Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
True enough but state sanctioned marriage has not always protected the children. In my opinion when you make babies(man or woman) you make a separate contract with the children and that is where I do support child protection laws but that is apart from the union of marriage. They kick in even where marriage is not a factor and that is quite often these days with so many children being born out of wedlock.
It's difficult to usurp parental rights, and of course, not all help is a 100% solution. It's just help, such as Child Support Enforcement, working across state lines, often.
So indeed a substantial effort is made, even if all problems are not entirely mitigated.
But the needs of the children are legally separate from the state sanctioned marriage as proven over and over in family courts dealing with unwed parents. I believe the only time state sanctioned marriage interjects is in the determination of parentage of the children born within the framework of a marriage; they are presumed to be the husband's offspring. The use of DNA testing has likely made this less of an issue however.
It's difficult to usurp parental rights, and of course, not all help is a 100% solution. It's just help, such as Child Support Enforcement, working across state lines, often.
So indeed a substantial effort is made, even if all problems are not entirely mitigated.
But the needs of the children are legally separate from the state sanctioned marriage as proven over and over in family courts dealing with unwed parents. I believe the only time state sanctioned marriage interjects is in the determination of parentage of the children born within the framework of a marriage; they are presumed to be the husband's offspring. The use of DNA testing has likely made this less of an issue however.
They're connected and separate from marriage contracts:
Part of the divorce settlement, when children are involved, is a "Parenting Plan." Ergo, connected.
But we also have Paternity Law, where parents vis a vis gamete-contribution, have responsibility to the resulting offspring. Ergo separate from marriage contracts.
I wonder why there cannot be two different certificates - one for heterosexual marriages, and another for homosexual marriages. That way, both sides are happy.
Or that too easy a solution?
Because the homos never cared as much about their "civil rights" as they did about shoving their perversions down the throats of the rest of America.
Except, of course, that nothing has been shoved down anyone's throat, Tinkerbell.
Please try rational though one day instead of simply regurgitating shopworn talking points you borrowed from your masters.
Because the homos never cared as much about their "civil rights" as they did about shoving their perversions down the throats of the rest of America.
Except, of course, that nothing has been shoved down anyone's throat, Tinkerbell.
Please try rational though one day instead of simply regurgitating shopworn talking points you borrowed from your masters.
Aww, you called me tinkerbell, that's so cute scrote. As for my "masters", I am not a liberal scumbag, so I have no masters, and I don't regurgitate MSNBC's, or the View's talking points, like you and the rest of your gutless, brain dead liberal brethren do.
Except, of course, that nothing has been shoved down anyone's throat, Tinkerbell.
Please try rational though one day instead of simply regurgitating shopworn talking points you borrowed from your masters.
Aww, you called me tinkerbell, that's so cute scrote. As for my "masters", I am not a liberal scumbag, so I have no masters, and I don't regurgitate MSNBC's, or the View's talking points, like you and the rest of your gutless, brain dead liberal brethren do.
Oh, Tinky, you've been hurt and you're lashing out.
That's just precious!
Tissue? Hankie?
The state and government should not even be in the marriage business imo.
Hi Dreamy, long time no see.
Just wondering, could you be a little more specific about what you mean?
>>>>
Hi WorldWatcher.
Marriage is a legal contract and should be treated as such. Draw up the contracts and unite when ready.
I support the continued used of clergy or whatever spiritual aspect people want to attach to their particular unions of course.
I am hard pressed to think of a reason(s) as to why the state needs to be a party to a marriage in any form.
Aww, you called me tinkerbell, that's so cute scrote. As for my "masters", I am not a liberal scumbag, so I have no masters, and I don't regurgitate MSNBC's, or the View's talking points, like you and the rest of your gutless, brain dead liberal brethren do.
Oh, Tinky, you've been hurt and you're lashing out.
That's just precious!
Tissue? Hankie?
No sweetness, I'm much more thick skinned than that. No faceless scrote on a mesg board can hurt my feelings. I actually thought it was quite cute of you to call me tinkerbell.
Hi Dreamy, long time no see.
Just wondering, could you be a little more specific about what you mean?
>>>>
Hi WorldWatcher.
Marriage is a legal contract and should be treated as such. Draw up the contracts and unite when ready.
I support the continued used of clergy or whatever spiritual aspect people want to attach to their particular unions of course.
I am hard pressed to think of a reason(s) as to why the state needs to be a party to a marriage in any form.
???
If marriage is a legal contract and and the legality of marriage is created by laws drafted by government..... then the government is intrinsically a party to marriage.
And the reason why government extends so many benefits to married couples is because of the financial intricacies of that legal contract as well as children's concerns.
If you don't want government involved in marriage then we should outlaw divorce and dying.
But the needs of the children are legally separate from the state sanctioned marriage as proven over and over in family courts dealing with unwed parents. I believe the only time state sanctioned marriage interjects is in the determination of parentage of the children born within the framework of a marriage; they are presumed to be the husband's offspring. The use of DNA testing has likely made this less of an issue however.
They're connected and separate from marriage contracts:
Part of the divorce settlement, when children are involved, is a "Parenting Plan." Ergo, connected.
But we also have Paternity Law, where parents vis a vis gamete-contribution, have responsibility to the resulting offspring. Ergo separate from marriage contracts.
Divorce settlements are a separate issue from what is being discussed here. As is Paternity Law. That is also a separate contract. In the eyes of the state it is all about contracts and revenue and nothing more.
I am questioning why marriage needs to be state sanction rather than just legal contract?
They're connected and separate from marriage contracts:
Part of the divorce settlement, when children are involved, is a "Parenting Plan." Ergo, connected.
But we also have Paternity Law, where parents vis a vis gamete-contribution, have responsibility to the resulting offspring. Ergo separate from marriage contracts.
Divorce settlements are a separate issue from what is being discussed here. As is Paternity Law. That is also a separate contract. In the eyes of the state it is all about contracts and revenue and nothing more.
I am questioning why marriage needs to be state sanction rather than just legal contract?
Oh that. Okay, let's think about the intangibles: love, sharing, legitimacy.
I think it's that last one, legitimacy, that has ChristCon's panties in a twist. They have disdain for Gay People, and do not want gay unions to seem as legitimate as straight marriage. So if gay unions can be called something different, i.e. civil unions, the bigots can feel better, since the legitimacy-feeling is diminished for Gay People who marry, as they did.
Hi WorldWatcher.
Marriage is a legal contract and should be treated as such. Draw up the contracts and unite when ready.
I support the continued used of clergy or whatever spiritual aspect people want to attach to their particular unions of course.
I am hard pressed to think of a reason(s) as to why the state needs to be a party to a marriage in any form.
???
If marriage is a legal contract and and the legality of marriage is created by laws drafted by government..... then the government is intrinsically a party to marriage.
And the reason why government extends so many benefits to married couples is because of the financial intricacies of that legal contract as well as children's concerns.
If you don't want government involved in marriage then we should outlaw divorce and dying.
I think you misunderstand me. I believe unions with contracts should be a choice not a requirement. That is why I stated "buyer beware".
What benefits do married people get that is so great?
The decision to have children is a separate matter contractually and legally because there is a separate person involved with their own legal rights.
Divorce settlements are a separate issue from what is being discussed here. As is Paternity Law. That is also a separate contract. In the eyes of the state it is all about contracts and revenue and nothing more.
I am questioning why marriage needs to be state sanction rather than just legal contract?
Oh that. Okay, let's think about the intangibles: love, sharing, legitimacy.
I think it's that last one, legitimacy, that has ChristCon's panties in a twist. They have disdain for Gay People, and do not want gay unions to seem as legitimate as straight marriage. So if gay unions can be called something different, i.e. civil unions, the bigots can feel better, since the legitimacy-feeling is diminished for Gay People who marry, as they did.
I honestly can't know the minds of others but I am sure there are some who believe as you describe.
I am not impressed with the union of marriage as it is practiced and lived today by many people, all types, so I am not sure what anyone is trying to protect and keep away from gays.
In my opinion, traditionalists should work earnestly on their own marital unions and lives and stop worrying about what societal catastrophes may happen because gays were allowed a piece of something that is held in such low regard by far too many straight men and women....marriage.
Clean up your own yard so to speak before finger wagging at others.
???
If marriage is a legal contract and and the legality of marriage is created by laws drafted by government..... then the government is intrinsically a party to marriage.
And the reason why government extends so many benefits to married couples is because of the financial intricacies of that legal contract as well as children's concerns.
If you don't want government involved in marriage then we should outlaw divorce and dying.
I think you misunderstand me. I believe unions with contracts should be a choice not a requirement. That is why I stated "buyer beware".
What benefits do married people get that is so great?
The decision to have children is a separate matter contractually and legally because there is a separate person involved with their own legal rights.
There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law.
An Overview of Federal Rights and Protections Granted to Married Couples | Resources | Human Rights Campaign
You are perfectly welcome to go to any religious institution and have a religious marriage ceremony performed without filing that union with the government. No one is forcing you to do so. But if you do that and then later decide to separate, the government still needs to step in and sort out the financial separation as well as child custodial issues. No way around government involvement unless the separation is purely amicable.
Oh that. Okay, let's think about the intangibles: love, sharing, legitimacy.
I think it's that last one, legitimacy, that has ChristCon's panties in a twist. They have disdain for Gay People, and do not want gay unions to seem as legitimate as straight marriage. So if gay unions can be called something different, i.e. civil unions, the bigots can feel better, since the legitimacy-feeling is diminished for Gay People who marry, as they did.
I honestly can't know the minds of others but I am sure there are some who believe as you describe.
I am not impressed with the union of marriage as it is practiced and lived today by many people, all types, so I am not sure what anyone is trying to protect and keep away from gays.
In my opinion, traditionalists should work earnestly on their own marital unions and lives and stop worrying about what societal catastrophes may happen because gays were allowed a piece of something that is held in such low regard by far too many straight men and women....marriage.
Clean up your own yard so to speak before finger wagging at others.
Try not to compare, and just focus on making yours better. It's a more worthwhile pursuit, I believe.
I honestly can't know the minds of others but I am sure there are some who believe as you describe.
I am not impressed with the union of marriage as it is practiced and lived today by many people, all types, so I am not sure what anyone is trying to protect and keep away from gays.
In my opinion, traditionalists should work earnestly on their own marital unions and lives and stop worrying about what societal catastrophes may happen because gays were allowed a piece of something that is held in such low regard by far too many straight men and women....marriage.
Clean up your own yard so to speak before finger wagging at others.
Try not to compare, and just focus on making yours better. It's a more worthwhile pursuit, I believe.
Who['s] comparing? I am observing and commenting on the state of marriage today. Problem?
Try not to compare, and just focus on making yours better. It's a more worthwhile pursuit, I believe.
Who['s] comparing? I am observing and commenting on the state of marriage today. Problem?
You, when posting this:
"I am not impressed with the union of marriage as it is practiced and lived today by many people."
Who cares? Does it change marriage in any way? Do people now get less rights? Is anyone trying to force you not recognize your partner as husband/wife?
This isn't something I would advocate, but it's pretty stupid to get worked up over it.
In fact, it would accomplish just the opposite.
Marriage between men and women have a 50% fail rate and yet the homophobe haters say the marriages of others will threaten their own.
What a lot of to-do over nothing.
Why shouldn't all US citizens have the same rights?
Who['s] comparing? I am observing and commenting on the state of marriage today. Problem?
You, when posting this:
"I am not impressed with the union of marriage as it is practiced and lived today by many people."
I make observations and give opinions, as do we all over this board and in life about life. Should I cease because you believe I am comparing something? Not happening.
Feel free to dispute me on the state of marriage today. It is dismal based on stats alone.
You, when posting this:
"I am not impressed with the union of marriage as it is practiced and lived today by many people."
I make observations and give opinions, as do we all over this board and in life about life. Should I cease because you believe I am comparing something? Not happening.
Feel free to dispute me on the state of marriage today. It is dismal based on stats alone.
Okay; I like marriage, and have done it frequently. Also, I tend not to worry about others, since my own need some work.
I make observations and give opinions, as do we all over this board and in life about life. Should I cease because you believe I am comparing something? Not happening.
Feel free to dispute me on the state of marriage today. It is dismal based on stats alone.
Okay; I like marriage, and have done it frequently. Also, I tend not to worry about others, since my own need some work.
I am quite connected to longterm happy marriage myself but I was discussing the topic without interjecting my personal life into this thread because that is how I prefer to operate when on a forum. Why do you get the misguided impression I am worried about others? Not at all. Who would I be worried about exactly? lol
I gave a viewpoint. You disagree but did nothing to back your POV up except to take it to your own personal level. Whatever floats your boat.
You do realize this is a message board of strangers discussing various topics, right? The topic here is marriage certificates. *shrug
