- Joined
- Sep 13, 2012
- Messages
- 18,233
- Reaction score
- 15,861
- Location
- veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Great points. Agreed.
It's not just the children in marriage. Some marriages involve some sacrifice on the part of one spouse in order to benefit the job of the other spouse, which usually involves not being able to get skills or education that makes the spouse unable to actually get a job they can live off of in our economy. It should be used in very limited situations, but that doesn't mean it is something that is completely outdated. Relationships with power differences, huge differences in earning potential do still exist.
I was married in a country club by the mayor of the town. Does that mean I'm not really married?
Why would you assume my response to "holy matrimony" would indicate that?
"Marriage" exists in two realms: Civil and Religious. Just because you choose to forgo a religious marriage doesn't invalidate your civil marriage.
>>>>
I wish you were correct. Unfortunately, they do, because of children that are produced in the marriage and not everyone is honorable enough to take care of their kids.
And that's just one of many reasons why marriage is seen as a civil contract, and why even Martin Luther understood it needed to be so.
Alimony may be outdated today *in some cases* but in the past it protected families....because it was usually the man that cheated on the woman and back then, women often didnt have careers. So they dumped the families and the families had no means of support. Of course there were exceptions but in general, it's true. Even if she cheated, they still took the kids into account and the need for support for a mortgage or rent. And if she went out to find work, then childcare.
Because you said Holy Matrimony involved religious blessing. I didn't have religious blessing. Did you think for some reason my post was an attack on yours? I was asking what Steven King meant by "Holy Matrimony". You just happened to answer.
Nope didn't think it was an attack. You asked did your marriage still count if not performed by a member of the clergy. I differentiated between religious marriage and civil marriage and then confirmed that your civil marriage was perfectly valid under secular law.
You asked me a question and I answered, as a polite person that's what I normally do.
>>>>
I still believe in child support. I don't believe in alimony. And Martin Luther was alive hundreds of years ago, times have clearly changed.
Alimony harkens back to a day when women couldn't work or take care of themselves. A divorced woman would move back in with her father. Today.... a woman is capable of taking care of herself just as a man is, so there is no reason for archaic and ancient civil marriage contracts
Yes, angry over the defeat in the supreme court, some republican politicians have gone into crazy mode.
Representative Steve King says:
"So I'm calling upon the states, just abolish civil marriage, let's go back to holy matrimony the way it began, do that alone,". "In the next few days I'll be introducing legislation to do just that."
So what do we think? In a nation that is getting less religious, he wants to abolish the right of people to have a civil marriage purely because he wants to stop gays from marrying.
Here are a few problems with what he proposes (IMHO)
1. how is this going to play with the supreme court by discriminating against non-religious people who would be unable to marry anymore due to this fool's possible proposal
2. and this is a biggie some priests do marry gays and lesbians in a holy matrimony!!!!!!!!!!. So his big plan to make gay marriage impossible is in fact achieving nothing. He is just making a total ass of himself.
3. the republican party does at some time want another president from their party in the white house because attitudes like this will not go down well with the voters (who are largely in favor of gay marriage).
Steve King also said: "It's not the will of the people to have same sex marriage, now there's no point in having civil marriage in this country whatsoever,".
He does have internet right? He does know that the opinion polls show that a big majority of Americans support gay marriage? Or is he just totally out of touch with reality?
But here is the question, do you agree with republican Steve King, civil marriage has to be abolished in the US in favor of holy matrimony only?
Make that case to different-sex couples.
Make sure to tell them that:
1. With no government recognition of Civil Marriage there will be no joint income tax filing which often reduces taxes.
2. With no government recognition of Civil Marriage there will be no Social Security survivor benefits where a non-working spouse (since there would be no legal spouses) is able to draw on their spouses social security once that spouse passes.
3. With no government recognition of Civil Marriage there will be no tax free transfer of property to a spouse (since there would be no legal spouse).
4. With no government recognition of Civil Marriage there will be no automatic legal next of kin status for emergency medical decisions by the spouse (since there would be no legal spouse) absent a medical power of attorney.
5. With no government recognition of Civil Marriage there will be no assumed parentage by the spouse (since there would be no legal spouse) when a woman give birth to a child meaning the spouse would have to spend hundreds and even thousands of $$$ to adopt their own child.
6. With no government recognition of Civil Marriage, different-sex couples where the spouse (since there would be no legal spouse) is on the other employer health insurance would be operating under the same tax rules as same-sex couples without legal marriage recognition. That being, the employer portion of health insurance above the amount contributed for the "employee only" coverage is treated as taxable income for the employee who then has to pay extra taxes.
7. With no government recognition of Civil Marriage there will be no spousal travel (since their would be no legal spouse) for the husbands and wives of service members who are ordered by the government to relocate their residence either somewhere else in the US or Overseas (unlike civilians military members can't just quit their job) and no medical coverage for spouses of military members.
Well those are few off the top of my head, ya - go ahead and make the case for the elimination of government recognition of marriage.
Have fun.
>>>>
What about spouses who sacrifice their careers to raise children? Are they able to support themselves? A woman, or man for that matter, going back into the job market after caring for kids for a couple of decades is going to take a significant financial hit. Should that be uncompensated if a couple decides to split up?
If you want to pay your spouse for making a decision to stay home there is nothing stopping you from doing so.
Not the point. Say two career people get married and they jointly decide that one should give up their career to raise the kids. 20 years later they split up. The stay at home is 20 years behind their peers assuming they are even employable in their old field. They have suffered real economic harm from a jointly made decision. They deserve to be paid for that.
No, they don't. They didn't have to do anything and when they decided to not work that was a decision they made on their own free will. People don't just deserve money because they made a stupid decision.
People can get a contract written that does most of those. For military matters, the government could just allow someone else and his or her children to be covered by their medical plan, etc. All it would do is change it from being put in place by marriage, to put in place by permission slip. Yes, the person would actually have to be arsed to go to the military and get things moving instead of the government just knowing who they are with, but if they can't be arsed with simple matters like this, then well, **** their lazy asses.
Even if it was, as I stipulated, a jointly made decision.
And what makes that decision stupid?
People could do some things with a contract. And many can't be reproduced with a contract.
For the limited number that can, not for the $50 fee of a marriage license.
>>>>
So really it mostly just comes down to cost and the amount of work needed to get what people want. I really don't think those are very strong reasons, sorry.
You already said what makes the decision stupid. Leaving the workplace for years affects your ability to get a job in the future. Regardless, most of the time the woman makes the decision all on her own. Sure, she might ask the guy what he thinks, but chances are he isn't going to challenge on her on it even if he is against it.
The fact that because gays can now get married it a pretty weak argument for ending the rights, responsibilities, and benefits that Civil Marriage brings to families like mine.
>>>>
Is it? Child care isn't cheap so there is at least one expense avoided by having a stay at home parent. Most stay at home parents don't just care for the kids you can probably throw in avoided cleaning costs, laundry costs etc etc. Additionally some parents just want to raise their kids themselves. It's worth more to them that the lost income.
Why do you think that most of the time it's the woman's decision and the man just rubberstamps it? You have data to back that up or are you speculating? And even if it's so assent is assent, whether it's wholehearted or not. If the guy agrees as far as I'm concerned he's on the hook to support her - at least to the extent of making up for her lost earnings capabilities should they split up.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?