Circular reasoning. We need a method of determining "Whether or not they are married" for the purposes of determining if they qualify for any given legal benefit. Are you asserting that the simple claim of marriage is enough?
Then what would be the point of legal marital benefits? You might as well just give them to everyone and not even bother asking. But here's the test. A man is admitted to the ER unconscious. The doctor needs a decision made. There are two women there each claiming to be his wife, and wanting the doctor to do different things. How do we tell who gets to make the decision?
Documents can be presented. In the event that the false wife is given precedent, and a problem occurs, the documentation can be used towards wrongful death or what ever happened. Are you telling me that you'd be alright with someone coming in and overriding your decision on your spouse by claiming they are the spouse?
is it common for people to run to the emergency room with documentation like that? It seems like your scenario is unrealistic If my partner was taken to the emergency room I probably wouldn't have search documents with me they're typically kept in a safety deposit box. Who else would run in there saying they were his spouse?
An ex that is holding a grudge, or isn't accepting that they are no longer married. But from the sound of things you want there to be legal benefits but you want to be able to claim a spouse at whim for these legal benefits? So you could claim one guy this month as your husband, and then next month someone else is? And what about things like alimony? How can one person show that they are entitled to such, or another prove that they aren't entitled to it. And at this point, we are debating the necessity or lack thereof of needing documentation for legal benefits, not what legal benefits should or should not exist. So for the purposes of this thread, benefit currently on the books are fair game. Just to head off any possible we shouldn't have that benefit argument.
They can do that now They can do that now. Abolish alimony out right at this moment even if we don't get rid of marriage licenses. We're not debating documenting it we never have been we're debating licensing it.
This is what I was trying to point out. The discussion on what we do to ensure proper recognition of legal benefits has nothing to do with what benefits there are. So in this discussion alimony remains on the table because it is a current benefit. If we were discussing what benefits we should have or not have, then how we determine who meets the qualifications is irrelevant. So once again, how do we determine who qualifies for alimony? Your whole argument to this point was that we could keep the current benefits without needing licenses. That is the documentation. In some states you don't get a marriage license, but a marriage certificate. It's all the same thing and for the same purposes.
This isn't about what you support or not. You've made a claim about being able to have all the current legal benefits of marriage without the "permission", as you called it, which is done through the marriage license or certificate or whatever a state calls it. In order to support that assertion you have to show how the current benefits can be applied as they currently are without that paper/documentation by the government. Alimony is a current benefit. Whether or not it should be is a separate thread. Let's get back to your actual assertion that the current benefits can still be administered without the documentation via the license/certificate. We're on alimony.
but why doesn’t that thought apply to gay marriage also? and, fwiw, there are many common knowledge preconceptions that we have left behind I am sure that the institution of slavery must have been founded on a whole raft of “common knowledge” It used to be common knowledge that parents could discipline their children (or their wives) in what ever way they felt appropriate it used to be common knowledge that women were not well suited to make important decisions it used to be common knowledge that people could dump anything they wanted onto the air or water It used to be common knowledge that fishermen could catch an unlimited amount of any kind of fish where ever and whenever they wanted to it used to be common knowledge that being drunk was cute I am sure there are many more examples of discarded common knowledge so my question to you is Given that we have re evaluated so many other ideas from common knowledge Why is it that you think that marriage should be immune to similar re evaluation?
Exactly! Which was quite telling! He said, "that is the documentation. In some states you don't get a marriage license, but a marriage certificate. It's all the same thing and for the same purposes." Didn't you have any response to that?
Because it's ridiculous I don't know what my opinion is? I've explained it from 9 different angles you don't know what it is, are you being purposefully obtuse because you don't agree which I think is the more likely scenario
Well when you were told that marriage licenses and marriage certificates are the same thing and for the same purposes, you didn't dispute that. Why not?