I would think by now some Governor or other elected official would have proposed or tried to pass legislation, that immediately recognized Marriage as a religious ceremony and that all religions were free to enact what ever rules around those ceremonies that they want. Also this bill would recognize as so defined, and with the separation of Church and State, no laws or rights given by the state can use marriage as a qualifier, but that all bills shall immediately have Marriage removed from them and replaced with Rcorp ( a new form of incorporation) . All State issued Marriage licenses are immediately redefined as filing for an Rcorp. Going forward, any 2 legally consenting adults can request to be inocorporated and would therefore be granted all rights of Rcorp. You could only be incorporated to one person at a time, and the 2 could go through the courts to disolve the corporation if they so choose
THERE DONE, NO MORE PROBLEMS WITH SAME SEX MARRIAGES.
FLAME SUIT ON.
lets hear from both sides whats wrong with this?
Edit to remove the Legally Bound Couple and go with the incorporation concept… thanks Matt
I would think by now some Governor or other elected official would have proposed or tried to pass legislation, that immediately recognized Marriage as a religious ceremony and that all religions were free to enact what ever rules around those ceremonies that they want. Also this bill would recognize as so defined, and with the separation of Church and State, no laws or rights given by the state can use marriage as a qualifier, but that all bills shall immediately have Marriage removed from them and replaced with legally bound pair. All State issued Marriage licenses are immediately redefined as Legally bound pair certificates. Going forward, any 2 legally consenting adults can request to be legally bound and would therefore be granted all rights of legally bound couples. You could only be legally bound to one person at a time, and the 2 could go through the courts to remove such a relationship (or Unbinding) if they so choose
THERE DONE, NO MORE PROBLEMS WITH SAME SEX MARRIAGES.
Because who are changing the status of all non-believers who are presently married. Marriage is widely viewed as a positive civil ceremony by non-religous and religious people alike.
Because who are changing the status of all non-believers who are presently married. Marriage is widely viewed as a positive civil ceremony by non-religous and religious people alike.
And a lot of religious people are invested in their goats endorsement of their religiously based union.
Look at how clever I am! And do you know the one about the panda bear in the restaurant killing everybody? He eats, shoots, and leaves!
Serious question. Why limit the “bonding” to only two people?
And a related question, why even recognize any such domestic bonding at all?
2 because I am making the rules, and its where I would start. More, sure everyone involved would have to sign off.
Why the bonding, because it gives legal rights to passing possessions from one to the other, care of offspring if the relationship generates them. Some think tax codes need to account for such living arrangements.
Could it all be done in other documents, sure but sometimes having one thing is just easier.
Blame the Protestants, seriously. It was only a Catholic Church ceremony until Martin Luther et al. got a bee in their bonnets.
These days marriage and the state are so intertwined (tax code, inheritance, medical decisions, citizenship) that to divorce the two would be difficult. In this country we have religious freedom so if marriage devolved to its original state of a solely religious ceremony there would be in effect no regulation of marriage (when the Church was the sole religion its regulations regulated marriage). That would create a whole host of problems but the biggest would be: determining a valid marriage would force the government to evaluate the legitimacy of the granting religion (as now the only evaluation is for tax exempt purposes which can be for both ecclesiastical and secular bodies and only evaluates the entities actions vis a vis action related to taxable acts). So the government would be left with the choice or determining the validity of religion or no regulation of marriage, the latter would be the default choice to avoid Constitutional issues. The path of least resistance is to retain the status quo.
Look at how clever I am! And do you know the one about the panda bear in the restaurant killing everybody? He eats, shoots, and leaves!
Serious question. Why limit the “bonding” to only two people?
And a related question, why even recognize any such domestic bonding at all?
The usual objections to n > 2 revolve around 1) coercion and subjugation (where militant feminist don’t shy away from cries of “slavery!”) of women/girls, and 2) the potential of abuse of the available social assistance programs . There was/is an Mormon offshoot that had settled in Bountiful, BC (love that name BTW) and when the law started coming down that’s what we’ve told the objective, i.e. non-moral, reasons are. When they introduced gay marriage in the Netherlands almost a lifetime ago there was some discussion about this as well with the same points being brought up.
Of course there’s two sides to every coin; if you raise the legal to get married to 18 then the first argument becomes a lot less serious (to the extend that if it’s really a problem the guy/men should be prosecuted for abuse), and the second is dodgy anyway, since in many case the programs for single parents for example are better anyway so they’d rake in more when not legally bound.
In short, I think the practical problems can be addressed by carefully crafted legislation. Therefore it’s probably mostly a moral problem.
As to why those legal bounds should exist at all: I think it protects people. Suppose you and Mrs. Duffy weren’t married. Then you had to write up a specific will, with specific stuff in there for Duffy Jr, and if you’d ever separate then that would be a lot messier, because it’s a lot less clear what belongs to who, especially when you start thinking about n > 2. Imagine the horror if you’d have a MMF household with multiple kids of which you don’t know who the father is, and one of the guys dies. Potentially ugly.
I really don’t understand why gays want to have legal marriage in the first place because if they get divorced the only ones who will benefit are the lawyers.
As a divorced “Catholic” l don’t even know if the RC church recognizes my divorce or even care since the law of the country does. Since I’m now an atheist and my ex officially converted to Protestantism, we wouldn’t be welcome back in the flock any ways.
Blame the Protestants, seriously. It was only a Catholic Church ceremony until Martin Luther et al. got a bee in their bonnets.
These days marriage and the state are so intertwined (tax code, inheritance, medical decisions, citizenship) that to divorce the two would be difficult. In this country we have religious freedom so if marriage devolved to its original state of a solely religious ceremony there would be in effect no regulation of marriage (when the Church was the sole religion its regulations regulated marriage). That would create a whole host of problems but the biggest would be: determining a valid marriage would force the government to evaluate the legitimacy of the granting religion (as now the only evaluation is for tax exempt purposes which can be for both ecclesiastical and secular bodies and only evaluates the entities actions vis a vis action related to taxable acts). So the government would be left with the choice or determining the validity of religion or no regulation of marriage, the latter would be the default choice to avoid Constitutional issues. The path of least resistance is to retain the status quo.
Huh? did you read my original post, anything and everything in legal things would change from marriage to Bounded couple. Done, seperated. The State no longer cares about the religious ceremony.
As a divorced “Catholic” l don’t even know if the RC church recognizes my divorce or even care since the law of the country does. Since I’m now an atheist and my ex officially converted to Protestantism, we wouldn’t be welcome back in the flock any ways.
Nope, read up the history of civil regulation of marriage.
Blame the Protestants, seriously. It was only a Catholic Church ceremony until Martin Luther et al. got a bee in their bonnets.
These days marriage and the state are so intertwined (tax code, inheritance, medical decisions, citizenship) that to divorce the two would be difficult. In this country we have religious freedom so if marriage devolved to its original state of a solely religious ceremony there would be in effect no regulation of marriage (when the Church was the sole religion its regulations regulated marriage). That would create a whole host of problems but the biggest would be: determining a valid marriage would force the government to evaluate the legitimacy of the granting religion (as now the only evaluation is for tax exempt purposes which can be for both ecclesiastical and secular bodies and only evaluates the entities actions vis a vis action related to taxable acts). So the government would be left with the choice or determining the validity of religion or no regulation of marriage, the latter would be the default choice to avoid Constitutional issues. The path of least resistance is to retain the status quo.
Huh? did you read my original post, anything and everything in legal things would change from marriage to Bounded couple. Done, seperated. The State no longer cares about the religious ceremony.
Your solution is essentially the status quo, with just the removal of religious persons being a delegate capable of marrying people then and the religious ceremony would have no effect at all?
Your solution is essentially the status quo, with just the removal of religious persons being a delegate capable of marrying people then and the religious ceremony would have no effect at all?
Yes. A lot of the arguments seem to be religious based around marriage. So remove that word from the State use, give it entirely to religions. Let them define it however they want, just like host (Eucharist) , or are you a christian, or baptized, or confirmed, Hmm other sacrements of the Catholic Church. Add Marriage to that.
Go to the courts and get legally bound togeather to take care of all the legal and financial stuff.
Your solution is essentially the status quo, with just the removal of religious persons being a delegate capable of marrying people then and the religious ceremony would have no effect at all?
Yes. A lot of the arguments seem to be religious based around marriage. So remove that word from the State use, give it entirely to religions. Let them define it however they want, just like host (Eucharist) , or are you a christian, or baptized, or confirmed, Hmm other sacrements of the Catholic Church. Add Marriage to that.
Go to the courts and get legally bound togeather to take care of all the legal and financial stuff.
All you’re proposing is a change to the name of marriage. Unfortunately, although many people are stupid, most people are not stupid enough to fall for that sleight of hand.
Your solution is essentially the status quo, with just the removal of religious persons being a delegate capable of marrying people then and the religious ceremony would have no effect at all?
Yes. A lot of the arguments seem to be religious based around marriage. So remove that word from the State use, give it entirely to religions. Let them define it however they want, just like host (Eucharist) , or are you a christian, or baptized, or confirmed, Hmm other sacrements of the Catholic Church. Add Marriage to that.
Go to the courts and get legally bound togeather to take care of all the legal and financial stuff.
So you are essentially removing religion from marriage? That ain’t gonna fly. Also I incorporate Slowguy’s post.
