Where did marriage go?

[Marion Morrison]

2aguy wrote recently:

as the welfare state has enabled young, teenage girls to have children from multiple males, without fathers in the home......the young males raised in these homes are becoming more and more violent....

It's not the fault of silly teenage girls or the welfare state that is "enabling" that. The Pill, coming in the same decade with Supreme Court decisions on "obscenity" in the '60's, and loosening of divorce laws completely transformed our culture's attitudes toward sex. When I grew up, if you got pregnant before marriage, it was shameful and you got married right quick, if you could. Young couples were beginning to live together prior to marriage, but then marry in a year or two, but it wasn't that common and it was still considered shameful to most. Those couples often got married in a couple of years. The order of things was supposed to be marriage, sex, children. Of course, people have always snuck in sex before marriage, but it was SNUCK.

Our culture changed dramatically, basically overnight. There is no shame in getting pregnant now outside of marriage; no one hides having sex. Couples very openly live together without marriage and no one bats an eye anymore.

I don't see how we reverse that.

It has always been a goal of the far left to destroy marriage and family, but there are more factors at play than just these. Marriage is becoming a luxury for the wealthy, at least in the usual time frames.

"It has always been a goal of the far left to destroy marriage and family"

pure nonsense.

Absolute truth.

"40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce. "

"32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy." "

The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals

 

[PoliticalChic]

It can't be reversed, the horse bolted the barn for good. The 60's started a "new world".

Not a better one at all.

Btw OldLady, look at the way divorce, poverty, crime, and unwed mothers spiked after 1961, which is exactly when LBJ created a welfare state in earnest.

What ever they touch turns to ......manure.

Universities: the places that the Left most dominates are the least free places in America

Colleges: The English translation of “Madrassa”

 

[Muhammed]

Also consider the divorce rate is nearly 50%.

That's a myth.

 

[OldLady]

You don't have to be rich to raise kids. You need to be able to give them (not necessarily in this order):

Security (safety)
Stability
Consistency (with expectations and rules)
Emotional Support (encouragement and empathy)
Love
Education (not just schooling, but your morals, values and ethics)
Positive Role Models (Be an example of what you are teaching them to become)
Structure (Rules, Boundaries and Limits)
Time (your time)

Nobody is perfect by a long shot, but all these things help kids become healthy happy adults. Enough money to keep the lights on and not get evicted every six months is a good thing, as is being able to live in a neighborhood that isn't a war zone. Having two adults in the home takes some of the stress off each of them, allowing more energy to parent in a positive way, as well as contributing two incomes.

I have seen some excellent parenting and thriving children who become great adults from families with very little in the way of material things. It isn't always religion, it isn't strict rules. It is mostly a lot of love, positive role modeling, and structure, all of which are free.

 

[anynameyouwish]

2aguy wrote recently:

as the welfare state has enabled young, teenage girls to have children from multiple males, without fathers in the home......the young males raised in these homes are becoming more and more violent....

It's not the fault of silly teenage girls or the welfare state that is "enabling" that. The Pill, coming in the same decade with Supreme Court decisions on "obscenity" in the '60's, and loosening of divorce laws completely transformed our culture's attitudes toward sex. When I grew up, if you got pregnant before marriage, it was shameful and you got married right quick, if you could. Young couples were beginning to live together prior to marriage, but then marry in a year or two, but it wasn't that common and it was still considered shameful to most. Those couples often got married in a couple of years. The order of things was supposed to be marriage, sex, children. Of course, people have always snuck in sex before marriage, but it was SNUCK.

Our culture changed dramatically, basically overnight. There is no shame in getting pregnant now outside of marriage; no one hides having sex. Couples very openly live together without marriage and no one bats an eye anymore.

I don't see how we reverse that.

It has always been a goal of the far left to destroy marriage and family, but there are more factors at play than just these. Marriage is becoming a luxury for the wealthy, at least in the usual time frames.

"It has always been a goal of the far left to destroy marriage and family"

pure nonsense.

It’s right there in your playbook.

Making false claims and lies is, apparently, in YOUR playbook.

and that is why we can never debate the insane conservative...

too far gone from reality

fkn barbarians

 

[anynameyouwish]

2aguy wrote recently:

as the welfare state has enabled young, teenage girls to have children from multiple males, without fathers in the home......the young males raised in these homes are becoming more and more violent....

It's not the fault of silly teenage girls or the welfare state that is "enabling" that. The Pill, coming in the same decade with Supreme Court decisions on "obscenity" in the '60's, and loosening of divorce laws completely transformed our culture's attitudes toward sex. When I grew up, if you got pregnant before marriage, it was shameful and you got married right quick, if you could. Young couples were beginning to live together prior to marriage, but then marry in a year or two, but it wasn't that common and it was still considered shameful to most. Those couples often got married in a couple of years. The order of things was supposed to be marriage, sex, children. Of course, people have always snuck in sex before marriage, but it was SNUCK.

Our culture changed dramatically, basically overnight. There is no shame in getting pregnant now outside of marriage; no one hides having sex. Couples very openly live together without marriage and no one bats an eye anymore.

I don't see how we reverse that.

It has always been a goal of the far left to destroy marriage and family, but there are more factors at play than just these. Marriage is becoming a luxury for the wealthy, at least in the usual time frames.

"It has always been a goal of the far left to destroy marriage and family"

pure nonsense.

Absolute truth.

"40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce. "

"32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy." "

The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals

I have never had any intention of destroying marriage and family.

I just choose to look at relationships more rationally;

1. love doesn't always last forever.

2. especially young love.

3. more often than not the 18 year old lovers who can't wait to be married by 20 are cheating on each other by the time they are 27.....just ask any republican...like gingrich....or trump....or limbaugh....

4. I think people should wait until at least 30 before marrying.

5. and when they do get married they should be aware of the fact that it might not last forever and if it doesn't it isn't a big deal.

6. yes, I present homosexuality as normal, natural and healthy. As opposed to YOUR desire to teach kids to hate and kill them.

7. people who vote for lying cheating conmen who pay prostitutes hush money really should NOT be questioning any elses morals.


BTW....if there is a secret communist plan to take over America it isn't working very well.....considering we have fascist nazis doing the actual takeover....


apparently the best way to ensure a right wing takeover is to scare everyone with a left wing take over

 

[Markle]

Making false claims and lies is, apparently, in YOUR playbook.

and that is why we can never debate the insane conservative...

too far gone from reality

fkn barbarians

Right!

 

[Unkotare]

2aguy wrote recently:

as the welfare state has enabled young, teenage girls to have children from multiple males, without fathers in the home......the young males raised in these homes are becoming more and more violent....

It's not the fault of silly teenage girls or the welfare state that is "enabling" that. The Pill, coming in the same decade with Supreme Court decisions on "obscenity" in the '60's, and loosening of divorce laws completely transformed our culture's attitudes toward sex. When I grew up, if you got pregnant before marriage, it was shameful and you got married right quick, if you could. Young couples were beginning to live together prior to marriage, but then marry in a year or two, but it wasn't that common and it was still considered shameful to most. Those couples often got married in a couple of years. The order of things was supposed to be marriage, sex, children. Of course, people have always snuck in sex before marriage, but it was SNUCK.

Our culture changed dramatically, basically overnight. There is no shame in getting pregnant now outside of marriage; no one hides having sex. Couples very openly live together without marriage and no one bats an eye anymore.

I don't see how we reverse that.

It has always been a goal of the far left to destroy marriage and family, but there are more factors at play than just these. Marriage is becoming a luxury for the wealthy, at least in the usual time frames.

"It has always been a goal of the far left to destroy marriage and family"

pure nonsense.

It’s right there in your playbook.

Making false claims and lies is, apparently, in YOUR playbook.

and that is why we can never debate the insane conservative...

too far gone from reality

fkn barbarians

Are marriage and family barbaric traditions to your ilk, comrade? An offensive threat to the unconditional loyalty to the global commune?

Read your own handbook, comrade.

 

[Markle]

I have never had any intention of destroying marriage and family.

I just choose to look at relationships more rationally;

1. love doesn't always last forever.

2. especially young love.

3. more often than not the 18 year old lovers who can't wait to be married by 20 are cheating on each other by the time they are 27.....just ask any republican...like gingrich....or trump....or limbaugh....

4. I think people should wait until at least 30 before marrying.

5. and when they do get married they should be aware of the fact that it might not last forever and if it doesn't it isn't a big deal.

6. yes, I present homosexuality as normal, natural and healthy. As opposed to YOUR desire to teach kids to hate and kill them.

7. people who vote for lying cheating conmen who pay prostitutes hush money really should NOT be questioning any elses morals.

BTW....if there is a secret communist plan to take over America it isn't working very well.....considering we have fascist nazis doing the actual takeover....

apparently the best way to ensure a right wing takeover is to scare everyone with a left wing take over

My highlights above

Spoken like a true, far-left Progressive.

You must be so proud.

William Jefferson Clinton, Former President of the United States and Democrat
Sexual Assault
Rape

Women have been charging Bill Clinton with sexual assault since his days as a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford 30 years ago.

Gennifer Flowers (Unknown settlement)

Paula Jones ($850,000 settlement)

Kathleen Willey (Unknown settlement)

Juanita Broaddrick (Unknown settlement)

Monica Lewinsky….(“I did not have sex with THAT woman”)

Perjury
Impeachment
Loss of Law License
$50,000 fine

 

[Votto]

2aguy wrote recently:

as the welfare state has enabled young, teenage girls to have children from multiple males, without fathers in the home......the young males raised in these homes are becoming more and more violent....

It's not the fault of silly teenage girls or the welfare state that is "enabling" that. The Pill, coming in the same decade with Supreme Court decisions on "obscenity" in the '60's, and loosening of divorce laws completely transformed our culture's attitudes toward sex. When I grew up, if you got pregnant before marriage, it was shameful and you got married right quick, if you could. Young couples were beginning to live together prior to marriage, but then marry in a year or two, but it wasn't that common and it was still considered shameful to most. Those couples often got married in a couple of years. The order of things was supposed to be marriage, sex, children. Of course, people have always snuck in sex before marriage, but it was SNUCK.

Our culture changed dramatically, basically overnight. There is no shame in getting pregnant now outside of marriage; no one hides having sex. Couples very openly live together without marriage and no one bats an eye anymore.

I don't see how we reverse that.

It is America turning its back on God.

The Christian Divorce Rate Myth

Christians who attend church regularly together have a much lower divorce rate than everyone else.

Those outside the faith would scoff at the notion of needing a mommy and daddy, let alone them being married.

But that is the world rejecting wisdom which is destroying it.

 

[Natural Citizen]

2aguy wrote recently:

as the welfare state has enabled young, teenage girls to have children from multiple males, without fathers in the home......the young males raised in these homes are becoming more and more violent....

It's not the fault of silly teenage girls or the welfare state that is "enabling" that. The Pill, coming in the same decade with Supreme Court decisions on "obscenity" in the '60's, and loosening of divorce laws completely transformed our culture's attitudes toward sex. When I grew up, if you got pregnant before marriage, it was shameful and you got married right quick, if you could. Young couples were beginning to live together prior to marriage, but then marry in a year or two, but it wasn't that common and it was still considered shameful to most. Those couples often got married in a couple of years. The order of things was supposed to be marriage, sex, children. Of course, people have always snuck in sex before marriage, but it was SNUCK.

Our culture changed dramatically, basically overnight. There is no shame in getting pregnant now outside of marriage; no one hides having sex. Couples very openly live together without marriage and no one bats an eye anymore.

I don't see how we reverse that.

Pretty sure the tax code actually punishes people for getting married if they're poor. And lets face it, most people are.

 

[Markle]

Pretty sure the tax code actually punishes people for getting married if they're poor. And lets face it, most people are.

Yes, the tax code does punish people for being married. I.E. rewarding bad behavior.

Most people are what? Married or poor?

 

[OldLady]

2aguy wrote recently:

as the welfare state has enabled young, teenage girls to have children from multiple males, without fathers in the home......the young males raised in these homes are becoming more and more violent....

It's not the fault of silly teenage girls or the welfare state that is "enabling" that. The Pill, coming in the same decade with Supreme Court decisions on "obscenity" in the '60's, and loosening of divorce laws completely transformed our culture's attitudes toward sex. When I grew up, if you got pregnant before marriage, it was shameful and you got married right quick, if you could. Young couples were beginning to live together prior to marriage, but then marry in a year or two, but it wasn't that common and it was still considered shameful to most. Those couples often got married in a couple of years. The order of things was supposed to be marriage, sex, children. Of course, people have always snuck in sex before marriage, but it was SNUCK.

Our culture changed dramatically, basically overnight. There is no shame in getting pregnant now outside of marriage; no one hides having sex. Couples very openly live together without marriage and no one bats an eye anymore.

I don't see how we reverse that.

Pretty sure the tax code actually punishes people for getting married if they're poor. And lets face it, most people are.

Okay. I have heard people complain that as a single person they pay more taxes. There are posters here who claim the government "induces" people to marry and have children by giving them tax breaks. Maybe they're wrong. I leave the tax filings to others so I'm no expert.

 

[Votto]

2aguy wrote recently:

as the welfare state has enabled young, teenage girls to have children from multiple males, without fathers in the home......the young males raised in these homes are becoming more and more violent....

It's not the fault of silly teenage girls or the welfare state that is "enabling" that. The Pill, coming in the same decade with Supreme Court decisions on "obscenity" in the '60's, and loosening of divorce laws completely transformed our culture's attitudes toward sex. When I grew up, if you got pregnant before marriage, it was shameful and you got married right quick, if you could. Young couples were beginning to live together prior to marriage, but then marry in a year or two, but it wasn't that common and it was still considered shameful to most. Those couples often got married in a couple of years. The order of things was supposed to be marriage, sex, children. Of course, people have always snuck in sex before marriage, but it was SNUCK.

Our culture changed dramatically, basically overnight. There is no shame in getting pregnant now outside of marriage; no one hides having sex. Couples very openly live together without marriage and no one bats an eye anymore.

I don't see how we reverse that.

Pretty sure the tax code actually punishes people for getting married if they're poor. And lets face it, most people are.

Okay. I have heard people complain that as a single person they pay more taxes. There are posters here who claim the government "induces" people to marry and have children by giving them tax breaks. Maybe they're wrong. I leave the tax filings to others so I'm no expert.

Why is government even in the marriage business?

Does it benefit the state or the individual or both?

And if neither, why then?

 

[OldLady]

2aguy wrote recently:

as the welfare state has enabled young, teenage girls to have children from multiple males, without fathers in the home......the young males raised in these homes are becoming more and more violent....

It's not the fault of silly teenage girls or the welfare state that is "enabling" that. The Pill, coming in the same decade with Supreme Court decisions on "obscenity" in the '60's, and loosening of divorce laws completely transformed our culture's attitudes toward sex. When I grew up, if you got pregnant before marriage, it was shameful and you got married right quick, if you could. Young couples were beginning to live together prior to marriage, but then marry in a year or two, but it wasn't that common and it was still considered shameful to most. Those couples often got married in a couple of years. The order of things was supposed to be marriage, sex, children. Of course, people have always snuck in sex before marriage, but it was SNUCK.

Our culture changed dramatically, basically overnight. There is no shame in getting pregnant now outside of marriage; no one hides having sex. Couples very openly live together without marriage and no one bats an eye anymore.

I don't see how we reverse that.

Pretty sure the tax code actually punishes people for getting married if they're poor. And lets face it, most people are.

Okay. I have heard people complain that as a single person they pay more taxes. There are posters here who claim the government "induces" people to marry and have children by giving them tax breaks. Maybe they're wrong. I leave the tax filings to others so I'm no expert.

Why is government even in the marriage business?

Does it benefit the state or the individual or both?

And if neither, why then?

The government is "involved" by granting marriages because there are a few specific laws pertaining to marriage. In this country, polygamy is unlawful, as is marrying a sibling or first cousin (at least in about half the states). Prior to mass communication, couples needed to file their "Intentions" 30 days prior to marriage in order for the "banns" to be posted in a public place and at some points in time, read out in church on successive Sundays. Anyone with knowledge that one of the people was already married or that the two were closely related could publicly object.
Some marriage ceremonies still use the phrase "If anyone can show just cause why this couple cannot lawfully be joined together in matrimony, let them speak now or forever hold their peace" for the same reason.

As for why the courts are involved in divorces--the rules for terminating a marriage--I don't know, except that the leadership felt marriage provided stability and was overall good for the country. It used to be very difficult to obtain a divorce. In colonial New England, proof of adultery and abandonment were the only grounds.

 

[Votto]

2aguy wrote recently:

as the welfare state has enabled young, teenage girls to have children from multiple males, without fathers in the home......the young males raised in these homes are becoming more and more violent....

It's not the fault of silly teenage girls or the welfare state that is "enabling" that. The Pill, coming in the same decade with Supreme Court decisions on "obscenity" in the '60's, and loosening of divorce laws completely transformed our culture's attitudes toward sex. When I grew up, if you got pregnant before marriage, it was shameful and you got married right quick, if you could. Young couples were beginning to live together prior to marriage, but then marry in a year or two, but it wasn't that common and it was still considered shameful to most. Those couples often got married in a couple of years. The order of things was supposed to be marriage, sex, children. Of course, people have always snuck in sex before marriage, but it was SNUCK.

Our culture changed dramatically, basically overnight. There is no shame in getting pregnant now outside of marriage; no one hides having sex. Couples very openly live together without marriage and no one bats an eye anymore.

I don't see how we reverse that.

Pretty sure the tax code actually punishes people for getting married if they're poor. And lets face it, most people are.

Okay. I have heard people complain that as a single person they pay more taxes. There are posters here who claim the government "induces" people to marry and have children by giving them tax breaks. Maybe they're wrong. I leave the tax filings to others so I'm no expert.

Why is government even in the marriage business?

Does it benefit the state or the individual or both?

And if neither, why then?

The government is "involved" by granting marriages because there are a few specific laws pertaining to marriage. In this country, polygamy is unlawful, as is marrying a sibling or first cousin (at least in about half the states). Prior to mass communication, couples needed to file their "Intentions" 30 days prior to marriage in order for the "banns" to be posted in a public place and at some points in time, read out in church on successive Sundays. Anyone with knowledge that one of the people was already married or that the two were closely related could publicly object.
Some marriage ceremonies still use the phrase "If anyone can show just cause why this couple cannot lawfully be joined together in matrimony, let them speak now or forever hold their peace" for the same reason.

As for why the courts are involved in divorces--the rules for terminating a marriage--I don't know, except that the leadership felt marriage provided stability and was overall good for the country. It used to be very difficult to obtain a divorce. In colonial New England, proof of adultery and abandonment were the only grounds.

Let me give you my take. People are free to have sex with anyone they want, and the state does nothing. However, let them marry and all hell breaks lose? Really? Why?

As for the courts, the current system is set up to impoverish the American people as more than half of marriages end in divorce as lawyers make a killing.

Yes friends, these same lawyers make our laws.

Shocking, I know.

If the state gets out of the marriage business, two things will happen.

1. Only those of faith who are serious about marriage will marry

2. Divorce lawyers can all go to hell as Americans keep more of their money.

The only legal issue will be the handing of kids between the two, but this goes on without marriage now.

No longer will have you Playboy bunnies marrying billionaires for their wealth as the family later sues the pretty blond dead head for all that money. No longer will the state dictated to the spouse how much of their assets go to someone else, even if they object to it, etc. For example, I know a lady who wrote a will in her own hand writing as to what she wanted done with her things but the state laughed at it when she died and gave it all to the guy she had only been married to a year or so. And yes, he married her because he knew he would collect and treated everyone miserably .

 

[RodISHI]

2aguy wrote recently:

as the welfare state has enabled young, teenage girls to have children from multiple males, without fathers in the home......the young males raised in these homes are becoming more and more violent....

It's not the fault of silly teenage girls or the welfare state that is "enabling" that. The Pill, coming in the same decade with Supreme Court decisions on "obscenity" in the '60's, and loosening of divorce laws completely transformed our culture's attitudes toward sex. When I grew up, if you got pregnant before marriage, it was shameful and you got married right quick, if you could. Young couples were beginning to live together prior to marriage, but then marry in a year or two, but it wasn't that common and it was still considered shameful to most. Those couples often got married in a couple of years. The order of things was supposed to be marriage, sex, children. Of course, people have always snuck in sex before marriage, but it was SNUCK.

Our culture changed dramatically, basically overnight. There is no shame in getting pregnant now outside of marriage; no one hides having sex. Couples very openly live together without marriage and no one bats an eye anymore.

I don't see how we reverse that.

Pretty sure the tax code actually punishes people for getting married if they're poor. And lets face it, most people are.

Okay. I have heard people complain that as a single person they pay more taxes. There are posters here who claim the government "induces" people to marry and have children by giving them tax breaks. Maybe they're wrong. I leave the tax filings to others so I'm no expert.

Why is government even in the marriage business?

Does it benefit the state or the individual or both?

And if neither, why then?

The government is "involved" by granting marriages because there are a few specific laws pertaining to marriage. In this country, polygamy is unlawful, as is marrying a sibling or first cousin (at least in about half the states). Prior to mass communication, couples needed to file their "Intentions" 30 days prior to marriage in order for the "banns" to be posted in a public place and at some points in time, read out in church on successive Sundays. Anyone with knowledge that one of the people was already married or that the two were closely related could publicly object.
Some marriage ceremonies still use the phrase "If anyone can show just cause why this couple cannot lawfully be joined together in matrimony, let them speak now or forever hold their peace" for the same reason.

As for why the courts are involved in divorces--the rules for terminating a marriage--I don't know, except that the leadership felt marriage provided stability and was overall good for the country. It used to be very difficult to obtain a divorce. In colonial New England, proof of adultery and abandonment were the only grounds.

Let me give you my take. People are free to have sex with anyone they want, and the state does nothing. However, let them marry and all hell breaks lose? Really? Why?

As for the courts, the current system is set up to impoverish the American people as more than half of marriages end in divorce as lawyers make a killing.

Yes friends, these same lawyers make our laws.

Shocking, I know.

If the state gets out of the marriage business, two things will happen.

1. Only those of faith who are serious about marriage will marry

2. Divorce lawyers can all go to hell as Americans keep more of their money.

The only legal issue will be the handing of kids between the two, but this goes on without marriage now.

No longer will have you Playboy bunnies marrying billionaires for their wealth as the family later sues the pretty blond dead head for all that money. No longer will the state dictated to the spouse how much of their assets go to someone else, even if they object to it, etc. For example, I know a lady who wrote a will in her own hand writing as to what she wanted done with her things but the state laughed at it when she died and gave it all to the guy she had only been married to a year or so. And yes, he married her because he knew he would collect and treated everyone miserably .

I know a couple who had been like family to a man for over thirty years that had no children. He left them specifically 60% of his estate which was worth several million dollars, 10% was directed to a specific cause he wanted to fund and 30% to a specific charity he supported. The courts decided that the couple would not get anything because they were not blood relatives and gave the court gave the entire estate to the charity that the man directed should get 30%.

 

[Votto]

Pretty sure the tax code actually punishes people for getting married if they're poor. And lets face it, most people are.

Okay. I have heard people complain that as a single person they pay more taxes. There are posters here who claim the government "induces" people to marry and have children by giving them tax breaks. Maybe they're wrong. I leave the tax filings to others so I'm no expert.

Why is government even in the marriage business?

Does it benefit the state or the individual or both?

And if neither, why then?

The government is "involved" by granting marriages because there are a few specific laws pertaining to marriage. In this country, polygamy is unlawful, as is marrying a sibling or first cousin (at least in about half the states). Prior to mass communication, couples needed to file their "Intentions" 30 days prior to marriage in order for the "banns" to be posted in a public place and at some points in time, read out in church on successive Sundays. Anyone with knowledge that one of the people was already married or that the two were closely related could publicly object.
Some marriage ceremonies still use the phrase "If anyone can show just cause why this couple cannot lawfully be joined together in matrimony, let them speak now or forever hold their peace" for the same reason.

As for why the courts are involved in divorces--the rules for terminating a marriage--I don't know, except that the leadership felt marriage provided stability and was overall good for the country. It used to be very difficult to obtain a divorce. In colonial New England, proof of adultery and abandonment were the only grounds.

Let me give you my take. People are free to have sex with anyone they want, and the state does nothing. However, let them marry and all hell breaks lose? Really? Why?

As for the courts, the current system is set up to impoverish the American people as more than half of marriages end in divorce as lawyers make a killing.

Yes friends, these same lawyers make our laws.

Shocking, I know.

If the state gets out of the marriage business, two things will happen.

1. Only those of faith who are serious about marriage will marry

2. Divorce lawyers can all go to hell as Americans keep more of their money.

The only legal issue will be the handing of kids between the two, but this goes on without marriage now.

No longer will have you Playboy bunnies marrying billionaires for their wealth as the family later sues the pretty blond dead head for all that money. No longer will the state dictated to the spouse how much of their assets go to someone else, even if they object to it, etc. For example, I know a lady who wrote a will in her own hand writing as to what she wanted done with her things but the state laughed at it when she died and gave it all to the guy she had only been married to a year or so. And yes, he married her because he knew he would collect and treated everyone miserably .

I know a couple who had been like family to a man for over thirty years that had no children. He left them specifically 60% of his estate which was worth several million dollars, 10% was directed to a specific cause he wanted to fund and 30% to a specific charity he supported. The courts decided that the couple would not get anything because they were not blood relatives and gave the court gave the entire estate to the charity that the man directed should get 30%.

Sickening!!

What the state is essentially telling us is that our property is not really our property.

But then, the court system are all a bunch of Left winged Marxists so it is no surprise.

 

[RodISHI]

Okay. I have heard people complain that as a single person they pay more taxes. There are posters here who claim the government "induces" people to marry and have children by giving them tax breaks. Maybe they're wrong. I leave the tax filings to others so I'm no expert.

Why is government even in the marriage business?

Does it benefit the state or the individual or both?

And if neither, why then?

The government is "involved" by granting marriages because there are a few specific laws pertaining to marriage. In this country, polygamy is unlawful, as is marrying a sibling or first cousin (at least in about half the states). Prior to mass communication, couples needed to file their "Intentions" 30 days prior to marriage in order for the "banns" to be posted in a public place and at some points in time, read out in church on successive Sundays. Anyone with knowledge that one of the people was already married or that the two were closely related could publicly object.
Some marriage ceremonies still use the phrase "If anyone can show just cause why this couple cannot lawfully be joined together in matrimony, let them speak now or forever hold their peace" for the same reason.

As for why the courts are involved in divorces--the rules for terminating a marriage--I don't know, except that the leadership felt marriage provided stability and was overall good for the country. It used to be very difficult to obtain a divorce. In colonial New England, proof of adultery and abandonment were the only grounds.

Let me give you my take. People are free to have sex with anyone they want, and the state does nothing. However, let them marry and all hell breaks lose? Really? Why?

As for the courts, the current system is set up to impoverish the American people as more than half of marriages end in divorce as lawyers make a killing.

Yes friends, these same lawyers make our laws.

Shocking, I know.

If the state gets out of the marriage business, two things will happen.

1. Only those of faith who are serious about marriage will marry

2. Divorce lawyers can all go to hell as Americans keep more of their money.

The only legal issue will be the handing of kids between the two, but this goes on without marriage now.

No longer will have you Playboy bunnies marrying billionaires for their wealth as the family later sues the pretty blond dead head for all that money. No longer will the state dictated to the spouse how much of their assets go to someone else, even if they object to it, etc. For example, I know a lady who wrote a will in her own hand writing as to what she wanted done with her things but the state laughed at it when she died and gave it all to the guy she had only been married to a year or so. And yes, he married her because he knew he would collect and treated everyone miserably .

I know a couple who had been like family to a man for over thirty years that had no children. He left them specifically 60% of his estate which was worth several million dollars, 10% was directed to a specific cause he wanted to fund and 30% to a specific charity he supported. The courts decided that the couple would not get anything because they were not blood relatives and gave the court gave the entire estate to the charity that the man directed should get 30%.

Sickening!!

What the state is essentially telling us is that our property is not really our property.

But then, the court system are all a bunch of Left winged Marxists so it is no surprise.

And they wonder why people have no trust in their corrupt system at this point.

 

[Vastator]

Okay. I have heard people complain that as a single person they pay more taxes. There are posters here who claim the government "induces" people to marry and have children by giving them tax breaks. Maybe they're wrong. I leave the tax filings to others so I'm no expert.

Why is government even in the marriage business?

Does it benefit the state or the individual or both?

And if neither, why then?

The government is "involved" by granting marriages because there are a few specific laws pertaining to marriage. In this country, polygamy is unlawful, as is marrying a sibling or first cousin (at least in about half the states). Prior to mass communication, couples needed to file their "Intentions" 30 days prior to marriage in order for the "banns" to be posted in a public place and at some points in time, read out in church on successive Sundays. Anyone with knowledge that one of the people was already married or that the two were closely related could publicly object.
Some marriage ceremonies still use the phrase "If anyone can show just cause why this couple cannot lawfully be joined together in matrimony, let them speak now or forever hold their peace" for the same reason.

As for why the courts are involved in divorces--the rules for terminating a marriage--I don't know, except that the leadership felt marriage provided stability and was overall good for the country. It used to be very difficult to obtain a divorce. In colonial New England, proof of adultery and abandonment were the only grounds.

Let me give you my take. People are free to have sex with anyone they want, and the state does nothing. However, let them marry and all hell breaks lose? Really? Why?

As for the courts, the current system is set up to impoverish the American people as more than half of marriages end in divorce as lawyers make a killing.

Yes friends, these same lawyers make our laws.

Shocking, I know.

If the state gets out of the marriage business, two things will happen.

1. Only those of faith who are serious about marriage will marry

2. Divorce lawyers can all go to hell as Americans keep more of their money.

The only legal issue will be the handing of kids between the two, but this goes on without marriage now.

No longer will have you Playboy bunnies marrying billionaires for their wealth as the family later sues the pretty blond dead head for all that money. No longer will the state dictated to the spouse how much of their assets go to someone else, even if they object to it, etc. For example, I know a lady who wrote a will in her own hand writing as to what she wanted done with her things but the state laughed at it when she died and gave it all to the guy she had only been married to a year or so. And yes, he married her because he knew he would collect and treated everyone miserably .

I know a couple who had been like family to a man for over thirty years that had no children. He left them specifically 60% of his estate which was worth several million dollars, 10% was directed to a specific cause he wanted to fund and 30% to a specific charity he supported. The courts decided that the couple would not get anything because they were not blood relatives and gave the court gave the entire estate to the charity that the man directed should get 30%.

Sickening!!

What the state is essentially telling us is that our property is not really our property.

But then, the court system are all a bunch of Left winged Marxists so it is no surprise.

Actually what the State is telling you; is that you, and your assets are property of the State...