First serious post in 8 years:
(Who knows, something else might happen in 8 years.)
I’m taking a political science class on state and local government. At first I was only appreciative that the professor was my comic relief in between statics and engineering analysis II. However, discussing the Texas bill of rights and certain provisions it makes along with the controversial issue of same-sex marriages, I wonder the validity of a marriage license. Now before making Neper feel like such an ass because of the idea that I would get any of these concepts from that guy I know (although he did cultivate interest and basis), at least pretend like you skimmed the post.
Why do people get “married”? legal or church
a.) sovereign union - - public declaration of covenant between man, woman and God, originating and intended purpose centered around religion
b.) get (in TX) insurance benefits, inheritance rights, and ability to file joint tax returns
c.) secular, attempt at guilt free - - some rationalization or structure to social practices, legally binding contract (b & c including gay marriage)
Now, it seems to me that each of these could take place without a marriage license.
a.) Have a Church wedding
b.) Make legal provisions ( i.e. written will)
c.) Make a legally binding contract fearing separation (same idea as a prenuptial agreement, or community property clause)
A classmate sent me an email regarding his opinions of the Establishment Clause, its too often interpretation and repercussions thereof. This brought to my attention that the First Amendment prevents the government from mandating a religious act. (Think about that for a second. An alternative wording or interpretation I prefer.) Hold that thought.
A Common law marriage in TX occurs at the point one of the following takes place
a.) same residence for at least 60 consecutive days
b.) register at accommodations as Mr. and Mrs.
c.) Publicly claim to be married
Now, granted millions of Americans live under these conditions and nothing ever comes of it, yet is this not legally declaring two (the quantity, a whole different issue) people as being married? Is marriage a solely religious practice? Considering any motive except for a sovereign union, could take place without religion (or “church”) involved, is this not the only form of marriage, leaving anything else to fall more realistically as a construction or convenience of society?
So the rationale of a marriage license or any gov’t recognition of marriage would be what again?
4 comments:
Excellent post. I think you and randy would agree about quite alot of things.
I am not in favor of the government regulating marriage. If, for example, I realized I was gay and wanted to marry I would want to have that liberty.
In my opinion, the problem with the marriage definition came about because the government became entertwined with a religious concept. I believe marriage is mostly defined by one's religion. If two men want to get married and believe that such a marriage has religious blessing, that is there right. It is also the right of other people to disagree with them; however, it is not the government's job to decide which of the two party's is correct. The government should stick with the idea of civil unions and leave the marriage definition game to those who have already decided upon their own definition anyways.
I think the same as always...
I couldn't give two shits...its not bothering me, nor taking money from my taxes, at least not to the extent that the leachers in this state/country are...so why does anyone care?
I am just a big fan of the government regulating God's sacraments. I think we need to tax communion, and if you are not registered with the selective service, you should not be allowed to get baptized.
Post a Comment