Five reasons a couple should NOT get a marriage license

I don't know the legalities but it seems to me it will cause problems down the road for the couple.

 

The man certainly is entitled to his opinion. Let's see him try these same kind of arguments concerning his taxes. I'm sure the chaplain at a federal prison somewhere could use another religious upstart.

 

:laugh:- that's all I can say.

 

I like point #5. I never knew Wifey and I were bigamists. :laugh:

 

Whenever we look at marriage we need to remember it is two things. It is a religious ceremony and a union of two people with vows before God, but it is also a civil contract with our government with tax and other legal considerations. That is why gay marriage is such a big deal and why we must defend the definition of marriage, in a legal sense, as well as spiritual.

Matt’s Five points:
1. The definition, that we have to obtain a license to make it legal. Matt says “The State cannot grant the right to marry. It is a God-given right.” Well yes, the religious and spiritual part is, but not the tax, insurance and other civil considerations that the government has every right to control and prohibit.
2. By getting a license we grant the State jurisdiction over our marriage. Only over the part that they control, and certainly not over our children. Matt is completely wrong here.
3. By getting a license we place ourselves under family court which is illegal. Again, only the civil parts. Even nice Christian couples get divorced. Your lack of a license will not help you when your spouse files for divorce.
4. The marriage license removes parental authority. Hey if you believe parents should pick their children’s spouses then go for it, but a legal adult is just that.
5. When we marry with a license we are like polygamists and are marrying the state. Matt is totally twisted here and seems to not realize that marriage is a legal contract.

 

The government does not need to be a party to a contract to regulate individuals or institutions, or to tax them. In other words, a license is not required for government regulation. The license means something else.

The license application is a request for permission from the state to marry. It is not a mere registration tool.

Actually, he is right here.

Actually, whether or not there is a license makes a HUGE difference in what the court can say in this matter.

Actually, he is right. As a party to the marriage contract, the state is regarded as a third party to the union. Any probate lawyer can tell you that.

 

>The government does not need to be a party to a contract to regulate individuals or institutions, or to tax them. In other words, a license is not required for government regulation. The license means something else.

The license means a change in the applicable income tax tables and SS benefits.

 

I got to thinking about this a bit and of all the things in all the world to take a stand on this fella decided it would be marriage licenses? Really?

Just seems like a stand on a hill 1000 miles from the action.

 

But not by virtue of the government being a party to the contract.

 

True. Sort of. When a preacher "marries" people he is acting as an agent of the state . . . he signs the license as an agent of the state. The marriage license is a government document.

 

Yes, I agree, Sort of.

When a preacher conducts a marriage ceremony he is acting as an angent of the state, and as a minister of God. A judge or justice of the peace can do the civil government part. It is the second part where our faith comes to play a part.

 

Right. Remove every reference to marriage from every bit of legislation. People can sign legal contracts to combine their estates and the churches can "marry" anyone they please with no civil significance as long as child protection laws were enforced.

A "boiler plate" civil contract can be written which includes provisions for children, death, and dissolution. The contract would be signed by both parties and recorded by the county clerk. It would be simpler to have one national registry.

 

Good thinking! No one gets a govt marriage lic. The people who want a religious marriage find a preacher or mullah who will marry them.

People will still need some kind of contract or partnership if the own property in common. Splitting the sheets is much more complicated if one isn't married.

 

No I don't agree with his reasoning as to why, but I don't see anything wrong if two people get married without a lenience if it does not break the law as we are to obey the law.