Should the government dictate or regulate marriage?

SimplyMe · Sep 17, 2021

RDKirk said:
The problem with marriages is that it depends too much on case law, which is, as @TLK Valentine said, reactive instead of proactive.

People see all the terrible court drama it takes to manage marriage problems, disputes, and dissolutions and fail to realize all of that is because marriages start out on nothing but implied and traditional expectations of performance for both parties. They almost never have the same picture in mind of how the marriage will function. Even if they've been living together for years, one party will have expectations for a change in the relationship--or no change in the relationship--that the other party doesn't have.

The reason there is so much case law is because because expectations were not hammered out in the beginning. That's what a domestic partnership contract would resolve.

And as I said before, it wouldn't take very long at all for the legal industry to put the most usual and common expectations--as already determined by existing case law--into boilerplate. It could even be done on LegalZoom, just as wills are done.

As was mentioned, the law in this case was almost entirely decided by state legislators. The reason that divorces get so messy is because of human emotion -- it has been found that divorce is actually harder than the death of a spouse; since it is as if the spouse "died," in how they go away, except you still have to deal with that spouse.

Getting rid of case law and going to some type of contract system won't help, other than to make "marriage" more expensive (to hire attorneys to put together the contract). In the end, because of the emotions of the relationship, you'll still need courts to decide and enforce the contracts, just like we have divorce laws that decide everything but still need courts to settle the fighting between divorcing spouses.

Philip_B · Sep 17, 2021

Clare73 said:
The NT forbids remarriage after divorce
(Matthew 5:32; Romans 7:3; 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, 1 Corinthians 7:39).

I do have some difficulty with the passages you cite as absolutes. Firstly in the context in which the scriptures are written, The woman sleeping with another's husband was an adulteress, however the man was less constrained. Hence when the woman was caught in 'the very act of adultery' the man was not there, essentially because he had not done anything wrong.

My second problem is that when a relationship fails, for whatever reason, trapping people in the institution is not sacramental, simply cruel and unusual punishment. Essentially all we do is give legal pretence to a lie.

The object, the goal, the aspiration of Holy Matrimony is that it be a lifelong union between the two parties 'till death do them part'. This should always be the intent of marriage. This is why people should take time thinking about it, and hopefully engage in some preparation for it.

The heartland message of the Gospel is found in the Cross and the Resurrection, a story of forgiveness and new beginnings. I don't want to interpret scripture in some parts to undo this significant message.

Clare73 · Sep 17, 2021

Philip_B said:
I do have some difficulty with the passages you cite as absolutes. Firstly in the context in which the scriptures are written, The woman sleeping with another's husband was an adulteress, however the man was less constrained. Hence when the woman was caught in 'the very act of adultery' the man was not there, essentially because he had not done anything wrong.

Do you have me confused with someone else?
I made no reference to the account of the woman taken in adultery.

My second problem is that when a relationship fails, for whatever reason, trapping people in the institution is not sacramental, simply cruel and unusual punishment. Essentially all we do is give legal pretence to a lie.

Take it up with Jesus, he made the law, I didn't.

The object, the goal, the aspiration of Holy Matrimony is that it be a lifelong union between the two parties 'till death do them part'. This should always be the intent of marriage. This is why people should take time thinking about it, and hopefully engage in some preparation for it.
The heartland message of the Gospel is found in the Cross and the Resurrection, a story of forgiveness and new beginnings. I don't want to interpret scripture in some parts to undo this significant message.

That's not your call to make.

Scripure is to be interpreted according to what it states, whether we like it or not.

"Heartland"?

pgp_protector · Sep 17, 2021

Clare73 said:
The NT forbids remarriage after divorce
(Matthew 5:32; Romans 7:3; 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, 1 Corinthians 7:39).

So am I supposed to divorce her now, or just keep on living in sin?

TLK Valentine · Sep 17, 2021

Clare73 said:
Take it up with Jesus, he made the law, I didn't.

How about we take it up with the law's enforcers?

RDKirk · Sep 17, 2021

SimplyMe said:
As was mentioned, the law in this case was almost entirely decided by state legislators. The reason that divorces get so messy is because of human emotion -- it has been found that divorce is actually harder than the death of a spouse; since it is as if the spouse "died," in how they go away, except you still have to deal with that spouse.

No, it's been mostly decided by divorce courts.

Getting rid of case law and going to some type of contract system won't help, other than to make "marriage" more expensive (to hire attorneys to put together the contract).

No more difficult than probating an estate without a will...which becomes difficult because there is no will...but making wills is being more and more automated every day. The same thing would happen with domestic partnership (and prenuptial agreements would be rolled into domestic partnerships).

In the end, because of the emotions of the relationship, you'll still need courts to decide and enforce the contracts, just like we have divorce laws that decide everything but still need courts to settle the fighting between divorcing spouses.

Divorce laws don't decide everything.

SimplyMe · Sep 17, 2021

RDKirk said:
No, it's been mostly decided by divorce courts.

No more than criminal law is decided by the courts. Yes, each divorce has its own circumstances that, at least in contested divorces, can be quite ugly. One side, or often both, will claim that the other was abusive, neglectful, or in some other way violated family law -- and this is doubly true when there were children involved.

Also, having a prenuptial or similar agreement often doesn't help, those are often taken to court to challenge the validity, or claim that one or both sides broke the agreements and trying to get the courts to invalidate the terms of the agreement.

At the same time, a large number (likely even the majority but I haven't seen the statistics) are uncontested -- they agree to how things should work and get it rubber stamped by a judge, who divorces them. And, to be honest, the biggest issue in family law are not the divorces themselves but children; who gets custody, what arrangement is made for shared custody and what time periods/holidays, child support, etc. Again, the law spells out how this should be done and how it should work, but the parents who challenge claim various types of abuse or the other parent being unfit; forcing a judge to decide -- and no contract between the parties is going to solve this issue -- they'll still have the same abuse or "unfitness" claims as to why the contract should be void.

RDKirk said:
No more difficult than probating an estate without a will...which becomes difficult because there is no will...but making wills is being more and more automated every day. The same thing would happen with domestic partnership (and prenuptial agreements would be rolled into domestic partnerships).

Sure, but that defeats what you are trying to do -- the government would still be just as involved in marriage. The issue is, you no longer have a legal framework for how to use as a baseline for judges to rule on. Instead, if there is no contract, you are left to the bias/beliefs of the judge. If the judge feels the children should be with the mother, the father may have no custody rights, just visitation rights. You are left to whatever the judge "feels" is correct with no laws to protect either side.

RDKirk said:
Divorce laws don't decide everything.

No, they don't because they can't. For example, what little I know of California family law is that in divorces the assets are split 50-50. That can be easy, such as a couple that rents, has two cars, etc -- as the property gets fairly easy to split evenly. But then you get a family where only the father works, they own a home and only have one car, etc -- and with the large assets it can be extremely tough to determine how to split them, particularly while protecting the children's rights (not uprooting their lives from their schools, friends, etc.), and ensuring one party is left with no transportation options. Since each family is different, if they can't decide who should get what (and this happens whether it is a legal marriage or just a contract) then a judge has to try and plan how to make it "equal" for both parties (with, again, if it is merely a contract, a judge could -- though it is unlikely -- just decide one parent should get the hard assets and the other parent get almost nothing). In this case, the divorce laws are a protection to try and ensure both spouses are treated fairly.

RDKirk · Sep 17, 2021

SimplyMe said:
Sure, but that defeats what you are trying to do -- the government would still be just as involved in marriage. The issue is, you no longer have a legal framework for how to use as a baseline for judges to rule on. Instead, if there is no contract, you are left to the bias/beliefs of the judge. If the judge feels the children should be with the mother, the father may have no custody rights, just visitation rights. You are left to whatever the judge "feels" is correct with no laws to protect either side.

My full proposition is that government would not be involved in "marriage" at all, but only in enforcing domestic partnership contracts, and all businesses dealing with the parties of the domestic partneship would operate according to those contracts.

The word "marriage" would have no civic meaning. People wanted to be known as "married" would also go to their choice of clergy to certify that social construct.

No, they don't because they can't. For example, what little I know of California family law is that in divorces the assets are split 50-50. That can be easy, such as a couple that rents, has two cars, etc -- as the property gets fairly easy to split evenly. But then you get a family where only the father works, they own a home and only have one car, etc -- and with the large assets it can be extremely tough to determine how to split them, particularly while protecting the children's rights (not uprooting their lives from their schools, friends, etc.), and ensuring one party is left with no transportation options. Since each family is different, if they can't decide who should get what (and this happens whether it is a legal marriage or just a contract) then a judge has to try and plan how to make it "equal" for both parties (with, again, if it is merely a contract, a judge could -- though it is unlikely -- just decide one parent should get the hard assets and the other parent get almost nothing). In this case, the divorce laws are a protection to try and ensure both spouses are treated fairly.

Contracts serve to manage the dissolution of multi-billion dollar corporations. It is not impossible to do the same with marriages. Prenuptial agreements already go a long way in that direction.

Clare73 · Sep 17, 2021

pgp_protector said:
So am I supposed to divorce her now, or just keep on living in sin?

You might ask the church where it came up before you were married?

SimplyMe · Sep 17, 2021

RDKirk said:
My full proposition is that government would not be involved in "marriage" at all, but only in enforcing domestic partnership contracts, and all businesses dealing with the parties of the domestic partneship would operate according to those contracts.

The word "marriage" would have no civic meaning. People wanted to be known as "married" would also go to their choice of clergy to certify that social construct.

Yet how does that help? Just as many splitting couples are likely to end up in court, and possibly even more. Even though the contract may spell out the terms (just as divorce law currently does), you'll still have fights over the partners not agreeing with how the terms end up being defined. To give a simple example, say that a husband golfs and loves his golf clubs, the wife may decide that the golf clubs should be worth $X, because of how much the husband values them, while the husband will want a much lower $Y cost -- because he's looking at dollar and cents depreciation (ignoring the cost of buying and "breaking in" new clubs). The wife may have dolls from childhood that she considers a "collection," even though she considers the dolls having no real value, while the husband wants to price them as "collectable antiques" and price them based on what he thinks they could get if they put them up on eBay.

And this ignores the large number of couples that won't get contracts, just as they don't today. For most people, it is somewhat considered "bad luck," to consider that they will ever separate before they are even married -- particularly with the idea that having to think of splitting will "plant the idea" and actually cause the divorce down the road. These will likely all be forced into the court system, just as people dying without wills. In the end, the courts will be just as involved in "divorce" as today, just without the legal framework of divorce to guide decisions by the judges.

RDKirk said:
Contracts serve to manage the dissolution of multi-billion dollar corporations. It is not impossible to do the same with marriages. Prenuptial agreements already go a long way in that direction.

I'm sorry, what good example can you give me, of a corporation going through a divorce -- particularly when the "divorce" is two "partners" of equal power and responsibility? The example just doesn't work. In those cases there is a Board of Directors and a CEO overseeing the "break up" and it is typically an arm of the company being spun off -- either because they are under-performing or have large financial liabilities, so that that division can't bring down the entire corporation. There are no "contracts" since a single corporation doesn't have contracts with itself.

To use an example, Exxon-Mobil. Yes, they had contracts that enforced the agreement to bring them together. Exxon largely "controlled" the merger, particularly after the merger was completed, though the Mobile Chairman became the Vice CEO (second most powerful officer) and they found positions for most of the top executives in the combined company. At the same time, I'd be shocked if there were any contracts about if they years later broke up -- at best they had clauses in the contract about what happened if the merger couldn't be completed, such as the FTC blocking the merger, and at that point the companies wouldn't have been joined.

Instead, if they were to "divorce" today and go back to being Exxon and Mobil, the terms would be determined by the current CEO and Board of Directors, with possibly a vote occurring at an annual stockholders meeting to approve the plan. There would be no trips to court to decide who get what assets because the CEO and Board would control that -- it would not be a split between "equals."

And to finish up, you ignore the fact that there are no protections for a "married" couple in your scenario. Sure, you could draft laws that "married" (or whatever term you want to use, though married is an easy word that conveys the right meaning) couples don't have to testify against each other -- but then you end up needing a legal definition of "married," to prevent things like two people signing a contract to be "married" to prevent one from testifying against the other. You also run the risk of different definitions of "marriage" from state to state -- meaning in one state you might be considered "married" but in another state you wouldn't be. The more I've thought of the legal ramifications, it would create far more issues than it would solve.

Philip_B · Sep 18, 2021

Clare73 said:
Do you have me confused with someone else?
I made no reference to the account of the woman taken in adultery.
Take it up with Jesus, he made the law, I didn't.
That's not your call to make.

Scripure is to be interpreted according to what it states, whether we like it or not.

"Heartland"?

No not confused, I simply referred you to another passage.

I don't believe we are called to take the NT the way the Pharisees took the OT.

At the centre of the Gospel is the account of the death and resurrection. This is the heartland of the Gospel narratives.

Clare73 · Sep 18, 2021

Philip_B said:
No not confused, I simply referred you to another passage.

I don't believe we are called to take the NT the way the Pharisees took the OT.[/QJUOTE]
Don't know where anyone sees the Christian called not to take the word of God the way Jesus took it.

At the centre of the Gospel is the account of the death and resurrection. This is the heartland of the Gospel narratives.

Clare73 · Sep 18, 2021

Philip_B said:
No not confused, I simply referred you to another passage.

I don't believe we are called to take the NT the way the Pharisees took the OT.

Are we called to take Scripture the way Jesus took Scripture?

Jesus believed all the OT was the "word of God" in every detail (Matthew 15:6; Luke 5:1, Luke 11:28; John 10:35).
He believed that every jot and tittle of the Law (the OT word for the Scriptures) was the very truth of God, vested with the authority of God and backed by by power of God (Matthew 5:17-19).
To emphasize that the OT was the infallible (wholly trustworthy and reliable), inerrant (wholly true) word of God, Jesus used his regular formula for solemn assertion ("Truly, truly I say to you") when he stated "until heaven and earth disappear, not one tittle (smallest stroke of the writing pen) will by any means disappear from the Law" (Scriptures) until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:18; Luke 16:17)

He treated arguments from Scripture as having clinching force. When he said, "It is written," that was final. There was no appeal against Scripture, for "the Scripture cannot be broken." (Matthew 4:4-10; John 10:35). God's Word holds good forever.
He constantly scolded the Jews for their ignorance and neglect of Scripture: "Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures?" "Have you not read. . .?" "Go and learn what this means..."
(Mark 12:24; Matthew 12:3-5, Matthew 19:4, Matthew 21:16, Matthew 21:42, Matthew 9:13).

Likewise, Jesus himself submitted to the OT as the Word of God. He lived a life of obedience to Scripture (Luke 4:17-21; Matthew 8:16-17, Matthew 11:2-5),
and then he died in obedience to Scripture (Luke 18:31; Mark 8:31, Mark 9:31, Mark 10:33-34; Matthew 26:24; Luke 22:37; Matthew 26:53-56).
When he arose, he explained who he was by the Scriptures (Luke 24:44-47, Luke 24:25).
He presented himself to the Jews as the fulfiller of Scripture (John 5:39-40, John 5:46-47).

And in asserting to the Jews that the OT bore divine authoritative witness to him, Jesus thereby bore divine authoritative witness to it--Scripture is the word of God.
Belief in the authority and truth of the Scriptures was the foundation of Jesus' whole ministry.

And that included the historical accounts:
Sodom and Gomorrah (Matthew 10:15),
Jonah and the whale (Matthew 12:39-40),
creation account as God's words, though they are the writer's words (Matthew 19:4-6),
murder of Abel (Matthew 23:35),
Noah and the flood (Matthew 24:37-39),
burning bush and call of Moses (Mark 12:26),
Elijah and the provision for the widow (Luke 4:25-26),
Elisha and Naaman, the Syrian leper (Luke 4:27),
Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt (Luke 17:31-33).
plague of snakes and brazen serpent (John 3:14),
manna from heaven in the desert for 40 years (John 6:31, John 6:49),
Abraham (John 8:39-40),

According to Jesus, the Word of God was to be absolutely taken at its word.

Ken-1122 · Sep 18, 2021

TLK Valentine said:
I'm not following your logic here. Help me out?

If the Government were not involved in marriage, I could marry my 5 girlfriends without having to bring a lawsuit against the government for discriminating against us.

RDKirk · Sep 18, 2021

Clare73 said:
Are we called to take Scripture the way Jesus took Scripture?

Jesus believed all the OT was the "word of God" in every detail (Matthew 15:6; Luke 5:1, Luke 11:28; John 10:35).
He believed that every jot and tittle of the Law (the OT word for the Scriptures) was the very truth of God, vested with the authority of God and backed by by power of God (Matthew 5:17-19).
To emphasize that the OT was the infallible (wholly trustworthy and reliable), inerrant (wholly true) word of God, Jesus used his regular formula for solemn assertion ("Truly, truly I say to you") when he stated "until heaven and earth disappear, not one tittle (smallest stroke of the writing pen) will by any means disappear from the Law" (Scriptures) until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:18; Luke 16:17)

He treated arguments from Scripture as having clinching force. When he said, "It is written," that was final. There was no appeal against Scripture, for "the Scripture cannot be broken." (Matthew 4:4-10; John 10:35). God's Word holds good forever.
He constantly scolded the Jews for their ignorance and neglect of Scripture: "Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures?" "Have you not read. . .?" "Go and learn what this means..."
(Mark 12:24; Matthew 12:3-5, Matthew 19:4, Matthew 21:16, Matthew 21:42, Matthew 9:13).

Likewise, Jesus himself submitted to the OT as the Word of God. He lived a life of obedience to Scripture (Luke 4:17-21; Matthew 8:16-17, Matthew 11:2-5),
and then he died in obedience to Scripture (Luke 18:31; Mark 8:31, Mark 9:31, Mark 10:33-34; Matthew 26:24; Luke 22:37; Matthew 26:53-56).
When he arose, he explained who he was by the Scriptures (Luke 24:44-47, Luke 24:25).
He presented himself to the Jews as the fulfiller of Scripture (John 5:39-40, John 5:46-47).

And in asserting to the Jews that the OT bore divine authoritative witness to him, Jesus thereby bore divine authoritative witness to it--Scripture is the word of God.
Belief in the authority and truth of the Scriptures was the foundation of Jesus' whole ministry.

And that included the historical accounts:
Sodom and Gomorrah (Matthew 10:15),
Jonah and the whale (Matthew 12:39-40),
creation account as God's words, though they are the writer's words (Matthew 19:4-6),
murder of Abel (Matthew 23:35),
Noah and the flood (Matthew 24:37-39),
burning bush and call of Moses (Mark 12:26),
Elijah and the provision for the widow (Luke 4:25-26),
Elisha and Naaman, the Syrian leper (Luke 4:27),
Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt (Luke 17:31-33).
plague of snakes and brazen serpent (John 3:14),
manna from heaven in the desert for 40 years (John 6:31, John 6:49),
Abraham (John 8:39-40),

According to Jesus, the Word of God was to be absolutely taken at its word.

Inasmuch as the Holy Spirit is the direct inspiration for all scripture, I would not place the particular words the Holy Spirit inspired the gospel writers to write as any more authoritative than the words the Holy Spirit inspired any other writers of scripture to write...it's the same Holy Spirit responsible for all the words, and the same Holy Spirit who gives understanding to all the words.

Attempting to give more authority to some of the Holy Spirit's words than to other of the Holy Spirit's words is an attempt to do the work of the Holy Spirit.

TLK Valentine · Sep 18, 2021

Ken-1122 said:
If the Government were not involved in marriage, I could marry my 5 girlfriends without having to bring a lawsuit against the government for discriminating against us.

And if you were to get hit by a bus and fall into a coma, which of your wives would be the one with the authority to decide whether or not to pull the plug?

Philip_B · Sep 18, 2021

Clare73 said:
According to Jesus, the Word of God was to be absolutely taken at its word.

According to Jesus, the Word of God, he absolutely to be taken at his word.

John 8:11

RDKirk · Sep 18, 2021

TLK Valentine said:
And if you were to get hit by a bus and fall into a coma, which of your wives would be the one with the authority to decide whether or not to pull the plug?

Living will, which people need to have even now. It would be part of a domestic partnership contract.

Clare73 · Sep 18, 2021

Philip_B said:
According to Jesus, the Word of God, he absolutely to be taken at his word.

John 8:11

Of course the Word Incarnate is to be taken at his word, he's the one who clearly takes all the word of God as his own word.

Your point?

TLK Valentine · Sep 18, 2021

RDKirk said:
Living will, which people need to have even now. It would be part of a domestic partnership contract.

And who's going to step in when wives 2-5 decide not to abide by it?

Should the government dictate or regulate marriage?

Should the government dictate marriage?

Yes

No

Nuanced (please elaborate below)

Senior Veteran

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured

Blood-bought

Noted strange person

I've already read the books you want burned.

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Senior Veteran

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Blood-bought

Senior Veteran

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured

Blood-bought

Blood-bought

Newbie

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

I've already read the books you want burned.

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Blood-bought

I've already read the books you want burned.

Similar threads