Marriage doesn’t need “to be regulated by the state at all,” say Republicans

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jkcerda, Jan 27, 2014.

  1. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #1
    http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/oklahoma-divorce-marriage-government-video/#axzz2rZDcBgmv

    what say you.
     
  2. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #2
    Haters gonna hate. Seems a convenient way to make marriage a religious institution. Not gonna happen.
     
  3. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #3
    Actually I'd prefer a Constitutional amendment that defined marriage as a long-term bond between consenting adults and that people who enter into such a bond get equal treatment under the law (namely, no difference between same-sex marriage and other forms of marriage on spousal rights such as insurance, pension, etc.).
     
  4. barkomatic macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Location:
    Manhattan
    #4
    I don't usually agree with Libertarian or Republican efforts to define marriage -- but based upon the excerpt you provided what they are proposing is an interesting idea.

    I don't think traditional marriage, and its related divorce industry works well in our society anymore and it may be time to re-think how we institutionalize relationships. As long as gay people are treated equally I'm open to a conversation about it. However, there would need to be a way for people to get "married" outside of a church or without a churchs permission.
     
  5. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #5
    Having read it through, it doesn't make that much sense. What makes sense is to allow churches to determine whether they wish to perform marriage services for same sex couples. Beyond that they cannot claim they are being forced to act against their religion. I don't see how they would work around the civil aspects, considering some of those extend to the federal level.
     
  6. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #6
    nice post :D
     
  7. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #7
    Can't stop gay marriage? Then take away all gov't marriage.
     
  8. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #8
    Marriage is a legal contract between two individuals who want to commit to each other. The state provides a handy predefined template for such a contract, but individuals do have a certain amount of leeway in customizing their commitment.

    If Oklahomans travel to Arkansas or New Mexico to get married, Oklahoma still must recognize their marriages. Striking the language from the books is hardly enough to just make the problem go away.
     
  9. Don't panic macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Location:
    having a drink at Milliways
    #9
  10. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #10
    Why settle for half-measures?

    They both have no business in a contract between adults.
     
  11. NewbieCanada macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    #11
    There's no need to "allow" them to do that. Churches have always had the legal right to perform services for whoever they want. That right has never been challenged anywhere.

    ----------

    The United States do not exist in a vacuum. Marriage is a concept that is understood and recognized around the world. Every single country. Religious. Secular. Even freaking North Korea. Would you want, for example, an American couple visiting a Muslim country to be arrested for adultery because they aren't married? Or force people immigrating to the United States to dissolve their (say) Argentine or German marriage and have a new one in the US?
     
  12. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #12
    So this opens the door wide open for polygamy?
     
  13. Mousse macrumors 68000

    Mousse

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2008
    Location:
    Flea Bottom, King's Landing
    #13
    Never gonna happen. IF the Gub'ment can tax it, they'll regulate it to tax it.
     
  14. dec. Suspended

    dec.

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2012
    Location:
    Toronto
    #14
    I think there are too many legal issues that marriage affects, like divorce (yep, apparently Adam DOES get tired of Eve sometimes), child custody rulings, inheritance laws, immigration issues... how would these be regulated?

    I wonder if the "traditional (A&E) marriage" crowd would feel their marriage being devalued by such a change, since it shouldn't be a problem at all for anyone to get married to anyone, we welcome "The First Branch of Oklahomas Extremely Gay Friendly Catholic Church"!
     
  15. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #15
    All involved have their eyes open.

    No harm, no foul.
     
  16. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #16
    a "marriage" contract from a church has no legal standing with the GOVT. nothing more than a simple paper , no more valid than monopoly money.
     
  17. Don't panic macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Location:
    having a drink at Milliways
    #17
    except to provide protections and safeguards for the spouse
     
  18. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #18
    The area of prenuptial agreements.

    But the Government over-rides those with basic requirements.

    I see no problem with that, provided they let those marry that wish to.

    They then become a party to the contract.
     
  19. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #19
    That's what I thought, although I wasn't sure. I have mentioned that the religious aspect is typically presented through logical absurdities. They concern themselves with government interference in religion, yet want a certain kind of interference (in their favor) ignoring that it could infringe on the beliefs of another religion with differing rules. I would personally like to see these things settled faster. The entire issue consumes a lot of money and resources trying to limit the rights of others where they can't even demonstrate provable harm.
     
  20. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #20
    A couple of comments from the OP's article ...

    And in reply to that comment ...

    So by that logic, would this be an invitation to bring Sharia Law into play for any Muslims married under Islam?
     
  21. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #21
    Church documents have no legal standing, church & state are separate, as they should be
     
  22. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #22
    If I understand it correctly, a private institution means that gays would find someone to marry them too. That seems contrary to the conservative agenda. The problem is property rights and family access. This will always be controlled by the courts. Very odd behavior for members of a country founded on the concept of freedom, new motto "freedom that falls within my religious tolerance..." :p
     
  23. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #23
    Except as proposed in Oklahoma.

    ----------

    This is what I don't get as well. If you let adults make this decision for themselves, then surely gays would marry.

    I suspect there is a follow-up law lurking in the shadows ...
     
  24. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #24
    Gays can get a church marriage certificate from a church that recognizes them, Methodist /episcopalian
    Completely irrelevant & invalid to the Feds , besides, look above
     
  25. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #25
    I get that.

    I'm trying to follow the logic of the proposed law.

    I'm not trying to argue for it.
     

Share This Page