I'm not sure what this is about. We've LONG had state marriage and religious marriage. State marriage is a contract with the state that includes responsibilities and benefits. Religious marriage is anyting that the religion wants, as long as it doesn't break other law. Isn't that plenty good right there?
We shouldn't respect any marriage. The government should stop regulating it entirely. It's nobody's business but your own who you hook up with. Religions too should be able to do as they wish with and to their own parishioners if the parishioners let them. We have all these libertarians on here yet this kind of thing, which is about as personal as can be and is not affecting other people in any way, seems to have fallen under their radar. I guess trying to kill all the elderly by ending Social Security and Medicare just takes too much of their time.
One thing you are most certainly not and that is a libertarian. I know you made no claim to be one but I just want that clearly understood in case you do. There should be no privileges given to any married couples and no marriages of any kind should be recognized by the State anyway. It's a private matter, a contract between two or more people of whatever sexual orientation they might be. If you want to give tax breaks to married couples give them to everyone else instead,
You mean any form of marriage regulated by government? Why would you have a problem with any other form of marriage? How does government regulating marriage mean that it is the government's business who people hook up with? This is the case already. So I'm not sure what you're referring to.
First, remember that you and your religion can marry whomever you want. You can marry dead people! The state offers a state marriage contract that is a legal commitment by the married couple to the state. The state gets benefits such as stability and the individual's legal commitment of mutual support plus for support of dependents. The couple becomes covered by divorce law. For that, they get a tax break. Do you really have a problem with that?
Yes. All those things can be covered by other specific arrangements without any of that legal marriage folderol being necessary
The state is on the hook for support of those for whom there is no other support. So, when those living together leave each other, when there are children who end up with single parents, etc., it is our social safetynet that picks up the bill - rather than the mutual assetcs and post split costs being required to be shared equitably. Also, two people working as a team committed by law to mutual support tends to have more ways to survive various kinds of calamities - illness, accidents, economic downturn such as permanent or temporary loss of employment, etc. The marriage contract covers cases where a power of attorney is needed, but the individual is temporarily incompetent. There may be others. This is just what I remember as I type. In general, federal, state and local government pays when income is too low, when the parent can't cover medical bills, when temporary foster care is required, etc., etc. Marriage extends that responsibility to the couple rather than a single individual, both reducing expenses and keeping them paid by individuals rather than by taxes.
Like I said, you don't have to take advantage of state marriage. And, if you feel some amount of responsibility you can pay a lawyer to create a similar contract, I would guess.
It doesn't totally work that way, as Christianity certainly does accept the OT and uses it when desired. The allegories of creation, of Adam and Eve, Noah, the story of Job, the fortelling of the coming of Jesus, the story of Lot's fornication with his daughters being blessed by God, God ordering Abraham to kill Abraham's only son, etc., etc. While its true that Christians believe there became a replacement path to heaven as written in the NT, they certainly do take everything the OT has to say outside of some of the social laws Israelites were required to follow.
Just so long as you don't have the state sticking its nose in with things like "common law" marriage etc. and there are no tax breaks for married people I guess that's alright. Marriage used to be mainly a matter of having a big ceremony where families were "united". It was largely about property and inheritance and had little to do even with affection, let alone love, (though as often as not that did follow) The modern world sees us as individuals, not members of families, We can set up whatever sort of arrangements with each other we wish to, or have none at all, that is our most fundamental human right.
Let the Church say they don't recognize your vision of marriage, though, and you'll get the government involved.
That one's probably pretty weak in terms of benefit to the state. I was thinking of medical decision making, where taking people off ventilators and other choices aren't taken lightly by hospitals and have ignifiant fnancial ramifications. For those unable to pay, that burden is carried by the rest of us by some other entity - higher hospital rates or some means of supporting the hospital - which can include tax dollars.
State marriage is still about legal issues - property, inheritance, responsibility for care, etc. As I've said, you don't have to get a state marriage. Of course, a state marriage licenses is going to be WAY cheaper and easier than trying to cover the issues with a legally binding contract of your own design. And, if your contract has elements that aren't consistent with some basic principles of law it won't stand up in court. The thing about common law marriage is that you can't live with someone for years and then just take the kids you like and walk away with the property and bank account, leaving no means of support. If you try anything similar to that, there will be legal recourse.
IMO if you live with someone for years and have nothing of your own then you deserve what you have. Contracts aren't difficult to draw up and most are far more equitable to all parties than most marriages. Conservative mythology notwithstanding marriage is much more often a prison for all in it than any protection for anyone.
It really doesn't matter whether I agree on this. As I've said, you don't have to get a state marriage license. And, if you have an equitable disolution of your relationship, my bet is that will be OK, too.
Amen. It's unfortunate when someone sees marriage as prison. I certainly don't feel that way about mine.
Where have you been? Florists, photographers, bakers, caterers, have been run out of business for trying to follow Church teachings - by the STATE, for not recognizing what the STATE says is marriage.
It is illegal to discriminate, even if your Church says you must. Religious freedom does not mean you can do illegal things in the name of your faith. You aren't allowed to have human sacrifices even if Huitzilopochtli requires them