Re: KY Court Clerk
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2015 1:22 am
i read it here https://www.facebook.com/aomin.org/post ... 0883939430
It has often been pointed out that one government intervention will bring about unintended consequences that become reasons to create further interventions. This seems to be the case here. If there were not for the existance of laws pertaining to visitation rights, the issue of who can or cannot visit remains a private matter decided between the hospital and its customers. If there were not laws about employee benefit allocations then the designation of beneficiaries is a private matter agreed between employers and employees. So the linking of marriage licenses to these things in the past has now lead to reasons for its expansion to homosexuals. It seems to me to be unnecessary for the state to issue marriage licences at all. Is there any compelling reason for the state to issue marriage licenses?morbo3000 wrote: If I remember correctly, the original main issues that marriage equality was meant to address were things like acceptance by hospitals of the same visitation rights as married couples, and benefits from employers.
Hi Pete,thrombomodulin wrote:I agree with the idea expressed by some here that marriage as recognized by God has no inherit relationship to marriage licenses issued by the state. i suppose then that a Christian couple who marries before God should not feel any obligation to seek a license from the state. Whether they choose to do so would be a merely a matter of practical considerations to be decided after consulting with a knowledgable lawyer and/or accountant. There is no sin in marrying without the state issued license, nor should churches regard such a couple as "living in sin". Do you agree?
Laws and lawyers somehow ever creating a need for more laws and lawyers! Funny how that works. (No offense to you lawyers. Gotta have some.)thrombomodulin wrote:It has often been pointed out that one government intervention will bring about unintended consequences that become reasons to create further interventions. This seems to be the case here. If there were not for the existance of laws pertaining to visitation rights, the issue of who can or cannot visit remains a private matter decided between the hospital and its customers. If there were not laws about employee benefit allocations then the designation of beneficiaries is a private matter agreed between employers and employees. So the linking of marriage licenses to these things in the past has now lead to reasons for its expansion to homosexuals.
I think there is. Only one man and one woman together can produce children, the next generation of adult citizens. That is one reason why that lifetime union (aka, marriage) is unique and exceptional, and it is a (if not the) reason why the state has a compelling reason to want to license/administer marriages - to help ensure that children (future adult citizens) are cared for and raised by their mother and father in as healthy an environment as possible.thrombomodulin wrote:It seems to me to be unnecessary for the state to issue marriage licences at all. Is there any compelling reason for the state to issue marriage licenses?
I do, sure, but I think it would be advisable for married couples to get the civil-union license (unless the taxes or requirements or whatever make it very inconvenient or otherwise objectionable).thrombomodulin wrote:There is no sin in marrying without the state issued license, nor should churches regard such a couple as "living in sin". Do you agree?
Thanks for your reply. I'll give this some thought and reply to the first point later. As for the second it is my understanding that throughout much of western history the state did not issue such licenses or make them compulsory. If that state of affairs prevailed in the past, there is no reason it could not come about again in the future except for the popular sentiment opposing it - which is not assured to endure. I'm not aware if the creation of such licensing, and making it compulsory, had any beneficial effect of improving marriage stability. (That is to say I'm not informed about if couples failing to stay together was more frequent before state licensing)Singalphile wrote: I think there is. Only one man and one woman together can produce children, the next generation of adult citizens. That is one reason why that lifetime union (aka, marriage) is unique and exceptional, and it is a (if not the) reason why the state has a compelling reason to want to license/administer marriages - to help ensure that children (future adult citizens) are cared for and raised by their mother and father in as healthy an environment as possible.
The idea of getting the government out of marriage is not feasible, imo. Never going to happen. But they don't have to call it marriage, especially since they are now forced to license and administer unions that do not constitute marriage.
I intentionally did not say that the state "should" license marriage. I said that the state has compelling reason(s) for doing so, which is what you asked.thrombomodulin wrote:I would like to ask more about the idea you mentioned that the state should license marriage to provide a positive influence on couples so that they would remain together.
Agreed. Regarding this topic, nothing that I think is ideal will ever happen, so ... I don't know. No use banging my head against a wall. I think you're right.thrombomodulin wrote:I think you would probably agree that the current legal situation in the USA is far from ideal and detrimental rather than beneficial. If the ideal system could be made for the state "encouraging" couples to stay together what would that look like? I think there would have to be some incentives applied beyond merely giving a license otherwise people would simply ignore the license and shack up.
Nothing would change in any way that would affect outcomes. When the Supreme Court made its ruling, states and counties had to edit their documents/forms/licenses/laws to remove the words "man/groom/husband/woman/bride/wife", and replace them with "partner/applicant 1/applicant 2/other party", etc. References to gender/sex will be removed altogether, perhaps. (Some counties/states probably haven't completed this process yet.)thrombomodulin wrote:How do you think the state should go about implementing your proposal?