oklahoma is now proposing to make all marriages illegal

Good, there is no reason to have the state regulate relationships between consenting adults.

His idea is good, but his reason is bad.

The government should have NOTHING to do with marriages (gay or straight). It's not government's freaking business.

But the dude looks a little mentally challenged anyway, so go easy on him.

What a guy, must have read the account of My Lai: "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Good, there is no reason to have the state regulate relationships between consenting adults.

Right on .... Until, of course, that relationship starts to come apart, and both people head off to their respective lawyers. Much better to just leave it to their church, right?

Wtfunny wrote:

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Good, there is no reason to have the state regulate relationships between consenting adults.

Right on .... Until, of course, that relationship starts to come apart, and both people head off to their respective lawyers. Much better to just leave it to their church, right?

No, if they parties failed to have a contract then there is nothing for the state to do.

If they have a contract then that can be enforced just like any other contract between private parties.

I don't care what the church does.

The state does have an interest in promoting and regulating child well-being/support, social order/family integrity, laws for taxation, inheritance, intestate succession, estate administration, etc.

Wtfunny wrote:

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Good, there is no reason to have the state regulate relationships between consenting adults.

Right on .... Until, of course, that relationship starts to come apart, and both people head off to their respective lawyers. Much better to just leave it to their church, right?

In what way would that be different than our current marital system? The lawyers would still end up dictating the outcome based on legal precedent & legislation. The government should allow a person to designate a co-inhabitant(for taxation purposes) and a legal "go-to"(for "pull-the-plug" type stuff). Alimony and 50/50 financial assets split are blatantly coercive and exploitative.

wiggles wrote:

The state does have an interest in promoting and regulating child well-being/support, social order/family integrity, laws for taxation, inheritance, intestate succession, estate administration, etc.

The state having an interest in promoting and regulating something and the state having the right or moral authority or promote or regulate something are two VERY different things.

wiggles wrote:

The state does have an interest in promoting and regulating child well-being/support, social order/family integrity

Child well-being/support has nothing to do with marriage. I have no idea what you mean by social order/family integrity. If I am guessing at your meaning I would say that current law does nothing in this area.

wiggles wrote:

The state does have an interest in promoting and regulating child well-being/support, social order/family integrity, laws for taxation, inheritance, intestate succession, estate administration, etc.

Lots of folks are not married today and are able to raise children, maintain order, live productive lives, pay taxes, leave money to whom they will, etc.

So, what would your point be?

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Wtfunny wrote:

Right on .... Until, of course, that relationship starts to come apart, and both people head off to their respective lawyers. Much better to just leave it to their church, right?

No, if they parties failed to have a contract then there is nothing for the state to do.

If they have a contract then that can be enforced just like any other contract between private parties.

I don't care what the church does.

Contractual agreements are indeed a concern of the state; given that the state is where we turn to arbitrate disputes.

The idea that marriage is not a function of the state is contrary to what a marriage is. Couples are perfectly able to live together and do what married couples do; but if they want some of the stability and support that marriage offers (legal affairs), then they turn to the state.

On the other hand, the idea that a church is some kind of factor in marriage (and I understand you're not advocating that) is absurd. A clergyman or woman can officiate a ceremony, but they are not the arbiters of legal contracts.

Nor should they be.

It's all about money- inheritance taxes and "family" insurance vs individual insurance.

Republicans are going insane.

If they truly were worried about the sanctity of marriage they'd be outlawing divorce, not marriage.

Generally, since I am in a rush:

First, the state, typically implemented at the county register of deeds/probate court level, maintains birth, death, marriage, divorce, property, and other records that enable the implementation of state and federal law (see above post for some areas affected).

1. There are statutes and/or case law that not only define a child, minor, parent, guardian, husband, wife, etc., but also establish who is responsible and to what age he or she is responsible under the law pertaining to a child's well-being. In a nutshell, these laws have been implemented over the course of decades, if not centuries, in order to ensure a child is not left to care for him- or herself without consequence to the related adult before emancipation.

2. Social order/family integrity relates to statutory and case law defining and regulating what a family is regarding such matters as incest/inbreeding, multiple partners (polygamy), child abuse, and other areas of law legislatures have enacted to ensure a reasonably functioning society.

This proposal reminds me of Little Rock, 1958. The previous year, President Eisenhower had to call in military troops to protect 9 black students in the first year of integrated schools in that town. The Arkansas Governor's (Orval Faubus) response the following year was to shut down all public schools in the city. He thought it was better that all high school students in the city be denied public education than for 9 black students to attend an otherwise segregated school. Of course, for the white families with the means, private schools were set up that could legally stay segregated and the disruption to their education was minimal compared to the many poor families (the majority of blacks in Little Rock at that time) who had no such opportunity.

Oh, and the high schools that were shut down in 1958 still had football teams despite technically having no student bodies. The kids who were in that school's district simply showed up to school each day for practice and played their normal schedule of game. This is America after all and the South no less. There may not be education, but there sure will be football.

Most of those kids would go on to be basic laborers. Don't see the problem, if the South wants to hold itself behind the rest of the world let it. Move your family and kids somewhere else and don't make excuses.

Thats why we have so many immigrants in America and I see nothing wrong with someone leaving a place because that place has a poor future.

have you seen that place? wrote:

Most of those kids would go on to be basic laborers. Don't see the problem, if the South wants to hold itself behind the rest of the world let it. Move your family and kids somewhere else and don't make excuses.

Thats why we have so many immigrants in America and I see nothing wrong with someone leaving a place because that place has a poor future.

It is okay that Arkansas' Governor shut down Little Rock's public high school to avoid integration in 1958 because most of the kids would go on to become basic laborers?

And the solution to injustice is to pick up and move somewhere else?

I just want to make sure those are the points you are trying to make.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Good, there is no reason to have the state regulate relationships between consenting adults.

1) let's reserve the term "marriage" for a religious or spiritual ceremony "joining" two people.

2) states should recognize civil unions but between any 2 consenting adults. I think there are cases where a decision needs to be made and somehow others need to know who can make those decisions. In a perfect world we would all have powers of attorney.

luv2run wrote:

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Good, there is no reason to have the state regulate relationships between consenting adults.

1) let's reserve the term "marriage" for a religious or spiritual ceremony "joining" two people.

2) states should recognize civil unions but between any 2 consenting adults. I think there are cases where a decision needs to be made and somehow others need to know who can make those decisions. In a perfect world we would all have powers of attorney.

Oops. hit post by accident

3) What are the ramifications federally for doing this?

4) Lawyers should love this idea. Opens up a lot of territory for them to sue.

luv2run wrote:

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Good, there is no reason to have the state regulate relationships between consenting adults.

1) let's reserve the term "marriage" for a religious or spiritual ceremony "joining" two people.

2) states should recognize civil unions but between any 2 consenting adults. I think there are cases where a decision needs to be made and somehow others need to know who can make those decisions. In a perfect world we would all have powers of attorney.

Why? Religious ceremony has no exclusive dominion over marriage.

Many religions have ceremonies for many things, whether it's initiation into adulthood, or whatever .. those have no legal bearing. The "logic" in your post would suggest we should reserve the term 'adult' for religious or spiritual ceremony, and remove it from state regulation?

Marriage is not a ceremony. That's a wedding.

Lots of people have no religious or spiritual affiliation at all and every right to be legally married.

Do you have any idea how many legal ramifications removing the term 'marriage' from all state law and regulation has?