Govt free marriages

[pittsflyer]

Did anyone here consider or do a govt free marriage. Is this becomming more and more accepted socially and in most churches?

 

[DZoolander]

I'm not quite sure why anyone would want to do that - except in situations where they've got their underwear up in such a bunch over the fact that the state might recognize gay marriage as well that they feel some bizarre need to then say "Well then I want nothing to do with what you call marriage!"

...and overall...it's a horrible idea.

For the most part - in every day married life - I suppose it wouldn't make any real difference. Where it *DOES* make a difference, however, is if something tragic happened...because then you're kinda screwed.

I have a friend who decided she didn't need to get a marriage license to get married (which basically is what you're asking). She had her ceremony - she "got married" in front of her family/etc. She didn't really do it for any religious reasons...she was just kind of a hippie in that way. Sort of one of those "all you need is love" type people.

Her marriage was really no different than mine or anyone else's for the bulk of it. But then - something tragic happened to her husband - and ya know what happened to her? She was out in the cold with respect to EVERYTHING from that point on. Legally - she was afforded no more rights over decisions with respect to him than any other live in girlfriend would be. From the point of view of the state - which is where the power to make certain decisions is derived from - that's all she was. She was his live in girlfriend.

Consequently - when any decisions about the funeral came up - those decisions were left completely to his family and his family told her "it's a family matter" (ouch). When finances came into the picture - she wasn't entitled to anything of his. She wasn't entitled to any of his retirement accounts, any of the money in his bank account (it wasn't a joint account), etc. There was no community property - because it was not a marriage. She carried well over 3/4 of the financial burden and responsibility in the marriage when all was said and done - but because everything was in his name (of the assets) she had no claim to anything of theirs but the bills left over which had her name on it as well as his.

...and it really bit her in the tuchus in the long run.

To put yourself in a position like that because you've got your panties all up in a bunch that some gays might be able to get married in a courthouse and/or the state says "Well, we're not going to discriminate against gays" just seems stupid to me. Hopefully you wouldn't ever find yourself in a position where the lack of legal status is going to bite you in the tuchus too (and you could conceivably go through the hassle of designating power of attorney in certain situations over to the other person and go through extra efforts to make sure your wills are properly set up) - but you sure are priming yourself for it by taking that stance.

If that's the motivation - leave the gays be. It doesn't make a lick of difference to your marriage. lol

 

[pittsflyer]

Its not really the gays but more the family law courts and what I see them do to all kinds of people. I have seen peoples lives destroyed and guys commit suicide (one guy went out on a snowmachine and shot himself with a shot gun, another guy got a burn permit and torched his house before the divorce was final, cops came and enforced the burn permit since he owned it out right and did not claim insurance, we kind of laughed but in reality what has that guy got left?) One thought I had was you could have a marriage licence all signed and put away so if something happened the other one could just file it since the signature would be valid.

I dont know, I just see the govt doing more and more crazy things and its really unsettling. I keep hearing about these cases in my area, its not like its some guy 5 states over 20 years ago this happened too.

I'm not quite sure why anyone would want to do that - except in situations where they've got their underwear up in such a bunch over the fact that the state might recognize gay marriage as well that they feel some bizarre need to then say "Well then I want nothing to do with what you call marriage!"

...and overall...it's a horrible idea.

For the most part - in every day married life - I suppose it wouldn't make any real difference. Where it *DOES* make a difference, however, is if something tragic happened...because then you're kinda screwed.

I have a friend who decided she didn't need to get a marriage license to get married (which basically is what you're asking). She had her ceremony - she "got married" in front of her family/etc. She didn't really do it for any religious reasons...she was just kind of a hippie in that way. Sort of one of those "all you need is love" type people.

Her marriage was really no different than mine or anyone else's for the bulk of it. But then - something tragic happened to her husband - and ya know what happened to her? She was out in the cold with respect to EVERYTHING from that point on. Legally - she was afforded no more rights over decisions with respect to him than any other live in girlfriend would be. From the point of view of the state - which is where the power to make certain decisions is derived from - that's all she was. She was his live in girlfriend.

Consequently - when any decisions about the funeral came up - those decisions were left completely to his family and his family told her "it's a family matter" (ouch). When finances came into the picture - she wasn't entitled to anything of his. She wasn't entitled to any of his retirement accounts, any of the money in his bank account (it wasn't a joint account), etc. There was no community property - because it was not a marriage. She carried well over 3/4 of the financial burden and responsibility in the marriage when all was said and done - but because everything was in his name (of the assets) she had no claim to anything of theirs but the bills left over which had her name on it as well as his.

...and it really bit her in the tuchus in the long run.

To put yourself in a position like that because you've got your panties all up in a bunch that some gays might be able to get married in a courthouse and/or the state says "Well, we're not going to discriminate against gays" just seems stupid to me. Hopefully you wouldn't ever find yourself in a position where the lack of legal status is going to bite you in the tuchus too (and you could conceivably go through the hassle of designating power of attorney in certain situations over to the other person and go through extra efforts to make sure your wills are properly set up) - but you sure are priming yourself for it by taking that stance.

If that's the motivation - leave the gays be. It doesn't make a lick of difference to your marriage. lol

 

[Dave-W]

IMO it is an indication of a rebelious heart which wants no government "intrusion." It is ungodly and unbiblical.

Pitts - is ANYTHING the gov't does these days worse that what Nero was doing in the first century when Peter and Paul both wrote to obey the government and kings/emporers?

 

[pittsflyer]

So where do we draw the line when the govt is doing things way out of line with what God wants. What about when the nazi's drafted people to work at concentration camps, I understand thats an extreme but we cant just say well nero was bad so therefore everything the govt says goes.

Also the law of the land scripture is in relation to fearing the sword, I dont fear anything if I dont sign a marriage licence. It just seems that once that ONE scripture is put aside for a moment there is NOTHING else in the ENTIRE bible justifying the marriage licence. I mean if it was as important as modern churches make it out you would think it would be all over the old and new testimates.

Even bringing that scripture back in it is in relation to breaking the law and fearing law enforcement response. There is NO law stating you have to have to file a marriage licence.

IMO it is an indication of a rebelious heart which wants no government "intrusion." It is ungodly and unbiblical.

Pitts - is ANYTHING the gov't does these days worse that what Nero was doing in the first century when Peter and Paul both wrote to obey the government and kings/emporers?

 

[South Bound]

Did anyone here consider or do a govt free marriage. Is this becomming more and more accepted socially and in most churches?

That wasn't really a thing when we got married. But I've heard that idea a lot lately and anything that gets us out of bed (so to speak) with the government, I'm for it.

 

[DZoolander]

Well, there's certainly nothing preventing you from having your own version of marriage w/o governmental intrusion. I certainly have never seen anything in the Bible or anywhere else that says "For it to be legit - it needs to be sanctioned" if that's your worry. My understanding of most of "Biblical marriage" is that it was basically agreed upon by all parties - you banged around - and you were married. That's pretty much it.

My advice about it being a bad idea is for more pragmatic purposes when it comes to rights/etc w/respect to your spouse in certain situations. If you're not legally a spouse, you won't be treated as a spouse by hospitals, courts, etc...if the need arises.

 

[South Bound]

If you're not legally a spouse, you won't be treated as a spouse by hospitals, courts, etc...if the need be.

What are you going to do in a hospital or court that can't be done by someone other than a spouse?

 

[ananda]

Did anyone here consider or do a govt free marriage. Is this becomming more and more accepted socially and in most churches?

Marriage used to be "government free". Government "marriages" are nothing but legal trusts where two business partners agree to appoint the government as trustee to manage the partners' affairs.

Gov't-free marriages all the way!

 

[ananda]

I'm not quite sure why anyone would want to do that - except in situations where they've got their underwear up in such a bunch over the fact that the state might recognize gay marriage as well that they feel some bizarre need to then say "Well then I want nothing to do with what you call marriage!"

...and overall...it's a horrible idea.

For the most part - in every day married life - I suppose it wouldn't make any real difference. Where it *DOES* make a difference, however, is if something tragic happened...because then you're kinda screwed.

I have a friend who decided she didn't need to get a marriage license to get married (which basically is what you're asking). She had her ceremony - she "got married" in front of her family/etc. She didn't really do it for any religious reasons...she was just kind of a hippie in that way. Sort of one of those "all you need is love" type people.

Her marriage was really no different than mine or anyone else's for the bulk of it. But then - something tragic happened to her husband - and ya know what happened to her? She was out in the cold with respect to EVERYTHING from that point on. Legally - she was afforded no more rights over decisions with respect to him than any other live in girlfriend would be. From the point of view of the state - which is where the power to make certain decisions is derived from - that's all she was. She was his live in girlfriend.

Consequently - when any decisions about the funeral came up - those decisions were left completely to his family and his family told her "it's a family matter" (ouch). When finances came into the picture - she wasn't entitled to anything of his. She wasn't entitled to any of his retirement accounts, any of the money in his bank account (it wasn't a joint account), etc. There was no community property - because it was not a marriage. She carried well over 3/4 of the financial burden and responsibility in the marriage when all was said and done - but because everything was in his name (of the assets) she had no claim to anything of theirs but the bills left over which had her name on it as well as his.

...and it really bit her in the tuchus in the long run.

To put yourself in a position like that because you've got your panties all up in a bunch that some gays might be able to get married in a courthouse and/or the state says "Well, we're not going to discriminate against gays" just seems stupid to me. Hopefully you wouldn't ever find yourself in a position where the lack of legal status is going to bite you in the tuchus too (and you could conceivably go through the hassle of designating power of attorney in certain situations over to the other person and go through extra efforts to make sure your wills are properly set up) - but you sure are priming yourself for it by taking that stance.

If that's the motivation - leave the gays be. It doesn't make a lick of difference to your marriage. lol

Like you said, your friend(s) could have set up alternative legal arrangements, including power of attorney, medical power of attorney, and other contracts or trust without having to create a government-overseen trust.

 

[ananda]

IMO it is an indication of a rebelious heart which wants no government "intrusion." It is ungodly and unbiblical.

Pitts - is ANYTHING the gov't does these days worse that what Nero was doing in the first century when Peter and Paul both wrote to obey the government and kings/emporers?

Where does it say in the Bible that two partners need to create a trust in order to have a Biblical marriage (a totally different beast altogether)?

 

[South Bound]

IMO it is an indication of a rebelious heart which wants no government "intrusion." It is ungodly and unbiblical.

Why?

Pitts - is ANYTHING the gov't does these days worse that what Nero was doing in the first century when Peter and Paul both wrote to obey the government and kings/emporers?

I've heard this analogy before.

The problem with this analogy I that Nero was, in the eyes of that culture, god. His word was law.

Our government is not the supreme authority. Our government is bound by laws codified in the Constitution. When it goes outside that law, it is acting outside its authority.

If the government makes a law that says, "You have to drive 55 mph", that's a law made within the government's prerogative (the state government, in this case). If the government makes a law that says "You have to drive a green 1974 Chevy Vega", that's not something the government has the authority to tell you to do. You have no obligation to follow that law.

Our republic was not founded on the same principles as Rome. It was founded on the principle that men have natural rights, endowed to them by their Creator, and that a just government must be limited.

Even Peter acknowledged in Acts 5:29 that we are not obligated to submit to the government when it passes a law that forces us to violate the Word of God. Under our system of government we are not obligated to submit to a law that violates the Constitution.

 

[DZoolander]

What are you going to do in a hospital or court that can't be done by someone other than a spouse?

There are tons of obvious answers that pertain to things like community property, medical decisions, etc...that a spouse automatically has that some schmo off the street (for good reason) doesn't. When you're not legally married - you have little more legal standing than that schmo off the street.

Are you going to go down the road of "but those rights could be assigned by proper legal documentation assigning power of attorney, wills, etc"? Or do you really need a list of the legal benefits/rights that a spouse enjoys that some live in partner doesn't?

 

[pittsflyer]

Even though it might be more work to set up wills and powers of attorny its potentially better than being tied to the VERY evil and corrupt family law courts. Its hard to ignore the lives I have seen destroyed by this segment of the "justice" system.

There are tons of obvious answers that pertain to things like community property, medical decisions, etc...that a spouse automatically has that some schmo off the street (for good reason) doesn't. When you're not legally married - you have little more legal standing than that schmo off the street.

Are you going to go down the road of "but those rights could be assigned by proper legal documentation assigning power of attorney, wills, etc"? Or do you really need a list of the legal benefits/rights that a spouse enjoys that some live in partner doesn't?

 

[South Bound]

There are tons of obvious answers

If they're so obviously, then you wouldn't need to point that out.

community property, medical decisions

And why do you believe neither one of those can be handled without being a spouse?

Why wouldn't two unmarried people or a group of unmarried people use other legal means to handle those things?

that a spouse automatically has that some schmo off the street (for good reason) doesn't.

Actually, spouses don't have those things automatically. Those things are conferred when the marriage license is issued, just like they're conferred when incorporation takes place and what POA is granted.

When you're not legally married - you have little more legal standing than that schmo off the street.

That's assuming you haven't taken the non-marriage related legal steps to be granted legal standing.

Or do you really need a list of the legal benefits/rights that a spouse enjoys that some live in partner doesn't?

That was the question I asked. Are you saying now that you're not interested in answering the question?

 

[DZoolander]

Just out of curiosity - apart from property issues in the event of divorce - what types of things are you worried/thinking about?

I mean - a pretty fair case could be argued that if you were to have a child with your "wife" (I put it in quotes to denote non-legal marriage) - that in the event of the dissolution of your relationship - you'd get sacked with exactly the same types of child support issues.

If you decided to leave your spouse (or they decided to leave you) - there wouldn't be the automatic 50/50 community property split. That's true. They could however sue you in civil court for palimony - and in the event there was a longstanding cohabitation - would stand a pretty good chance of getting it depending on the circumstances.

Is it the automatic 50/50 split that has you all concerned?

 

[DZoolander]

That was the question I asked. Are you saying now that you're not interested in answering the question?

I'm not interested in taking the time to list a bunch of stuff that you then would come back and say "But they could assign those rights legally via a power of attorney, or a medical power of attorney, etc"...which is why I included that bit at the bottom.

If that's where you're intending to take this - then there's no need - because you're right. There is nothing "special" about legal marital rights that could not be conferred in some other manner.

But it would need to be done My approach is just the lazy man's approach due to it being automatic. lol

 

[pittsflyer]

The property splits I have seen are not typically 50/50, the courts do all kinds of goofy things and if you are late in life and all the sudden loose a nice paid for house your pretty much never going to retire the rest of your life. I am already tired of working and im no where close to retirement so I could not imagine be thrust into such a circumstance when I was the one to buy everything.

I suppose if the house is in my name only I could sell it before the courts stripped me of my life savings. But anytime you try to sell something fast you take a BIG hit.

Like I said I just see these same scenarios play out with people I know or am loosely affiliated with at least every other year. So its not uncommon.

We are not talking about loosing a thousand bucks to your drunk brother who needed to pay his rent here, more often than not we are talking about a life time of earnings and assets that force people (usually the guy) into deplorable situations.

Just out of curiosity - apart from property issues in the event of divorce - what types of things are you worried/thinking about?

I mean - a pretty fair case could be argued that if you were to have a child with your "wife" (I put it in quotes to denote non-legal marriage) - that in the event of the dissolution of your relationship - you'd get sacked with exactly the same types of child support issues.

If you decided to leave your spouse (or they decided to leave you) - there wouldn't be the automatic 50/50 community property split. That's true. They could however sue you in civil court for palimony - and in the event there was a longstanding cohabitation - would stand a pretty good chance of getting it depending on the circumstances.

Is it the automatic 50/50 split that has you all concerned?

 

[South Bound]

I'm not interested in taking the time to list a bunch of stuff

Then you don't want to answer the question. That's fine.

 

[DZoolander]

And if I bother to list them out at which point you simply reply back as I know you will (and I acquiesce is true) it's my time that was predictably wasted for naught