CDZ Big Government And Big Church Are Now The Same Thing

[Oddball]

That's not exactly true. They'd have to get a Gay DIvorce to terminate a Gay Marriage.

Very expensive and troublesome event, that is a barrier to someone returning to normalcy.

Made more expensive by way of the terms of the marriage license, set forth byyyyy......drum roll.....THE STATE.

 

[martybegan]

Not correct....That would be a violation of Article 1, Section 10.

In the dwindling number of states that don't recognize common law contractual marriage, the license is required by The State to consecrate the marriage.....This is known as "statutory marriage".

But are you stopped from calling yourself "married"?

How do you think the fundamentalist Mormons get away with plural marriage when it's forbidden by law here?

They made up the term "spiritual marriage", but I have a feeling they just call it being married.

 

[AyeCantSeeYou]

Then this thread doesn't belong here, by your very definition.

Yes, giving the OP a chance to steer the discussion to the talking points he wanted. Sometimes people need a little help in knowing how to properly start a thread in this area.

 

[Oddball]

You can call yourself married all you want and the government can't do a thing about it, until you try to interact as married with said government, or with businesses that rely on the license/contract as a standard to meet for certain benefits.

Once again, description violates Article 1, Section 10.

No State shall...pass any...Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts

 

[BlackSand]

... until you try to interact as married with said government ...

.

That's what "Governmental Compliance" means ...

.​

 

[Oddball]

But are you stopped from calling yourself "married"?

How do you think the fundamentalist Mormons get away with plural marriage when it's forbidden by law here?

They made up the term "spiritual marriage", but I have a feeling they just call it being married.

Irrelevant to the fact that common law marriage is contractual (i.e voluntary) and statutory marriage is a coerced arrangement, which puts The State in a legally superior position to those entering into the "contract".

You want to end all this controversy, end the State licensing of marriages.

 

[surada]

The state doesn't give a shit about your marriage until you decide to dissolve it then certain criteria must be met unless both parties are in agreement. The big thing is the kids because the state doesn't want to raise them.

 

[martybegan]

Once again, description violates Article 1, Section 10.

No State shall...pass any...Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts

How so? All it says is the State can't impair parties from fulfilling the legal obligation of their contracts.

 

[surada]

Irrelevant to the fact that common law marriage is contractual (i.e voluntary) and statutory marriage is a coerced arrangement, which puts The State in a legally superior position to those entering into the "contract".

You want to end all this controversy, end the State licensing of marriages.

The state is not party to the marriage contract. It's just between two parties not three.

 

[martybegan]

Irrelevant to the fact that common law marriage is contractual (i.e voluntary) and statutory marriage is a coerced arrangement, which puts The State in a legally superior position to those entering into the "contract".

You want to end all this controversy, end the State licensing of marriages.

All a marriage license does is let the government figure out who is married, and thus is seen by the government as married. How is the State "superior" if you can still call yourself married anyway?

 

[martybegan]

.

That's what "Governmental Compliance" means ...

.​

The alternative is having no standard, and thus no way to know if a person is actually married or not. When it comes to certain government interactions, that's important.

 

[Oddball]

The state doesn't give a shit about your marriage until you decide to dissolve it then certain criteria must be met unless both parties are in agreement. The big thing is the kids because the state doesn't want to raise them.

If The state "doesn't give a shit about your marriage" why are they requiring their license before the agreement is consecrated?

 

[Polishprince]

The state doesn't give a shit about your marriage until you decide to dissolve it then certain criteria must be met unless both parties are in agreement. The big thing is the kids because the state doesn't want to raise them.

With Gay Marriage, they are no children. Two fellows can engage in sodomy every day until Jesus returns and they will have no children.

 

[Oddball]

All a marriage license does is let the government figure out who is married, and thus is seen by the government as married. How is the State "superior" if you can still call yourself married anyway?

Wrong again.

The marriage license is a defacto declaration that The State claims ownership over the institution, and may or may not decide who is allowed/disallowed to be married....Licensure tells you who is in control and who is getting permission....That's why homos sued to be included under the licensing umbrella.

 

[Oddball]

The state is not party to the marriage contract. It's just between two parties not three.

Your naivete on the subject is beyond evident.

I suggest you get to the law dictionary, learn the definition of the word "license", and cease further embarrassing yourself.

 

[BlackSand]

The alternative is having no standard, and thus no way to know if a person is actually married or not. When it comes to certain government interactions, that's important.

.

There are ways to become "Governmentally Compliant" without the "Marriage" nomenclature.
Again ... It is an attempt to subject "Marriage" to "Governmental Compliance", and unnecessary.

.​

 

[martybegan]

Wrong again.

The marriage license is a defacto declaration that The State claims ownership over the institution, and may or may not decide who is allowed/disallowed to be married....Licensure tells you who is in control and who is getting permission....That's why homos sued to be included under the licensing umbrella.

Only when the institution interacts with the government, or when private entities give certain benefits or conditions based on the government defined institution.

If that weren't the case they could prosecute people for calling themselves married when they were not.

 

[Oddball]

Yes, giving the OP a chance to steer the discussion to the talking points he wanted. Sometimes people need a little help in knowing how to properly start a thread in this area.

Is it not now obvious that he of the drive-by dump OPs isn't interested in that?

 

[martybegan]

.

There are ways to become "Governmentally Compliant" without the "Marriage" nomenclature.

.​

You have to remember I have no issue with SSM as long as changing the marriage license requirements are done via State legislative action. And by State I mean the "States" not the feds as a "state"

 

[Oddball]

Only when the institution interacts with the government, or when private entities give certain benefits or conditions based on the government defined institution.

If that weren't the case they could prosecute people for calling themselves married when they were not.

Nope.

I suggest that you also get to the law dictionary and look up the term "license"...I can guarantee you that there's no such disambiguation in the definition....As noted earlier, I've done very thorough research into this particular realm of the law.

In short, licensure denotes ownership....Ownership = control.