has its origins in the old English Common Law Contract Law, many many centuries ago it departed from Contract Law and developed independently into a new area of the Law and developed into very different sets of laws and completely different legal obligations, because of that most legal scholars today do not treat marriage as a contract but as a legal status, precisely because although there may be an underlying idea of Contracts, truth is it doesn’t fit either the definition or characteristics of a contract/contract law and practically all States have abolished the concept of contract for marriage. Having said that, The State is not a party in any marriage. What you say about Common Law marriages is not correct. Some States have Common Law marriage, many don’t and Common Law marriage is not recognized in all States. Massachusetts does not recognize common law marriages from other States. If you live in a State that considers you married through Common Law marriage and come to Massachusetts, under Massachusetts Law those two people are single and unrelated and I am pretty much it is very similar in the rest of New England.

 

[Jozefo]

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 wh**at 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.

While marriage indeed has its origins in the old English Common Law Contract Law, many many centuries ago it departed from Contract Law and developed independently into a new area of the Law and developed into very different sets of laws and completely different legal obligations, because of that most legal scholars today do not treat marriage as a contract but as a legal status, precisely because although there may be an underlying idea of Contracts, truth is it doesn’t fit either the definition or characteristics of a contract/contract law and practically all States have abolished the concept of contract for marriage. Having said that, The State is not a party in any marriage. What you say about Common Law marriages is not correct. Some States have Common Law marriage, many don’t and Common Law marriage is not recognized in all States. Massachusetts does not recognize common law marriages from other States. If you live in a State that considers you married through Common Law marriage and come to Massachusetts, under Massachusetts Law those two people are single and unrelated and I am pretty much it is very similar in the rest of New England.

For your edification:* A true common-law marriage is a fully legal marriage that has been contracted in an irregular way. In the United States, nine states and the District of Columbia permit this irregular form of marriage. People in these true common-law marriages are considered legally married for all purposes and in all circumstances.*

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage

There are other reasons why the common law has been cast aside.

NOTE → About the State not being a party to a legal marriage, when couples seek a license, they invite the State into their agreement.

 

[Jozefo]

For your edification:* A true common-law marriage is a fully legal marriage that has been contracted in an irregular way. In the United States, nine states and the District of Columbia permit this irregular form of marriage. People in these true common-law marriages are considered legally married for all purposes and in all circumstances.*

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage

There are other reasons why the common law has been cast aside.

NOTE → About the State not being a party to a legal marriage, when couples seek a license, they invite the State into their agreement.

Also, one more point, from the source above, about the states recognizing common law marriages: *. All states, however, recognize common-law marriages that were validly contracted in other states, under the full faith and credit clause of the U. S. Constitution, principles of comity and their rules for choice of law and conflict of laws. *

 

[marymary1975]

Also, one more point, from the source above, about the states recognizing common law marriages: *. All states, however, recognize common-law marriages that were validly contracted in other states, under the full faith and credit clause of the U. S. Constitution, principles of comity and their rules for choice of law and conflict of laws. *

you are asking me after I spent three years in law school, after taking the Massachusetts bar exam and practicing domestic law for several years to believe that what an internet website which is not accurate, has plenty of errors becase anyone can go in there and wire whatever they want, says is true??? Common law marriages do NOT have to be recognized in other states states and MA does not recognized ANY Common Law marriage whether it is from the District of Columbia, Europe or China.

 

[marymary1975]

Also, one more point, from the source above, about the states recognizing common law marriages: *. All states, however, recognize common-law marriages that were validly contracted in other states, under the full faith and credit clause of the U. S. Constitution, principles of comity and their rules for choice of law and conflict of laws. *

Also what the full faith credit clause is really about is about judicial judgments, of I sue you in Texas and get a judgment for you in Texas I can enforce that Judgment in any states. That is the real object behind it.

 

[Jozefo]

you are asking me after I spent three years in law school, after taking the Massachusetts bar exam and practicing domestic law for several years to believe that what an internet website which is not accurate, has plenty of errors becase anyone can go in there and wire whatever they want??? Common law marriages do NOT have to be recognized in other states states and MA does not recognized ANY Common Law marriage whether it is from the District of Columbia, Europe or China.

You’re saying the source is incorrect? Ok. And you’re an attorney as well? Great! I have a quuestion, if you don’t mind: What about the full faith and credit clause? How is it constitutional for some states to ignore common law marriages that were validly contracted in those states that recognize common law marriage?

With all due respect, I can see see how states might want to ignore those marriages, but the Constitution is still the controlling legal authority, is it not?

But all of this ignores the most basic question: why do you think people seek to have the State be a party to their marriage? As an attorney, I know you know the definition of the term ‘license.’

 

[Jozefo]

Also what the full faith credit clause is really about is about judicial judgments, of I sue you in Texas and get a judgment for you in Texas I can enforce that Judgment in any states. That is the real object behind it.

When controversies arise among parties to common law marriages, and the parties are residing in a state that does not recognize common law marriage, are you saying they have no recourse? If their estate is subject to an agreement made in a state that does recognize common law marriage, would not the first state then recognize the marriage as valid, in order to facillitate settling the controversy, if at least one of the parties raises the matter?

 

[marymary1975]

You’re saying the source is incorrect? Ok. And you’re an attorney as well? Great! I have a quuestion, if you don’t mind: What about the full faith and credit clause? How is it constitutional for some states to ignore common law marriages that were validly contracted in those states that recognize common law marriage?

With all due respect, I can see see how states might want to ignore those marriages, but the Constitution is still the controlling legal authority, is it not?

But all of this ignores the most basic question: why do you think people seek to have the State be a party to their marriage? As an attorney, I know you know the definition of the term ‘license.’

I already gave you the answer as to the full faith and credit clause and yes Wikipedia is an incorrect source because anyone can add stuff in it and the people who wrote it usually what no idea about what they are talking about. Just use common sense, if what they revealing is true how come that a gay couple legally married in MA that goes to live in Texas can immediately lose all their protections and being considered not married in Texas? Domestic laws are not Federal and is State by State and every State, just like on every matters of State Law has the right to make its own laws and recognize what they want when it comes to State Laws issues.

And I told you already, marriage modernly is not part of Contract law, instead is a legal status. The state is not party to anything, the state grants them a legal status that is why they get a married license so they can be granted the legal status of married. It has nothing to with Contracts.

 

[marymary1975]

When controversies arise among parties to common law marriages, and the parties are residing in a state that does not recognize common law marriage, are you saying they have no recourse? If their estate is subject to an agreement made in a state that does recognize common law marriage, would not the first state then recognize the marriage as valid, in order to facillitate settling the controversy, if at least one of the parties raises the matter?

A judgment from a Court from another State with regard to a Common Law marriage that can be enforced in MA, but again MA does not recognize cOmmon law.marriages. if a couple has a common law marriage and moves to Massachusetts, that couple would be in the same situation of a legally married gay couple in MA moving to Texas.

 

[Jozefo]

I already gave you the answer as to the full faith and credit clause and yes Wikipedia is an incorrect source because anyone can add stuff in it and the people who wrote it usually what no idea about what they are talking about. Just use common sense, if what they revealing is true how come that a gay couple legally married in MA that goes to live in Texas can immediately lose all their protections and being considered not married in Texas? Domestic laws are not Federal and is State by State and every State, just like on every matters of State Law has the right to make its own laws and recognize what they want when it comes to State Laws issues.

And I told you already, marriage modernly is not part of Contract law, instead is a legal status. The state is not party to anything, the state grants them a legal status that is why they get a married license so they can be granted the legal status of married. It has nothing to with Contracts.

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.

 

[Jozefo]

A judgment from a Court from another State with regard to a Common Law marriage that can be enforced in MA, but again MA does not recognize cOmmon law.marriages. if a couple has a common law marriage and moves to Massachusetts, that couple would be in the same situation of a legally married gay couple in MA moving to Texas.

Yes, in MA, I cede the point. But not in the US District court, to which residents in MA have access.

 

[marymary1975]

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.

 

[Paul_Fekete]

That way, the state isn’t in the business of recognizing marriages–just shared assets and a shared living space–and any divine punishment for invalid and abominable unions goe to individuals; not the state. Or should we just put our foot down and shut the agenda down?

Does the state need to limit the number of legal guardians per child to 2 people? If yes, on what grounds does the state limit the number of legal guradians per child to 2 people? The issue is that if the state no longer recognizes marriages it still needs to recongnize parents and keep a record of the parents of each child. The reason legal guardians today are limited to 2 people is because marriage is limited to 2 people…they are connected. If the state no longer regulates marriage, then they would have no way to legally prevent more than 2 legal guardians per child.

 

[marymary1975]

Yes, in MA, I cede the point. But not in the US District court, to which residents in MA have access.

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