Marriage solution?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
R

rainacorn

Guest
#1
Marriage should be completely deregulated.

The government should recognize no marriages. It is INHERENTLY a religious institution. Government interference in marriage is a holdover from when the government and religion were one entity.

Leave it up to churches to marry and recognize marriage. It is their power.
 
Feb 16, 2011
2,957
24
0
#2
We actually should be glad the government recognizes a Christian institution such as marriage or they could force some other way on us. Just imagine what the law could be if Christian marriage was not recognized. They might would not allow church marriages. They might would decide who could get married in some kind of class system. They might tell you who to marry. Our government has a good definition of marriage mostly, especially the states against gay marriage. I do not hope they change it.
 
R

rainacorn

Guest
#3
We actually should be glad the government recognizes a Christian institution such as marriage or they could force some other way on us. Just imagine what the law could be if Christian marriage was not recognized. They might would not allow church marriages
They can't stop that. That would be like them stepping in to say churches can no longer take communion or baptize people.

They might would decide who could get married in some kind of class system. They might tell you who to marry.
If there is no marriage at all in the eyes of the government, then this won't happen. They won't have to make decisions on who should and shouldn't be married.

Because they're so involved in marriages, they're FORCED to make these calls that really aren't theirs to make.

Our government has a good definition of marriage mostly, especially the states against gay marriage. I do not hope they change it.
They will change it...because they can. That's the problem.

If the government didn't recognize marriage at all, it would change pretty much nothing. My marriage is in the eyes of God- the government can't touch that. I can't help but wonder why they need to be involved at all.

Merging assets? End of life issues? Property ownership?

You can do all of those things without being married. You can get a mortgage or a lease with anyone. You can merge assets with anyone. You can write whatever you want in your will.

Being married automates quite a bit of it, but what if it didn't anymore? What if you just had to fill out more paperwork?
 
M

mori

Guest
#4
I can't help but wonder why they need to be involved at all.
The one that springs to mind immediately is the inability of a court to force a spouse to testify against the other. Obviously, no legal agreements between the two of you can prevent this.

Second, joint tax filings. This is really important, because getting married does change your financial status. If the government doesn't recognize you're partnered, it would treat all stay-at-home moms as if they were essentially homeless, without income, etc.

Third, social security, medicare, and disability benefits can be given to spouses automatically after the death of one. If the government didn't recognize their union, the surviving spouse would have no claim to these, because they couldn't enter into a legal agreement which would force the government's hand.

Fourth, the ability to enter contracts for the other party. You can do this to a certain extent with a power of attorney, but it's really not the same. Let's assume, for example, that we're living together and not married, because the state doesn't recognize it. You die. Can I automatically renew the lease, if you're the one who signed for it?

Fifth, let's take my publicly funded school for an example. My health insurance covers spouses, but if this was not recognized by the state... how does the state know whom to cover? Educational benefits, etc. fall under this difficulty as well.

Sixth, suing on behalf of your spouse. Let's assume you're in an accident because the other guy was drunk and I want him to pay for your medical bills. I don't have any legal claim on him, however, because I'm just a bystander, as related to you as the hotdog vendor who also witnessed the crash. And let's say we do successfully sue - I can't receive the money.

Seventh, marriages can no longer be used to support citizenships. So, I flew over to Russia and fell in genuine love with Svetlana. The government doesn't recognize a family and, even though she's much more solidly based in the USA than most single immigrants, might not ever be able to come over.

Finally, and this has happened to me personally, visitation to hospitals and jails is restricted to family members. If, say, a Catholic hospital chooses to turn you away because you're not legally married, you have no legal recourse if the government does not recognize a union.

Etc., etc.

Merging assets? End of life issues? Property ownership? You can do all of those things without being married. You can get a mortgage or a lease with anyone. You can merge assets with anyone. You can write whatever you want in your will. What if you just had to fill out more paperwork?
Because gay marriages are illegal in my state, I had to do a lot of this. It was relatively expensive and we still don't have all the reasonable rights which automatically come along with marriage. Furthermore, we can't put ourselves into an agreement which the state would ever recognize.
 
M

mori

Guest
#5
I should add, by the way - because the government recognizes marriage, it recognizes that financial transfers from husband to wife are not the same as financial transfers from neighbor to neighbor.

This has a lot of implications - if I put $1000 in a checking account owned by my wife, should this be taxed or not? Should it be counted as income? How can we tell the difference between that $1k and the $1k she got from, say, mowing somebody's (apparently very large) lawn?

Or, bring to mind a mobster. If a man commits a crime and puts money in a woman's bank account, is he doing that because she's his wife and he's therefore trying to launder the money, or because he owes her for lawn mowing? Do we seize her assets or not?

Now, whether or not I agree that marriage is inherently religious, I would like to see government out of its regulation. I'd prefer civil unions with a set of reasonable, automatic legal protections, such as some of those listed above. Unfortunately, of course, recent changes in law have made these protections illegal in many places.
 
M

mori

Guest
#6
The military has a lot of benefits for spouses, such as employment assistance if the enlisted person is moved, per diems, etc. If the government does not recognize marriages, these go away.

If the family does not go through a formal adoption process, which in some cases might not even be possible in some states if the children are of age, step-children have no legal link to spouses if there is no such thing as marriage.

Everyone has the right to easily change their surname upon marriage for free; otherwise, it can be relatively costly and difficult, involving appearances in court, etc. Considering that most families choose to do this, they will still want to do this but will be less able.

The Affordable Housing program requires that both spouses have never owned a home before. If there are no legally recognized marriages, one spouse can buy a house and the other one can get free cash from the government.

Conflict-of-interest rules often rely on recognition of marriage. As an absurd example, would it be fair for a man to sit in court and judge his wife? Why? There's no legal link there. There are more reasonable examples that would actually occur.
 
M

mori

Guest
#7
Domestic violence laws in some jurisdictions only apply to married couples; all other sorts of violence are covered by regular criminal law. In some of these same jurisdictions, a battered spouse can automatically receive a restraining order without having to go through the usual legal channels.

Loss of consortium is still considered in tort law - without the recognition of marriage, this would go away.

Husbands and wives are protected when leaving a relationship - you can't just pack up and go. However, if there is no legal basis for the relationship, it would be much easier to simply vanish and take everything with you. If you've fathered children you're still on the hook, but almost everything else is up for grabs.

If a spouse is jailed for more than a certain period of time (e.g. 12 months in some states) the other spouse can easily obtain an absolute divorce. If you're in a private contract with someone and haven't included such a clause, you probably owe everything.

There is no "family use" if there is no marriage. If we're unmarried, I drive your car, and while I'm away you suddenly decide I must be destroyed, you can have me prosecuted for taking something that isn't mine. If we're married or otherwise protected, the police will listen to you scream for a little and then leave.

There isn't anything like automatic alimony if there's no marriage. Everything has to be decided well-beforehand, which may not be possible.

I could (and might) go on.
 
M

mori

Guest
#8
I'll add (and I hope finally, because all this reading has taken up too much time :D) that unless the whole world instantaneously drops marriage, people coming here or traveling to other countries will not be able to prove their marital status and take advantage of all the protections and benefits.

The SAHM I mentioned above, for example, would look like an unattached, unemployed person trying to cross a border. She definitely won't receive her visa or green card as quickly as the husband, who is moving for a job.