[idea] Dissolving childless marriages!

[Bobfr]

No I was saying the contrary, responding to “ Again, it is not the government's job to define marriage or regulate it. ”

 

[Axioma]

So why then do married couples receive benefits that non-married ones don't, Bobfr? Are you suggesting (and please imagine me asking this in a non-accusatory tone) that marriage be removed entirely as a legal entity, existing only as a social contract with no legal obligations from anyone to anyone?

 

[Rebekka]

No I was saying the contrary, responding to “ Again, it is not the government's job to define marriage or regulate it. ”

My question was why calling it a civil union would be better to avoid confusion with religious marriages. The word "marriage" is for some reason claimed by religion. Why?

 

[Polycarp1]

Well, marriage is three things:
1. A contract between two parties to be married to each other. You have absolutely no authority nor way to alter that; it's between them.
2. A legal recognition of such a contract. What possible benefit to society would it be to dissolve such marriages? There is already enough inequity in marriage law without heaping more on it.
3. What God sees as a valid marriage. Fortunately, neither Axioma nor any of the rest of us have any say on what He deems a marriage.

As half of a childless marriage that has existed in our hearts, in law, and in the eyes of God for a few months more than a third of a century (and had been in existence for eleven years when Axioma first wet her diapers as a baby), I have to say that this tops anything else I've seen here for sheer arrogance, including the self-styled True Christians changing the definition of marriage in California by bearing false witness.

 

[Bobfr]

My question was why calling it a civil union would be better to avoid confusion with religious marriages. The word "marriage" is for some reason claimed by religion. Why?

I don't know why, but in the US, religious person seems to confuse religious marriages and "civil" marriages. If changing how we name it could ease religious people, this could be a good solution.

 

[Rebekka]

I don't know why, but in the US, religious person seems to confuse religious marriages and "civil" marriages. If changing how we name it could ease religious people, this could be a good solution.

Or they could do what we do, separate legal and church wedding ceremonies. Both are called marriage. Church marriage is not legally valid. No church can perform a church wedding ceremony before the couple is legally married in the city hall. No need to change the terminology. A lot of atheists or other non-churchy people are rather attached to their marriage and wouldn't want to trade it for a civil union.

Some christians make it appear that something is taken away from them if gays are allowed to get married (which always brings Matthew 20:1-16 to mind), which I don't understand. But by calling non-church marriage a civil union, it's taking something away from non-religious married people.

 

[Andreusz]

Er ... Polycarp1, I don't think Axioma was being serious.

 

[LittleNipper]

Well nobody can claim that. However the States could create a contract between two people and call it marriage. Calling it "civil union" would be better to avoid confusion with religious' ones.

Civil unions are possible now from a lawyer. They are called contracts.

 

[LittleNipper]

I don't understand the semantics game. Were marriages (not civil unions) through history always religious rather than legal contracts? Can only believers claim the term marriage?

Why does the atheist bride get married in white and the atheist groom wears a tux? They like the look. They see others (often Christians) doing that and want a piece of the show. They might even get married in some church because they like stained glass... The fact is I would consider them married because GOD considers them so. GOD does not bless homosexual marriage. It is a mock of the application. Husband/husband, wife/wife simply is looked on by GOD as debauchery ----- see Galatians chapter 5

 

[wanderingone]

I am so bad with kids it's ridiculous and they actually freak me out, holding an infant is terrifying and I have yet to ever do it. And I am horribly absent minded, I lose my keys multiple times a day so I would be one of those people that forgot their kid in the car when they went somewhere. Kids are my Kryptonite.

Ahh.. but see.. once your kids survive the absent minded parent they become your keepers LOL. My daughter always asks how we all survived considering how much "supervision" I need LOL. I keep telling them one of them will have to stay with me until I am old enough for "the home" cause I can't find anything... last week my son came over and he was walking around the house.. I asked him what the heck he was doing and he said "Just making sure you haven't stuck the phone in the fridge or something" hehehe

I consider it a lucky thing I didn't have a car when the kids were small.. if you try to get off the bus and forget your kids people generally will holler at you...

But I'm not telling you that you should have kids... I think more people should actually make decisions on parenting rather than just letting it happen by accident.

 

[wanderingone]

Civil unions are possible now from a lawyer. They are called contracts.

Civil marriage has always been possible - a marriage without clergy is just that - a civil marriage. Marriage with a state license IS a contract, the person who marries you and your witnesses are sealing the contract when everyone signs the wedding certificate after the marriage is complete. Marriages are not always religious but there is ALWAYS a contract unless you opt not to go with a license, in which case you aren't legally married. (unless you happen to present yourself as married and meet the other criteria in a state that recognizes common-law marriage and request the marriage be recognized as a marriage... which usually doesn't happen until there's a break up)

If there was no contract there would be no legal involvement when marriages are dissolved.

 

[wanderingone]

I don't know why, but in the US, religious person seems to confuse religious marriages and "civil" marriages. If changing how we name it could ease religious people, this could be a good solution.

People in the US often don't understand that there are marriages without religious involvement. I've had people wonder how my husband and I are married since we didn't get married in a church or by a minister. We had a civil ceremony. - We did later have a small blessing at the church but not a wedding at the church. I really don't understand why as a Christian I should care who accesses a legal marriage. Nobody would force my minister to perform a wedding for someone the minister doesn't agree to marry.

 

[wanderingone]

Or they could do what we do, separate legal and church wedding ceremonies. Both are called marriage. Church marriage is not legally valid. No church can perform a church wedding ceremony before the couple is legally married in the city hall. No need to change the terminology. A lot of atheists or other non-churchy people are rather attached to their marriage and wouldn't want to trade it for a civil union.

Some christians make it appear that something is taken away from them if gays are allowed to get married (which always brings Matthew 20:1-16 to mind), which I don't understand. But by calling non-church marriage a civil union, it's taking something away from non-religious married people.

We do have that here - well it's similar- , people act as though civil marriages don't exist. The difference here is that the ceremony can be performed by someone like a judge or by clergy. No matter who performs the ceremony there has to first be a license, and then once the wedding is performed it is registered. My husband and I were married in a civil ceremony because we didn't want to do the big church thing. We call ourself married, and the license and certificate recognize it as a marriage. We don't care if a church recognizes it or not. We did ask our minister to perform a blessing over us with several people present, we are generally private about life events and that's what works for us.

 

[BobW188]

Axioma,
Even if I accepted your basic premise, (which I do not), your idea of mandatory dissolution is not the only logical result. Childless couples could be given options such as foster parenting, adoption, caregiving or respite parenting.
I don't know how Slovenian law or custom define marriage. In our civil law it is has the status of a civil contract between (in most states) a man and a woman who have the capacity to enter into one. No jurisdiction that I'm aware of imposes, as a matter of law, any tie between it and parenthood and, though second-guessing a court is risky, I'd say any such law would be overturned as unconstitutional bot at state and federal law.

 

[Rebekka]

Why does the atheist bride get married in white and the atheist groom wears a tux? They like the look. They see others (often Christians) doing that and want a piece of the show. They might even get married in some church because they like stained glass... The fact is I would consider them married because GOD considers them so. GOD does not bless homosexual marriage. It is a mock of the application. Husband/husband, wife/wife simply is looked on by GOD as debauchery ----- see Galatians chapter 5

The white dress is not a christian invention though (nor is the tux). It didn't come into fashion until the British Queen Victoria wore it.

Over here churches don't marry atheist couples (they do marry couples where one spouse is atheist, if the other is christian and the couple wants a church wedding).

People got married before the bible was written.

I'm glad that you at least consider married atheists married - we had a thread in the women's forum where several ladies said that it is only a marriage when it is between christians.

 

[Garyzenuf]

I'm glad that you at least consider married atheists married - we had a thread in the women's forum where several ladies said that it is only a marriage when it is between christians.

Oh RebekkaH...I wish you hadn't opened that can of worms.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Or they could do what we do, separate legal and church wedding ceremonies. Both are called marriage. Church marriage is not legally valid. No church can perform a church wedding ceremony before the couple is legally married in the city hall. No need to change the terminology. A lot of atheists or other non-churchy people are rather attached to their marriage and wouldn't want to trade it for a civil union.

That is substantially how it works in the States. A religious official has the statutory authority to validate a marriage - that is, complete the process - but the marriage license must be obtained from the state beforehand.

Some christians make it appear that something is taken away from them if gays are allowed to get married (which always brings Matthew 20:1-16 to mind), which I don't understand. But by calling non-church marriage a civil union, it's taking something away from non-religious married people.

The simplest solution - and calling it simple almost seems like an insult to elementary education - is to call the state-issued contract a civil union. That eliminates all marriage-redefinition whining in one shot.

It also has the secondary purpose of exposing as fundamentally religious any ensuing complaints that the state contract ought to be called marriage. Those who openly petition the state to use specific language would be transparently pandering for a religious agenda.

 

[Rebekka]

That is substantially how it works in the States. A religious official has the statutory authority to validate a marriage - that is, complete the process - but the marriage license must be obtained from the state beforehand.

The only difference then seems to be that over here, priests (etc.) have no legal authority whatsoever.

The simplest solution - and calling it simple almost seems like an insult to elementary education - is to call the state-issued contract a civil union. That eliminates all marriage-redefinition whining in one shot.

It also has the secondary purpose of exposing as fundamentally religious any ensuing complaints that the state contract ought to be called marriage. Those who openly petition the state to use specific language would be transparently pandering for a religious agenda.

What was marriage called before it became a church thing?

Over here we have both civil unions and marriages. People who choose to get married [often not in a church at all] rather than civilly united apparently value the word marriage with all its connotations.

But maybe I'm nitpicky - I met lots of people on either side of this discussion who prefer the civil union solution.

 

[Andreusz]

I usually agree with you Teddy, but I'm not sure I agree with you on this one. Marriage is not just a religious institution, and it hasn't been for decades. In common parlance, a couple who have a cicvil union are said to be married -- and as a gay person, I would want equal rights.

 

[Rebekka]

I usually agree with you Teddy, but I'm not sure I agree with you on this one. Marriage is not just a religious institution, and it hasn't been for decades. In common parlance, a couple who have a cicvil union are said to be married -- and as a gay person, I would want equal rights.

Oh, it appears I'm not the only one then.