Go Back   iRV2 Forums > iRV2.com COMMUNITY FORUMS > Just Conversation
Click Here to Login
Join iRV2 Today

Mission Statement: Supporting thoughtful exchange of knowledge, values and experience among RV enthusiasts.
View Poll Results: Constitutional Amendment: "Marriage- It's Only Temporary!"
Yes! I want a way out- if not today, two years from now will do. 13 38.24%
No! If God wanted me to be single, He wouldn't have made fitted sheets or spiders. 11 32.35%
I'm too wishy washy to have an opinion. 4 11.76%
Don't bother me right now- I'm at the "Rent-a-Life" chatroom. 6 17.65%
Voters: 34. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
  This discussion is proudly sponsored by:
Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about their products on iRV2
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-05-2011, 02:29 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
Francesca's Avatar
 
Vintage RV Owners Club
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Port Hadlock, Washington
Posts: 2,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyFitz... View Post
True, but the criteria under which a marriage license can be issued has been based on religious principles and is becoming more and more so. Again, a violation of the separation of Church and State Principle which is based on the First Admemdment of the Constitution.
Actually the State got into the Marriage License business as a way to achieve the very separation you're concerned about!

Historically, "marriages"were loose unions whose legitimacy was entirely dependent on their recognition by the (smaller) societies the parties were members of.
Those societies had a variety of ceremonial ways of announcing, witnessing, and legitimizing such unions. These traditions were usually defined as religious by their practitioners. A bond recognized by all members was created. The obligations and rights conferred on the parties were understood and enforced by the workings of the group. Within those groups that also had ways to dissolve the bond, there were understood "rules" regarding the division of property, children, etc.
Nearly all used their religion as a framework for the rules/rituals they chose.
Many people continue some form of this custom today- lots of folks wouldn't think they were actually married without them!

But here's the rub, and the reason for the Civil Marriage License: Traditionally, many such groups refused to recognize as legitimate a Marriage "solemnized" by any traditions other than their own!
This works just fine in small, isolated, or homogeneous societies.

In a Country like ours, it's chaos.
And Constitutionally Prohibited, of course.

So the State stays out of the Religious side of marriage.
BUT
A Marriage represents the formation of a new Single Entity, with rights and obligations shared equally by the Parties.
Ask anyone that's had to pay a bill that they didn't know their Spouse incurred...

Marriage in the eyes of American Law is a Civil Contract whose terms are subject to enforcement by the courts.
Either party can petition the Courts for relief, but they must bring a legal contract with them.
That's where the license, properly finalized, comes in.

And that's the end of the State's Obligation or Involvement!

Francesca
__________________

__________________
Francesca is offline  
Join the #1 RV Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

iRV2.com RV Community - Are you about to start a new improvement on your RV or need some help with some maintenance? Do you need advice on what products to buy? Or maybe you can give others some advice? No matter where you fit in you'll find that iRV2 is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with other RV owners, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create an RV blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 10-05-2011, 02:42 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
Chuck 1935's Avatar
 
Winnebago Owners Club
Freightliner Owners Club
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Shadow Hills,CA 91040
Posts: 3,020
Lawyers make a very nice living from mariages !!
__________________

__________________
NOTE; I am not responsible for typos, poor grammer or misspelled word !
04 Itasca, Meridian 34H, 330 Cat/2003 CR V Toad
1933 Ford 3 Window,as seen in Bye Bye Birdie
Pvt. E1 Retired, Shadow Hills,Ca.
Chuck 1935 is offline  
Old 10-05-2011, 05:52 PM   #31
Senior Member
 
iRV2 No Limits Club
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 1,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by Francesca View Post
...the State stays out of the Religious side of marriage...
I agree with everything you say except that one statement. Again, marriage laws, including the definition of marriage, are based on religious principles.
__________________
LadyFitz... is offline  
Old 10-05-2011, 05:53 PM   #32
Senior Member
 
iRV2 No Limits Club
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 1,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck 1935 View Post
Lawyers make a very nice living from mariages !!
When they end.
__________________
LadyFitz... is offline  
Old 10-05-2011, 06:46 PM   #33
Senior Member
 
Francesca's Avatar
 
Vintage RV Owners Club
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Port Hadlock, Washington
Posts: 2,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyFitz... View Post
I agree with everything you say except that one statement. Again, marriage laws, including the definition of marriage, are based on religious principles.
I think that's what I said...
Religious Laws form the foundation for almost ALL modern laws, including those in the U.S.A.
For Millenia, religious laws were the only governing principles in Human Society.
What better way to keep order and settle disputes was there???
Issuing Marriage Licences is one way The United States found to take such considerations out of the hands of Religious Courts.
It allows the Parties in a Marital Contract to petition the Court for the same kind of Contractual relief as the holder of any other contract.

The Court must decide the issues without religious considerations- a really stupendous thing when you compare the system to that in some other parts of the world.

But I think we're getting away from the question posed by the Legislation under consideration in Mexico:

Should "'Til Death Do Us Part" be replaced with "Two and You're Through"?

Francesca
__________________
Francesca is offline  
Old 10-06-2011, 04:00 AM   #34
Senior Member
 
iRV2 No Limits Club
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 1,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by Francesca View Post
...Issuing Marriage Licences is one way The United States found to take such considerations out of the hands of Religious Courts.
It allows the Parties in a Marital Contract to petition the Court for the same kind of Contractual relief as the holder of any other contract.

The Court must decide the issues without religious considerations- a really stupendous thing when you compare the system to that in some other parts of the world...
You're missing the point. The US marriage laws ARE based on Fundamentalist Christian and Roman Catholic concepts. Not all Christians are Fundamentalists or Catholic. A significant percentage of US citzens are not Christian. There are Muslims, Hindus, Jewish, etc, not to mention atheists and agnostics yet they are bound by laws based on religions other than theirs. Many religions permit plural marriages but the US has banned them. Many religions permit same sex marriages but the US bans them, too. That's why I feel the government should get out of the marriage business and only provide legal benefits for Civil Unions. If Churches wants to put limits on their marriages, fine, but those limits should not be unconstitutionally rammed down everyone's throats by our government as it is now.
__________________
LadyFitz... is offline  
Old 10-06-2011, 08:43 AM   #35
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,358
And then I read in the paper today that there are %70 of children born today have no known : fathers ----------------around--------
My take on this; when a women goes in the hospital for child birth the first question on the admintance form should be ----whats the fathers name? and his address.
__________________
melvonnar is offline  
Old 10-06-2011, 09:40 AM   #36
Senior Member
 
Francesca's Avatar
 
Vintage RV Owners Club
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Port Hadlock, Washington
Posts: 2,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by melvonnar View Post
And then I read in the paper today that there are %70 of children born today have no known : fathers ----------------around--------
My take on this; when a women goes in the hospital for child birth the first question on the admintance form should be ----whats the fathers name? and his address.
Too true!
Isn't that sad for the kids?
And too often such a burden for the rest of us.
I really do think that this is one area where the "short term Marriage contract" might do us all some good.
There'd be two parents listed on Birth Certificates...States do pursue absent parents for the cost of supporting their children.
But first the State has to know who the parent is!

Francesca
__________________
Francesca is offline  
Old 10-06-2011, 09:52 AM   #37
Senior Member
 
chasfm11's Avatar
 
Texas Boomers Club
Freightliner Owners Club
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: DFW Area, TX
Posts: 2,027
While I, tongue in cheek, said in an earlier post that a 2 year contract was better than what was happening today, I don't for a minute believe that it is the right answer.

Marriage is not about religion at all. It is about a foundation in society. Stable families provide an anchor point in a stable society.

I agree that government should have a little presence in marriage as possible. But even more I think government should have little to no presence in child rearing. When the lack of marriage creates the percentage of single mom homes that we have today, we are creating and perpetuating children who are defecto wards of the government. I'm not at all saying that some single women cannot care for their kids. I'm saying that to the extent that government has to step in when they cannot, there is a problem. And today we have a real problem.

That, for me, is the fundamental problem with the 2 year contract. Wanna get married for a couple of years and agree not to have kids? Fine. But when the temporary arrangement creates kids and the government, through the courts, must intervene to act in the best interests of those kids, there is a fundamental flaw. Government should never be in the business of caring for kids.

"Marriage" can be taken to an extreme without some constraints. Think not? How about Warren Jeffs? Without some legal parameters, there will always be those who push the limits. How young is too young? Should we condone a two year marriage between a 10 year old girl and a 40 year old man?

I believe that government is too involved in marriage. I understand, at some level, that there is a need to protect society from disease but believe that blood tests before marriage are not the government's responsibility. But I'm unwilling to completely abandon marriage to no controls. No, wait. That is what is happening in a lot of places already. How is that working out for us?
__________________
2000 Georgie Boy Landau 36' DP
2005 Saturn Vue toad
KF5-NJY
chasfm11 is offline  
Old 10-06-2011, 09:55 AM   #38
Senior Member
 
WheelingIt's Avatar
 
Monaco Owners Club
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: On Wheels
Posts: 1,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Francesca
Too true!
Isn't that sad for the kids?
And too often such a burden for the rest of us.
I really do think that this is one area where the "short term Marriage contract" might do us all some good.
There'd be two parents listed on Birth Certificates...States do pursue absent parents for the cost of supporting their children.
But first the State has to know who the parent is!

Francesca
Honestly don't see the short term contract helping here. The kind of father who isn't around for birth is the kind of father who wouldn't sign up to ANY kind of contract. 2 year or not makes no difference. And even in cases where the father is known that's often no guarantee of support for the child even if the State peruses...I've seen enough cases of divorce to know this to be true. Marriage and divorce are commonplace in the western world.

Again I see no advantage to this idea in our country. It only makes sense in countries where local customs or religion prohibit couples living together before marriage.
__________________
12 paws, 40 feet and the open road
WheelingIt is offline  
Old 10-06-2011, 10:42 AM   #39
Senior Member
 
iRV2 No Limits Club
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 1,833
Keep in mind that, in the past, in many European cultures, parents rarely raised their own children. Once a child had survived infancy and early childhood, the child was fostered out to another family, usually an older, wiser one better able to provide for and train the child than the young. Often, a child was fostered out to learn a trade. Even after it became more conventional for parents to raise their own children, everyone in the village, immediate neighborhood, etc. was involved in the child's upbringing. Relatives usually also had a hand in that.

Granted, there are single "mothers" who throw brats to increase the amount of welfare they receive (that easy income needs to be throttled) but there are many single parents (yes, there are many single fathers even if you rarely hear about them) who are responsible and capable enough to successfully raise a child.

Which kind of family environment do you think is better for a child? A single loving parent raising the child in a nurturing environment or two acrimonious parents raising the child in a hostile environment?
__________________
LadyFitz... is offline  
Old 10-06-2011, 11:56 AM   #40
Senior Member
 
Francesca's Avatar
 
Vintage RV Owners Club
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Port Hadlock, Washington
Posts: 2,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyFitz... View Post
Which kind of family environment do you think is better for a child? A single loving parent raising the child in a nurturing environment or two acrimonious parents raising the child in a hostile environment?
Hmmmm...

Sounds like an idea for a whole DIFFERENT THREAD Discussion!

Why not start one, Ladyfitz?

Francesca
__________________
Francesca is offline  
Old 11-08-2011, 04:01 PM   #41
Member
 
Thor Owners Club
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 78
I asked my wife if she'd still love me if I was poor...she said..."Of course i would, but I'd miss you"
__________________
rovinredneck is offline  
Old 11-08-2011, 05:11 PM   #42
Senior Member
 
bluepill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pensacola, FL
Posts: 2,246
Sorta on the subject:

__________________

__________________
2008 Itasca Meridian 37H & 2015 Flagstaff T12RBST
2011 & 2012 Len & Pat's "One lap of America"
27K miles & 41 states in 13 months - Woo Woo
Yellowstone Lake 6-1-2012
bluepill is offline  
Closed Thread



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hello and happy new year (belated) beatsworking Florida Cooters 8 02-27-2010 08:39 PM
How to Plan a Year Long Trip? Beachcomer iRV2.com General Discussion 6 12-21-2007 11:26 AM

» Virginia Campgrounds

Reviews provided by


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.