How marriage and government SHOULD work

A contract is needed to handle any dispute that requires state intervention. A state marriage contract does exactly that. A valid contract allows the use of tax benefits and courts to settle disputes. You are correct that you need no contract to enter into a church or unconventional marriage but the state will not recognize it for tax benefits and disputes; thus, a state marriage is a state contract.

 

Registration of marriage is not a contract with the state.

 

Yes it is. If you don't, you do not receive any benefits of the State.

 

How is registration a contract?

Once again we are discussing what the laws should be not what they may currently be.

 

Just time for a quick reply. When discussing what should be what is will usually comes up as part of the arguments and such. After all some of what people would argue what should be is what already is. What should not be done is to use what is as justification for what is. That is circular reasoning.

 

I dont dispute that form of argument however Hoosier8 appeared to veer into arguing what the law is. I intended to correct that deviation. Hoosier8 believes the state should provide benefits for registering one's marriage that's fine. But this is a point, along with the subject of governing children and parental rights, that is entirely irrelevant to the what the legal definition and control of marriage/civil unions should be by the state, which is the topic of this OP.

 

Marriage may be a religious value to a religious person. But quite frankly, marriage or a form of it has been around long before religious institutions and long after then end of all religious institutions that have since shut up shop and will probably outlast all religious institutions currently in operation.

If you are Australian, the marriage per the law is currently regulated via the marriage act, not by a religious organisation or by religious values.

Let me be very clear, you need to clarify what point it is you are arguing for because right now I am not sure where you stand on pretty much anything:-
- Is this a SSM thing you are having a crack at and why?
- Do you believe that religious institutions should have an input into our law? If so which ones? Muslim / christian / jewish / scientology ?
- Do you want to abolish the marriage act and replace it with the civil union act, I.e. retain the act just change its name and the eligibility details of whom can enter said contract?

 

Go look up the history of marriage, again the institution was around long before religions / churches stuck their noses into it.

 

Would anyone know any history on the establishment of Marriage in the ways of Formal Certificates and such for it to be recognized as 'Legally binding' as in a Contract? I do believe that only in Legally binding associations can any Law get involved on the 'Legal' level... All else would fall under the personal interpersonal relational level...

Your boyfriend or girlfriend cheats on you... If not legally bonded in marriage, you cannot ask for a legal separation or divorce which leaves the relationship 'open'. If your boyfriend or girlfriend steals your money, you can press charges because he/she does not have legal rights to your personal monies. But if a husband or wife steals monies from each other, Law cannot get involved since they are as 1.

 

why even have 'marriage' as a contract? Would you happen to know how the establishment of marriage, as a Contract with State and Federal, arose?

Why do I need a piece of paper to tell me that I am married?

 

What a complicated mess of a simple workable concept.

Of course when children are involved it naturally gets more complicated, in the event of Divorce, children are not property and should not be treated as such.

Religious beliefs seem to complicate matters to some degree, perhaps there needs to be an understanding that the children's lives need stability and should the parents divorce, all conveniences should favor the children's compelling interests and educational requirements and better grades, and not any one parent's preoccupation or personal interests.

 

Only AFTER Government became established.

 

'Consequently all arrangements between consenting individuals should be recognized.

This is how any secular, managerial government should operate by way of marriage.'

A marriage with no contracts, only unions of legal age consents.

No liability concerns and no freedom to vote.
We might be in some 1 rule or few rule lands and customs dealing with other countries which would be cooperating.

Because, I think your idea of marriage was how it was before the Roman Senate. Maybe even before or during the Greek Senate.

And keep in mind from where the Greek Senate received it's beginning. From Greek philosophers/thinkers..

Why were they the 'thinkers? There was a lot of activity of all sorts going on with no structure. And maybe they began to wonder if all the non structured activities was a good, normal way of human life.

 

Which has nothing to do with the statement you responded to.