They're not marrying much now.

Wilso
I agree marriage is nothing more than a binding contract between two people. However, for one who believes in religion it is not valid unless sanctioned by his or her religious entity. As people become more inured to religion that sanction becomes less and less important.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

K.VEE.SHANKER wrote:
I don't agree wih Apisa or Wilso.The question is not about Individuals.It is about the larger group.We know some people are honest and don't need the Law of the Land to Govern them.We know that many people are reasonably honest because of likely punishment if not.This does not mean that I don't recogonise an uncermonised or un registered marriage.I would respect any arrangement in which people concerned are responsible.

You gotta flesh this out a bit, KV. I do not understand your point at all.

The point I made is that a religious ceremony or civil registration is a sort of external regulation imposed on couples so that they take the marriage seriously.Apisa was writing about living together and Wilso was seeing the religious sanction as an interference in an individual's Life.Religious sanction existed from long ago because, the ordinary men and women were fearful of God and nothing else.Nowadays a civil service is available as an alternative.If you reject some regulation then you've to put your own standards in its place.Otherwise it doesn't take care of women and children.I hope I've made myself clear now.

0 Replies

K.VEE.SHANKER wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
K.VEE.SHANKER wrote:
I don't agree wih Apisa or Wilso.The question is not about Individuals.It is about the larger group.We know some people are honest and don't need the Law of the Land to Govern them.We know that many people are reasonably honest because of likely punishment if not.This does not mean that I don't recogonise an uncermonised or un registered marriage.I would respect any arrangement in which people concerned are responsible.

You gotta flesh this out a bit, KV. I do not understand your point at all.

The point I made is that a religious ceremony or civil registration is a sort of external regulation imposed on couples so that they take the marriage seriously.Apisa was writing about living together and Wilso was seeing the religious sanction as an interference in an individual's Life.Religious sanction existed from long ago because, the ordinary men and women were fearful of God and nothing else.Nowadays a civil service is available as an alternative.If you reject some regulation then you've to put your own standards in its place.Otherwise it doesn't take care of women and children.I hope I've made myself clear now.

Not really, KV -- and I am not trying to bust your chops here. I simply do not see your point.

Let me quote something specific -- and ask you to explain what you mean here:

You wrote:

Quote:

If you reject some regulation then you've to put your own standards in its place.Otherwise it doesn't take care of women and children.I hope I've made myself clear now.

What on Earth are you saying here?

0 Replies

KV
Same question as Frank. What on earth about being married gives women and children more?

0 Replies

Fearful of God. That explains it all. Fear.

"I better believe or I'm going to hell."

What a crock of ****.

0 Replies

Let me quote something specific -- and ask you to explain what you mean here:

You wrote:

Quote:

If you reject some regulation then you've to put your own standards in its place.Otherwise it doesn't take care of women and children.I hope I've made myself clear now.

What on Earth are you saying here?[/quote]

Wilso wrote about using fear to control.

Montana asked about benefits for women and children.

First of all let me be clear whether I've understood the thread?

Dear Wilso you were unhappy about the church wielding marriage governing authority.That people have chosen to go after the church to seal their marriage and hold on to it just because the church doesn't approve divorce however bad the marriage has become.Now, more and more people are choosing other ways to get married.Right?

0 Replies

You keep trying to read things that just aren't there. If people want to get married in a church-fine. I don't have an issue with it one way or another. I will say again, I love the fact that most people in this country at least are leaving the church behind. It's an instrument of control, and they're saying, we don't need your control. It pisses them off no end too. JUst like the increasing number of name giving ceremonies for children that are replacing christening. I saw a senior member of the Anglican church asking what the point of it is, since it's not being done in the church. He was desperately trying to denigrate the actions of an increasing number of people, in order to maintain his own power.

0 Replies

Very interesting thread. I did a brief search, and was amazed to find the following:

http://www.poise.cc/didyouknow/archives/000375.html

I really think commitment is what a relationship is about. So it doesn't matter where it happens, does it.

Wilso, I'm not surprised at what you found. There will always be challenges to tradition.

0 Replies

I suggested some time ago that although I resent the "ownership" implied by religious marrige the kids still need a reasonably secure environment to grow up in.

So I suggested that instead of "Until death do us part" or its legal equivalent a marrige contract could be entered into that would last only until the last progney was eighteen years old.

An unhappy marrige is currently a "death sentence". If a couple is so desperately unhappy with one another that the only recourse left to them is to feed the lawyers most generously and hope that the kids have enough left to eat. Mad

I think that simply having a term contract providing for the children would probably lessen the strains of marrige sufficiently to lower the needs for divorce and its attendent traumatic experiences for all concerned.

As any veteran knows "Only three more years"."Hell, I could do three more standing on my head". When an end is in sight, it makes many things more tolerable Exclamation

Ideas anyone?

0 Replies

Frank....22 years? of living together....there is such things as common law marriages? They are recognized by the courts....lol

0 Replies

makemeshiver33 wrote:

Frank....22 years? of living together....there is such things as common law marriages? They are recognized by the courts....lol

Actually, there are only a few juristictions that recognize common law marriages anymore.

Ya actually gotta go through the procedures in most states -- and New Jersey is one.

And the requirements for a "common law marriage" -- even in the juristictions that recognize them are very specific. You cannot accidentally back into a common law marriage anywhere.

Check this out: http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/article.cfm/objectid/709FAEE4-ABEA-4E17-BA34836388313A3C

0 Replies

Frank- How do you deal with mundane matters like health insurance? What if one of you became ill? Is your partner designated as your health care surrogate? Does both of you have power of attorney to handle each other's affairs if one of you is unable? Are you written in each other's will? How is the will written? Does your partner use your name? Does the world believe that you are married? What happens when you are ready for social security?

You say that you refer to each other as husband and wife. Are you saying that you have all the trappings of marriage except for the certificate? That would work out fine................except if one of you dies, and some third cousin goes to court, and and tries to get his fingers into your estate or hers.

I am not being nosy. I really don't care about the answers to my questions. But I think that you both need to care. Like it or not, marriage offers legal protections, that living together doesn't!

P.S. Looked at the article about common law marriages. I noticed that New Jersey was not on the list!

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Frank- How do you deal with mundane matters like health insurance? What if one of you became ill? Is your partner designated as your health care surrogate? Does both of you have power of attorney to handle each other's affairs if one of you is unable? Are you written in each other's will? How is the will written? Does your partner use your name? Does the world believe that you are married? What happens when you are ready for social security?

I'm 67 -- and I'm collecting Social Security. Nancy has had better jobs than I've had -- and will get her own benefit when she gets to 65 -- 18 years from now.

We both have wills -- and I think the wording was "...my dear friend.." which was used on advice of councel.

My brothers and sister all know that Nancy will deal with any end game -- and if a snag should arise, who cares! My family is not the kind to end run my wishes -- but even if something should come up, Nancy is the kind of person who would simply roll with the punches. As for my body after death -- well, I would prefer cremation -- but stuffing me into a hefty bag and putting it out by the fireplug works for me also.

I have medicare -- and AARP supplimental.

I am eligible for VA benefits -- and I can always go to the VA hospital (just a few miles from where we live) to end my days. They will take me.

Quote:

You say that you refer to each other as husband and wife. Are you saying that you have all the trappings of marriage except for the certificate?

Yep! We have decided that we are soul mates -- but neither of us wants a church or the state to say that is okay with them. We refer to each other as husband or wife just to make things easier in idle converstation with people we don't know. "Significant other" or "dear friend" really can be cumbersome in social situations.

Quote:

That would work out fine................except if one of you dies, and some third cousin goes to court, and and tries to get his fingers into your estate or hers.

I've taken a vow of poverty -- so I own almost nothing. If some third cousin really wants my estate (a set of used golf clubs) badly enough to sue -- my guess is Nancy will give them to him/her before the suit is filed.

Quote:

I am not being nosy. I really don't care about the answers to my questions. But I think that you both need to care. Like it or not, marriage offers legal protections, that living together doesn't!

No problem with the questions at all, Phoenix.

I guess marriage does offer some legal protections, but I've never been one to worry about things like that -- and I ain't gonna start now.

And like I said -- I have absolutely nothing to protect.

Quote:

P.S. Looked at the article about common law marriages. I noticed that New Jersey was not on the list![/color][/b]

Yep, I mentioned that up above.

0 Replies

Frank- Hey, whatever works for you both. The important thing is that you are aware of the ramifications!

0 Replies

Sounds good to me Frank.....lol

0 Replies

akaMechsmith -- I think that is a brilliant idea. :-)
It makes complete sense and I've never heard/thought of it before.

Once a major purpose of marriage (raising kids) has been accomplished, why not take a fresh start (automatically) and just go from there?

If two people still find themselves richly fulfilled in being together, simply create a new, second marriage that pursues that direction. When the fundamental basis of the relationship changes completely, a new marriage is very appropriate.

But if child-rearing was the whole deal, finish it smoothly and gracefully and let it go with no hard feelings or expensive legal battles. It's the great let-down expectations that create so much turmoil and struggle. Simpler is better.

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

I suggested some time ago that although I resent the "ownership" implied by religious marrige the kids still need a reasonably secure environment to grow up in.

So I suggested that instead of "Until death do us part" or its legal equivalent a marrige contract could be entered into that would last only until the last progney was eighteen years old.

An unhappy marrige is currently a "death sentence". If a couple is so desperately unhappy with one another that the only recourse left to them is to feed the lawyers most generously and hope that the kids have enough left to eat.

I think that simply having a term contract providing for the children would probably lessen the strains of marrige sufficiently to lower the needs for divorce and its attendent traumatic experiences for all concerned.

As any veteran knows "Only three more years"."Hell, I could do three more standing on my head". When an end is in sight, it makes many things more tolerable

Ideas anyone?

I agree to your idea. But,what if the children have not reached the "age" and or the couple does not have enough money for the children even before going to a Lawyer?

0 Replies

KV and Patriugg,

My idea as to a contract for two persons to form a union (company) in order to provide a healthy nuturing environment for raising children. This would be the limit of societies (the states) interests.

The society would help as far as necessary in case some thing doesn't work out as well as it could. Things such as counseling, financial aid, and other expressions of societies concern could easily be written in to the contract. We have things like the Small Business Administration, Mortgage Subsidies, and Department of Health and Human Services which can and do help young people with thier primary task of raising children.

The religious idea of marrige in todays world is aided and abetted by the state. This IMO amounts to a state endorsement of religion. If a couple does not cleave to one another till death sunders the union the state is effectively acting to encourage ( by requireing divorce) the perhaps failed union in accordance with religious perceptions which may or may not have anything to do with reality.

There are, and will be plenty of problems yet. Society in the guise of the state should not make them worse. Exclamation

Now; How can we draft a law that basically says "The state has no interest in the personal living arrangements of its citizens unless there are minor children involved. " $64 Question

0 Replies

Divorce should be relegated to a tear-off form attached to the bottom of a marriage license.

Anyone so naive as to suppose it is not that way it essentially is right now, shouldn't be allowed to get married.

0 Replies

That would work Frank,

The difficulties would mostly seem to lie with the Bar Associations, aided and abetted by many theologists who may or may not have a pecuniary interest in what is essesentially a very personal situation.

This little observation does not reflect badly upon our friend Msgr. H. or my personal friend Atty.C. . They are persons who are trying to help other persons that are caught up in a system that is not of their own making Exclamation

That they get paid for their services is, at best, only fair. It is the system that necessitates their services that we should be concerned with.

In one case the system is the Roman Catholic Church, In the other it is the American Bar Association. It's going to take a whole bunch of aware people to force a change in those well entrenched systems.

0 Replies

They're not marrying much now.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know