Me: "Hey, it was good to see Russell this afternoon."
Milady: "Yeah, it was."
Me: "I wonder why he never got married. He seems like a nice enough guy."
Milady: "Well, probably because he's gay. Duh!"
Me: "oh"
So, I'm fairly oblivious when it comes to things like that. Not hypocritical, just oblivious. It's stood me in good stead all these years.
The second article was about heterosexual marriage and why the state deems it necessary to have a license to marry. Turns out, it's all about the state's power. That makes sense. Any state, of whatever form we're talking, is about power.
Marriage is not a privilege to be conferred by the State, nor should marriage require the alleged power of the State in order for it to be solemnized.That's pretty much the way I feel about all marriage.
I believe that marriage is a sacred union between two people. Our state has an amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and while that's hard on the gay folks, that's the law and for the time being we have to live under it. But, I don't have much of a dog in this hunt.
I like marriage. I believe that my natural state is to be married. I'd be lost without my wife, but I don't believe that the state should be in the marriage business at all.
5 comments:
I detest marriage licenses, for the reasons you listed. I refuse to show mine as proof of marriage. I show my marriage certificate, given by the officiating minister, instead.
If I had it to do over again, I would do either of two things:
I would move to Texas long enough to establish residency, and do a Texas common law marriage there, including filing the statement with the county clerk of court.
Or I would get the Louisiana marriage license, have the ceremony done, accept the certificate from the minister, and then destroy the license.
I'm happily single and plan to stay that way. However, occasional female companionship is nice, especially if she brings a case of beer, washes my dishes, and leaves the next morning.
So what happens if the couple co-habitate and one of them dies?
The state sanctioning marriage is a very practical, legal neccesity. It helps to delineate who gets what when the couple separates for whatever reason.
Can you imagine what the legal mumbo-jumbo would be if people would just hop from union to union. I know, I know, they do that already. What I'm saying is: who gets what in the breakup? These types of situations could drag through the court system for years!
I have daughter-in-laws that came from that style of family-the on again off again parents. (typical 60's attitudes). Those poor girls are piles of emotion. (even more then a typical female). They cling to my sons because they know the boys have been taught to respect other human beings and to remain loyal. Their self esteem is so low it barely registers.
Sorry about using my own experiences to kind of justify my position....but I really think the state should be in the business of recognizing marriage.
Oh, and I really do think marriage is between a man and a woman.
Steve
Steve says: "What I'm saying is: who gets what in the breakup? These types of situations could drag through the court system for years!"
In many cases, these situations do drag on for years. People being human, property issues often raise their ugly head decades after the parties think everything is settled. Not just in divorces, but in estates. I can think of three or four cases-in-point in my personal life where property issues have become problems decades after the fact.
Thanks for commenting.
Steve said: "....but I really think the state should be in the business of recognizing marriage."
There is a big difference in recognizing a marriage(a certificate), and in requiring a marriage license from the State.
Post a Comment