Why does the state involve itself with marriage?

Apr 2013
35,886
24,375
Left coast
If there is no legal marriage and Brad Smith ends up in the emergency room in a coma who gets to make medical decisions for him? His boyfriend of six years or his fundamentalist Christian parent? Who inherits his property if he dies? What happens to the children that he and his boyfriend were raising?
Everyone knows the answer is whoever god wants it to be. Now, how the charlatans deduce what that is, is another question.
 
Apr 2014
1,908
760
Heart of America
If the state got out of the marriage business, then these things would not be tearing apart the nation.

But alas, the name of the game of politics is divide and conquer.
Dude, as I previously posted, you are free to marry anyone you like. You can marry another guy, your cat or a houseplant. That right already exists and no one can stop you. The only thing is that the government doesn’t legally recognize those marriages. So are you trying to say you want the government to legally recognize your marriage to whomever or whatever? If so, then how is that the government getting out of “the marriage business”?
 
Likes: foundit66
Nov 2005
7,611
2,228
California
If the state got out of the marriage business, then these things would not be tearing apart the nation.
As said earlier in the thread, this is the same mentality of shutting down the public pools rather than allow blacks to be in what used to be a "white only" area... :rolleyes:

Furthermore, the country is not being "torn apart" by this.
There are some relatively few bigots who are still throwing a hissy fit over it, but that's about it...
 
Likes: Bad Bob
Jul 2014
13,538
8,189
massachusetts
If the state got out of the marriage business, then these things would not be tearing apart the nation.

But alas, the name of the game of politics is divide and conquer.
So no marriage in law, so walk away from the wife and kids anytime you want, no alimony, no child support, sounds peachy for complete assholes.
 
Mar 2018
190
27
Grayson
No.
I responded to your claim that Barton had no problem. I replied to your statement, so how could I be off topic BEFORE you were?


Irrelevant.
You complained about insults. Period.
Not "who shot first", but rather you complained about being insulted.
Moreover, you have proceeded to repeatedly whine about being insulted as you attack others with insults when several of the involved post doesn't even really have a person insult.


This has been addressed so many times it is absurd that you continue to repeat this baseless accusation.
You have made a variety of follow-on claims which you refuse to substantiate as well.

Governmental recognition of marriage is not about "control".



The subject not being covered by the constitution is completely irrelevant.
The ninth amendment clearly lays out that the fact that a right is / is not enumerated in the constitution does not mean other rights don't exist.

The fact that rights habitually have limits has also been explained to you.
Your claim on what "common law" says is meaningless.



Contrary to popular belief, even if two people live together for a certain number of years, if they don't intend to be married and present themselves to others as a married couple, there is no common law marriage. More particularly, a common law marriage can occur only when:​
  • a heterosexual couple lives together in a state that recognizes common law marriages
  • for a significant period of time (not defined in any state)
  • holding themselves out as a married couple -- typically this means using the same last name, referring to the other as "my husband" or "my wife" and filing a joint tax return, and
  • intending to be married.
Unless all four are true, there is no common law marriage.​
Common Law Marriage in Georgia

Regarding the constitution, again the 9th amendment...
Are you STILL struggling for relevance? I do not read multi quote posts and, most likely neither does anyone else. If you have AN issue, I will respond. I'm not going to bother refuting that much outdated, irrelevant, idiotic filibustering nonsense. You are operating from a position of weakness trying the shotgun approach. That only shows a lack of information on your part and the fear that someone may ask a relevant question you can't cover with smoke and mirrors within multi quotes. Ain't reading it.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Sabcat
Mar 2018
190
27
Grayson
If there is no legal marriage and Brad Smith ends up in the emergency room in a coma who gets to make medical decisions for him? His boyfriend of six years or his fundamentalist Christian parent? Who inherits his property if he dies? What happens to the children that he and his boyfriend were raising?
1) Brad can name someone to act in his behalf with a Durable Power of Attorney should he become incapacitated

2) Brad can will his property to whomever he chooses

3) If Brad and his boyfriend were raising children together, they obviously were not Brad and his butt buddy's. They cannot conceive children of their own. Where I live, that would be an issue taken up with the Department of Family and Children Services. If they legally adopt, the surviving member of the relationship keeps the children; if not, they would go into foster care unless the surviving foster parent can meet the state's criteria (maybe getting a family member to move in and help provide a stable home
 
Mar 2018
190
27
Grayson
So no marriage in law, so walk away from the wife and kids anytime you want, no alimony, no child support, sounds peachy for complete assholes.

I have mixed emotions on that one. A woman is told it is "her" body so she can decide on her own to abort the baby. Women always say it is "my" baby when any dispute arises in a relationship. Let me fix this problem and even help the pro-Life people out without mentioning abortion:

Your body, your baby, your problem. I'm not a financial revenue generating resource for a woman and "her" baby. If I'm going to pay, I'm going to have a say. When men get an equal say in the baby's upbringing, religion, custody, visitation, etc. we can revisit the issue. If that were the rules, females would keep their legs crossed and save themselves for that one guy they can commit to a lifetime with.
 
Likes: Sabcat
Apr 2014
1,908
760
Heart of America
So no marriage in law, so walk away from the wife and kids anytime you want, no alimony, no child support, sounds peachy for complete assholes.
That has already been pointed out to him so it appears that's exactly what he is advocating.
 
Apr 2014
1,908
760
Heart of America
I have mixed emotions on that one. A woman is told it is "her" body so she can decide on her own to abort the baby. Women always say it is "my" baby when any dispute arises in a relationship. Let me fix this problem and even help the pro-Life people out without mentioning abortion:

Your body, your baby, your problem. I'm not a financial revenue generating resource for a woman and "her" baby. If I'm going to pay, I'm going to have a say. When men get an equal say in the baby's upbringing, religion, custody, visitation, etc. we can revisit the issue. If that were the rules, females would keep their legs crossed and save themselves for that one guy they can commit to a lifetime with.
While the "father's rights" issue you bring up is valid, this conversation is about marriage. In court with a divorce and children are involved, the father/husband is equally considered when deciding with whom the children will reside.
 
Apr 2014
1,908
760
Heart of America
Everyone knows the answer is whoever god wants it to be. Now, how the charlatans deduce what that is, is another question.
It's the law that decides in the US, not religion as in theocratic countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.