Govt free marriages

[RDKirk]

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.

The only nation-state God ever declared His was the ancient monarchy of Israel. God specifically determined both the people and the physical boundaries of the nation-state He claimed for Himself, and He never claimed any other.

Christians are citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven (Philippians 3:20). We are dispersed as temporary residents (1 Peter 1:1) to be ambassadors of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20) into the world. We are not natives of these various nation-states, but are living here as aliens and strangers (1 Peter 2:11).

In this arrangement as diplomats of Heaven assigned to missions in various worldly nations under various worldly kings, God has a Status of Forces Agreement with these kings.

On our part, we are required to obey their laws, honor their officials, and pay their taxes. (Romans 13)

On their part, the worldly kings are supposed to allow Christians to live peaceful and quiet lives marked by godliness and dignity (1 Timothy 2:2).

This is not an unusual deal--it's precisely the arrangement the US makes with foriegn nations when American soldiers are stationed overseas. American soldiers must obey their laws, honor their officials, and pay their taxes (if living off the military base). In return, that country allows the military to pursue it's military mission for the US.

In that, however, the American soldier never forgets where his real home is, nor does the American soldier adopt the ways of the natives or go native himself. He can salute the host nation president and flag as required, but only because it's his own commander who requires it.

This is the same thing scripture describes for the Christian in this world.

Christians in the West--in the US particularly--need to pay attention to 1 Timothy 2:2. What God requires of the host nation is very simple: Let us fulfill our mission: Preach the gospel and take care of one another peacefully and quietly. No more than that. Demanding any more than that from the king will involve more entanglement in his affairs than God intends.

We can look at the lives of Daniel and Mordecai as examples, noting particularly how Daniel was an exemplary government official, yet kept himself detached enough not to "go down with the ship" when another king took over.

 

[RDKirk]

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.

In ancient times, government was involved in a marriage only to the extent that a particular marriage involved a significant re-arrangement of wealth and political power in the community. In a complex society like ancient Rome, that primarily affected marriages in the Patrician class and cases where the very valuable Roman citizenship was being conferred. They literally had to appeal to the emperor to get divorced. But if they were non-citizens and without wealth or political power, the government didn't pay any attention to their hookups.

In a simpler society, such as a primitive tribe, practically any hook-up involved a significant shift in wealth and political power, so the tribal chief naturally had a more pervasive interest. But that was the same rule. Governments only cared about shifts of wealth and power.

The religious issue was a private matter. A bridal couple made sure everything was good with the gods in order to ensure virility, fertility and private good fortune. But to make sure the gods are happy, the religious shaman also has to make sure the marriage is "morally" proper--issues of wealth and power notwithstanding.

The only real role of government in marriage today is the same--it's mostly "all 'bout the benjamins." Because of the intermingling of church and state--particularly the church wanting government enforcement of religious interests in marriage (appease the gods) beyond the social wealth and power issues. The reason "marriage licenses" are necessary is because clergycritters insisted on the government's involvement to that degree.

I'd like to see government get out of the "marriage" business entirely and just concentrate again on the wealth and power issues. That would mean government would only be involved in enforcing proper contracts between legally recognized parties. If an adult couple (or group) wants a legally recognized domestic partnership, they'd have lawyers write up a contract and they'd all sign it. Contract law would apply.

For those who don't care about government enforcement, guess what: The government already doesn't care if you shack up. A couple can shack up, have children, split up, share children, whatever they want...and as long as they don't run afoul of child endangerment laws and such or plead for government involvement, the government would not get involved.

Keeping the gods happy ought to be solely the province of religion. From a religious point of view, why would God need a county clerk's signature to validate "what God hath joined together?" That doesn't even make sense for a Christian to think.

 

[sdmsanjose]

By sdmsanjose
"wild un-provable claims”………. What about PROVABLE claims?

By EZ
Well, with respect to things being "proveable" - that's the thing, isn't it?

It's kind of like people that get all worked up over the fact that they got pulled over by the cops and frisked when they're innocent. You may know you're innocent. You may know that you're behaving yourself. But - do you really expect the cop is going to somehow via divine intervention miraculously know all that? You're a random - and a random he knows nothing about.

Same thing goes with people that show up in court making wild accusations. It may or may not be true. They have no idea. They don't know you - they don't know your history - etc. You're just a random face embroiled in an emotional situation that you may or may not be lashing out about (and most likely - you are). Family court and family law doesn't exactly bring out the best in people.

Do you really want to embark on a course of action where you're essentially encouraging people to fling wild accusations at each other in order to try and curry favor from the judge?

"Well, your honor, she was banging our next door neighbor."
"How do you know that?"
"My cousin told me. He saw her going into his house one day. Here. Let me bring up my cousin."

Wife:
"That's not true, your honor. I've never been inside of his house. His cousin is just lying to cover someone in his family - and to hide the fact that he was banging his secretary."
"How do you know he was having sexual relations with his secretary?"
"My best friend works at the company, and often sees them together during lunch. He also came home late one night after work with what appeared to be lipstick on his collar."

blah blah.

That's exactly what it would turn into. You'd create a system where it was a non-ending drama fest of friends-of-friends testifying on behalf of their friends in order to slander the other partner. You'd have people running around hiring private investigators in order to scrape up as much crap as they could about their partners - etc...

Ehhh - personally - given the option between the two - I prefer the anonymous "We don't care" option. "You two aren't getting along? Whatever you obtained during the marriage - 50/50. Now go away. See you again in a few years with your next drama fest."

EZ
Why did you go off on a cop frisking a person and about people flinging wild accusations at each other?

By EZ
Do you really want to embark on a course of action where you're essentially encouraging people to fling wild accusations at each other in order to try and curry favor from the judge?

EZ, I was asking about PROVABLE claims not about frisking cops and flinging wild accusations! There are a lot of provable presentations. For example in the case of cheating adultery you have emails, texts, letters, recordings, admissions, etc. THOSE ARE VERY PROVABLE METHODS. There is even more ways to prove financial irresponsibility.

Those are very damaging actions that can cause great pains in marriages and with family members. The courts could very easily handle those PROVABLE presentations and take them into consideration. However, the state and the courts somewhere along the line chose to cop out.

By EZ
the state doesn't want to get involved in your drama.

That is very contradictory and does not make sense.. The state is involved in drama EVERY DAY, especially in the court rooms. The state has chosen to pick which drama they want to be the authority in and they have chosen to cop out when it comes to divorce. The state handles a lot more drama (murder, rape, etc.) than divorce and is the authority in setting those consequences. They have chosen to get out of a lot of the divorce drama so again I say. DO NOT INVOLVE THE STATE IN YOUR PERSONAL MARRIGE-DIVOCE RELATIONSHIPS. That way they do not have the authority over your marital relationships when it comes to divorce. The position that now exists with the state and divorce is that the state has the authority but cops out of the full responsibility.


If the state insists on being involved in your marriage and divorce at least they can do is to take into consideration some of the actions (adultery, alcoholism, financial irresponsibly, immoral behavior, betrayals, etc.) that cause the greatest amount of pain and suffering in families including the children.


If you prefer the anonymous "We don't care" option” and the “Now go away” attitude by our tax funded state and courts then go for it, that is your prerogative. However, there are others that see things quite differently. When it comes to custody of my children and the authority to distribute my assets then I prefer some authority that cares and has a better attitude towards my life than “Now go way”

There are ways to be committed to each other without giving the state the authority over your marriage and divorce.

 

[Stealth001]

Ya know - it's bizarre for me to hear horror stories like that. My divorce was the complete opposite.

My ex-wife got into all sorts of weird behaviors - and I wanted no part of it. So, I filed for divorce. The initial cost was going to be around $500 for my attorney (plus whatever filing fees there were). The ex-wife didn't even respond - so I ended up having to pay another $400 or so to basically hire my attorney to essentially represent both of our interests. All in all - the divorce ended up costing me about $1000.

The truth was - it was simple and there was little drama. Of course - I didn't fight the idea of community property. I accepted that in California - it's a no fault state - so regardless of what had transpired - she was entitled to half of the assets accumulated during the marriage. That's how things were structured - that's how I divided the assets - and it was done. Six months - and I walked away.

When I hear people complaining about how "civil marriages don't take fault into account" - I'm often left wondering if the person doing the complaining is somehow doing some sort of computation like...

"Well, since they precipitated the divorce, or cheated, that should be reflected in the judgment. They may start out with 50% of all assets accumulated during the marriage - but since they caused it - they should get less."

Is that what you're getting at? You think that the courts should take blame into account and adjust the proceeds accordingly? So - kind of like - "You're a cheater - therefore you get none of the 50%...or you only get 25%...or whatever"?

Personally, I believe that if you commit adultery, are physically abusive, abandon your spouse, or are woefully negligent with the children... and are divorced for the action, you should get NOTHING. Why reward such stupidity and/or unfaithfulness?

I can see child support. I don't see why anyone should receive anything when they violated the contract. If I violate any other contract, I can get sued and not receive anything for what work I did put into the project. So should it be for marriage.

 

[Stealth001]

Of course fault should count, it counts in all other forms of contract law. If mom does not play her cards right she should not even get custody of kids, rear end out on the street with nothing depending what she was doing.

The big ones are cheating, any form of sexual refusal, out of control spending & and drugs.

 

[Stealth001]

That's the thing - the state doesn't want to get involved in your drama. It doesn't want to waste resources attempting to sift through wild un-provable claims. It doesn't want to promote a system whereby people start conducting all sorts of wacky behaviors like investigating each other, hiring private attorneys, etc. They don't want to have to figure out the "he said she said" nonsense that would inevitably arise.

From their standpoint - they don't care. A partner wants out? It takes two to tango and they're not going to compel someone to stay where they don't want to stay. Someone wants out? Marriage is dissolved. Doesn't matter why. Everything obtained during the marriage is now split 50/50.

Other issues regarding fitness/morality can be brought up during child custody hearings, if applicable.

And that's WHY the civil government is incapable of managing marriage. Because in marriage, it DOES matter who was unfaithful, abusive, abandoning, neglectful, refusing, etc.

The GOVERNMENT wants control of marriage... but doesn't want to get involved with what it calls "drama". That's why marriage is in such a sad state today.

 

[RDKirk]

Personally, I believe that if you commit adultery, are physically abusive, abandon your spouse, or are woefully negligent with the children... and are divorced for the action, you should get NOTHING. Why reward such stupidity and/or unfaithfulness?

I can see child support. I don't see why anyone should receive anything when they violated the contract. If I violate any other contract, I can get sued and not receive anything for what work I did put into the project. So should it be for marriage.

The problem is that a marriage certificate is the world's worst "contract." A legally enforceable contract spells out the performance requirements of each party and often the penalties for breach. Marriage certificates don't spell out anything, not the slightest expectation of either party. All that a marriage certificate means is a manner of local custom and personal presumptions.

 

[Stealth001]

Because of how society generally works.

For example - my wife is completely dependent upon me. I earn 90% of the cash in the house. We've both chosen, because we're married, to have me be the breadwinner and she stays home and takes care of the kids.

I know that type of thing is changing due to the need for dual incomes in a lot of situations...but let's use my case as an example.

Let's say I was a douchebag. Let's say I didn't treat her well, was condescending toward her (nothing physically abusive - I'm not going to go that far in my example), I ignored her wishes, etc... Let's say I was just generally a jerk to her.

...and let's say she wanted to leave.

Community property is a protection she's afforded so that I cannot then turn around and say "Hey, I've paid for everything. It's mine." It's a protection that's offered so that say I earned twice as much as she did, I don't start pro-rating out the contributions that she's made toward things in order to compute her "share".

That protection offers some degree of protection to her - so that she doesn't feel compelled to stay with me out of nothing but force of circumstance. It exists so that I do not have that kind of power over her.

And I don't disagree with that. I don't want women staying in situations with douchebag guys or guys who would feel empowered over their wives realizing that the wives are bargaining from a position of weakness. I prefer the idea that the state says "We don't care why. 50/50 on everything obtained during the marriage" - because how the alternative would play out is even more distasteful to me.

You weren't raked over the coals by the system. You'd feel differently if you looked back and realized that she has devastated your entire life... her and her little "boyfriend" she started hooking up with. Now she's got a third stream of income from you... and you're living on Ramen noodles.

That's not justice.

 

[Stealth001]

The problem is that a marriage certificate is the world's worst "contract." A legally enforceable contract spells out the performance requirements of each party and often the penalties for breach. Marriage certificates don't spell out anything, not the slightest expectation of either party. All that a marriage certificate means is a manner of local custom and personal presumptions.

Amen.

After my divorce I realized that I NEVER wanted to be in a "civil marriage" again. That was years ago. Today my new wife and I have a "government free" marriage, we call it a "Quaker Marriage". It's been over 7 years now. So far, it has worked well for us.

 

[Dave-W]

The problem is that a marriage certificate is the world's worst "contract." A legally enforceable contract spells out the performance requirements of each party and often the penalties for breach. Marriage certificates don't spell out anything, not the slightest expectation of either party. All that a marriage certificate means is a manner of local custom and personal presumptions.

Very true. In the first century, the Ketubah (Marriage contract) signed by both parties spelled out almost everything (including the frequency of sex) expected of each person.

 

[DZoolander]

Ehhh - I think you guys are living in some sort of fantasy-land where you're thinking "justice will be served"...where people get their come-uppance for bad behavior - the courts determine fault - etc... In practice it just doesn't work out that way, IMHO. Rather - putting a system in place where "fault" is a factor often enables people to use the legal system as a punitive tool for them to become a burden on the other party and/or try to compel them to do something they want them to do.

Nuisance suits, in other words.

I come from a family of attorneys - so I grew up hearing how people abuse the legal system for personal gain...and as an adult...it's always borne out to be true. The practical application of such things always turns out to be a mess - because once again - you are nothing more than "docket number xxxxx - case number xxxxx - where spouse A alleges that spouse B did x, y and z" - and regardless of "ultimate truth" - those claims must be heard out and sorted through.

For example - I have an aunt who lives in a state that does take fault into consideration. Her husband - fairly speaking (I've always disliked the guy) is a douche. She's been married to him for 40 some odd years - and she finally had enough of his crap and decided to divorce him so she could spend the last few years of her life in peace without his nonsense.

So what's he doing now? Through his attorneys he's requesting detailed phone records going back 20 years, including all numbers called, etc. Ostensibly, I guess, because "he wants to see if he can prove some sort of infidelity" (there wasn't - and truthfully he knows it). He's asking for her to produce tax records for every job she's had going back to 1985 (think about that) - even though he already knows that information due to them being married and having filed jointly. He's got a list that goes on for 20 pages of things just like that which he's requesting.

Why? Is it really because he thinks he's going to discover something? No. He's just doing it to be a thorn in her side and he's using the legal system as a punitive tool to punish her for leaving him. He's also using it as a negotiating tactic - kind of like "Hey, accept the pittance I'm offering you or else I will tie you up in the legal system for the next 10 years over this stuff."

Is the legal system going to stop him from doing that? No. From their standpoint, since they're both anonymous to the court, he could have a case and a legitimate reason for asking for all that stuff. In reality, though, he knows he doesn't, he's just using the power of the state and their anonymity as a tool to get to her.

That's how stuff pans out when you start factoring "fault" into the mix. These visions you have of wronged-husbands finally able to prove their wife's misdeeds and hold on to their possessions/keeping them from her cheating hands is just not how the real world works.

It's for that reason that I say the state should say "we don't care." While there might be a guy or two who does get the shaft - generally speaking I believe the greater good will be accomplished.

 

[Stealth001]

Ehhh - I think you guys are living in some sort of fantasy-land where you're thinking "justice will be served"...where people get their come-uppance for bad behavior - the courts determine fault - etc... In practice it just doesn't work out that way, IMHO. Rather - putting a system in place where "fault" is a factor often enables people to use the legal system as a punitive tool for them to become a burden on the other party and/or try to compel them to do something they want them to do.

Nuisance suits, in other words.

I come from a family of attorneys - so I grew up hearing how people abuse the legal system for personal gain...and as an adult...it's always borne out to be true. The practical application of such things always turns out to be a mess - because once again - you are nothing more than "docket number xxxxx - case number xxxxx - where spouse A alleges that spouse B did x, y and z" - and regardless of "ultimate truth" - those claims must be heard out and sorted through.

For example - I have an aunt who lives in a state that does take fault into consideration. Her husband - fairly speaking (I've always disliked the guy) is a douche. She's been married to him for 40 some odd years - and she finally had enough of his crap and decided to divorce him so she could spend the last few years of her life in peace without his nonsense.

So what's he doing now? Through his attorneys he's requesting detailed phone records going back 20 years, including all numbers called, etc. Ostensibly, I guess, because "he wants to see if he can prove some sort of infidelity" (there wasn't - and truthfully he knows it). He's asking for her to produce tax records for every job she's had going back to 1985 (think about that) - even though he already knows that information due to them being married and having filed jointly. He's got a list that goes on for 20 pages of things just like that which he's requesting.

Why? Is it really because he thinks he's going to discover something? No. He's just doing it to be a thorn in her side and he's using the legal system as a punitive tool to punish her for leaving him. He's also using it as a negotiating tactic - kind of like "Hey, accept the pittance I'm offering you or else I will tie you up in the legal system for the next 10 years over this stuff."

Is the legal system going to stop him from doing that? No. From their standpoint, since they're both anonymous to the court, he could have a case and a legitimate reason for asking for all that stuff. In reality, though, he knows he doesn't, he's just using the power of the state and their anonymity as a tool to get to her.

That's how stuff pans out when you start factoring "fault" into the mix. These visions you have of wronged-husbands finally able to prove their wife's misdeeds and hold on to their possessions/keeping them from her cheating hands is just not how the real world works.

It's for that reason that I say the state should say "we don't care." While there might be a guy or two who does get the shaft - generally speaking I believe the greater good will be accomplished.

EZoolander... they used to care about "grounds" for divorce. They established "fault" and they considered the case (including child custody) with fault, and the child's best interests, in mind. When my parents were divorced "grounds" were established and fault was found.

Frankly, the courts just got lazy and trashed traditional marriage for an anything goes kind of set up wherein a spouse can just up and leave the other and claim half of everything right out of the blue. Well... that essentially threw out the "security" marriage was designed to provide. So, why bother with it? Now, with the way they've managed marriage, one has more security not getting a "civil marriage" than they do if they get one. lol

And I know it would be a fantasy to assume we'd ever get civil courts back to seeking "grounds" and "fault" in divorce cases. They've deemed it to be too much "drama".

That's why I advocate for "government free" marriages. If the courts can't handle the responsibility of protecting the institution of marriage with justice... it's best managed by the couple privately within their given family and/or faith community. Divorces can be managed through private arbitrators who consider the cohabitation agreement or private marriage covenant. If they don't want to agree to private arbitration... let them just leave. They win nothing.

 

[DZoolander]

...and there's a reason why they stopped caring about "grounds"...because it very often turned into the kind of scenario that I'm describing.

Don't get me wrong - I don't oppose people setting up whatever kind of structure they want. I'm just saying that there's a reason it's evolved the way it has...and it was because of the drama that people flung at each other. Courts never see people at their best - and family law is especially true of that. Get people's personal feelings involved in the mix - and there's no end to the crap.

 

[sdmsanjose]

EZ
In our previous posts you basically said that provable claims in court are flinging wild accusations. I provided you credible ways to prove certain claims in court regarding divorce that are not flinging wild accusations.
As for your statement of “the state doesn't want to get involved in your drama” does not make sense because the state is involved in drama EVERYDAY, especially in the courts.

Today you did not address those topics but instead told us how your uncle is using the legal system to punish your aunt.

By EZ
He’s using the legal system as a punitive tool to punish her for leaving him.
He’s just using the power of the state and their anonymity as a tool to get to her.

Thank you EZ for making one of my points. That point is that the state should STAY OUT of personal relationships such as marriage and divorce. You did a good job of showing one way that the state being involved in marriage and divorce is a fiasco that is ridiculous and painful.

 

[sdmsanjose]

Stealth
Your “Quaker Marriage” is interesting and probably an improvement on the current state controlled marriages. Can you tell us a little bit more about that set up? How are the issues of children and assets set up?

 

[DZoolander]

I didn't respond back to that mostly due to lack of time -

However - getting back to that idea - I don't disagree with you. There are a lot of ways people could provide legit evidence. Sure. You can put keystroke trackers on computers, provide phone records, hire private investigators, etc... The list is endless.

But that's not really what I was getting at. What I was getting at was the fact that from the state's perspective - there really is no difference between a wild nonsensical allegation and a legitimate one until they've heard it out. My issue is that the process of "hearing it out" is a cumbersome one and can be (and often is) used as a means of torturing the other partner.

It's called "discovery". Want to win a case and have nothing but time on your hands? Make a list of requests for the respondent that will become so cumbersome that he'll start doing calculations on how much this is worth to him. "Do I spend 40 hours replying to every damn thing on this list - or cave a little?"

A friend of mine got out of a speeding ticket once. How'd he do it? He sent the officer a list of all sorts of questions ranging from the type of radar gun he was using, what the manufacture date was, serial number, list of calibration dates, etc etc etc. It was quite an impressive list, and he was entitled to the answers. Did he truly intend to run around researching that specific model of radar gun, whether or not it was known to have defects for that year of manufacture, whether the last date of calibration might have some impact upon it's readings being legit, etc? No. He wanted to make it painful for the officer to do his due diligence. He wanted to try and be a nuisance, hope that it caused the officer to throw his hands up in frustration, and have it impact upon his case.

The questions were never answered - and the cop didn't show up in court. Case dismissed.

Same type of thing here.

Now as for your point about the state being able to fairly administer marriages - I walk the line on that. On the one hand - I see your point. On the other hand - there's a huge side of me that wants to protect the ones that will most likely end up on the short end of the stick.. Generally, I believe, our society is set up in such a way that it would be the women.

 

[RDKirk]

A friend of mine got out of a speeding ticket once. How'd he do it? He sent the officer a list of all sorts of questions ranging from the type of radar gun he was using, what the manufacture date was, serial number, list of calibration dates, etc etc etc. It was quite an impressive list, and he was entitled to the answers. Did he truly intend to run around researching that specific model of radar gun, whether or not it was known to have defects for that year of manufacture, whether the last date of calibration might have some impact upon it's readings being legit, etc? No. He wanted to make it painful for the officer to do his due diligence. He wanted to try and be a nuisance, hope that it caused the officer to throw his hands up in frustration, and have it impact upon his case.

The questions were never answered - and the cop didn't show up in court. Case dismissed.

Same type of thing here.

I once sat in a Honolulu traffic court in which the whole morning of hearings were dismissed because the judge asked each police officer this question: "Can you prove that the person appearing before me today is the person you wrote that ticket for?" It was amazing how many had not taken basic steps to properly identify either the car or the individual, so the judge dismissed the cases.

At the end of the morning, the judge explained his reasoning: A lot of felons are caught on ordinary traffic stops. Police had better make sure they have properly identified each one.

 

[LinkH]

The only nation-state God ever declared His was the ancient monarchy of Israel. God specifically determined both the people and the physical boundaries of the nation-state He claimed for Himself, and He never claimed any other.

As far as nation states go, there were prophecies about God giving the nations over to Nebucadnezzer to reign over. There are also passages about God delivering certain lands to certain people-groups and taking certain people-groups to certain places, the inhabitants of Caphtor (the Philistines I suppose) to overcome a certain people-group where they were moved to. He had the Edomites drive out a certain people-group. And He brought Israel into the land and had them drive out Canaanites and defeat them.

There is Isaiah 19:25,
"Blessed be Egypt my people, Assyria my handiwork, and Israel my inheritance.""

None of these nations have claim to having their legal system from God and the same covenant God gave Israel.

 

[DZoolander]

 

[Stealth001]

Stealth
Your “Quaker Marriage” is interesting and probably an improvement on the current state controlled marriages. Can you tell us a little bit more about that set up? How are the issues of children and assets set up?

So far we have powers of attorney and necessary wills. We're considering a "cohabitation agreement" and agreed upon private arbitration to solidify more concerning our assets. But honestly, we don't want the government or legality governing too much. Since we were both married before and experienced the civil system, we want things rather simple. If all we had to do was suffer someone "walking out" on us... we'd be thankful that it was over so easily.