Get Rid of Marriage!

Post Reply New Topic

No no, I don't mean make it illegal... not exactly. Another thread had a "how politically radical are you" questionairre. And I scored "low" because I didn't check something if I didn't agree to the ENTIRE thing. For example, there were two questions as to whether gay and polygamous marriages should be legal. I don't think they should and I don't think they shouldn't.

I'm not "for" or "against" gay or polygamous marriage. In fact I'm MORE radical than even that.... I believe that the word marriage itself should be taken OUT of every law in the country and replace with the words "civil union". Marriage is a religious institution. If you can find someone to marry you, good for you, have fun! And if someone wants to make a legal civil union with the person they live with... or their kid... or their HORSE.... go right on ahead! A civil union should have all the "rights" that marriages have right now. Give that title those rights, then copy and paste that term OVER marriage in every law in the country.

I am a strong proponent of the separation of church and state. So I say get RID of the term marriage in EVERY law, and set up this parallel civil union structure instead. Anyone that's married right now from this date and back gets an automatic civil union.

"Gay" and "polygamous" marriage problems solved right there. If you can find a religion to marry you, great, it's done! Go do it!

And the state doesn't have to get involved at all. A marriage is a spiritual and emotional commitment, a civil union is a legal commitment. Am I nuts for wanting the two to become separate?

By changing the name you aren't changing anything but the term you use to describe the union that it's formed by 2 individuals who get tax breaks to support children.

You want to separate church and State but the State is sort of a religion in the fist place.
They thrive on mere belief of the people(Just like gods).
Their very existence depends on fear(Fear tactics, propaganda, war).
They are above every other law(Monopoly on violence).
They initiate violence on disbelievers(Enforcing their law upon others).
It has its symbols, Bible and priests/prophets(Patriotic symbols, constitution and politicians).

Well, here is my take.

Marriage is an institution of the church. In American history, the state had no say about who could or could not marry. There were no marriage licenses. You either chose to be husband and wife and society accepted it as such or you were married in a church according to your faith.

The pickle began when states started saying you needed a marriage license and disregarding marriages at the common law.

I, for one, if I ever marry, will not get a license. I don't need or want the permission of the state to marry someone I love.

That said, the state should NEVER have gained the power to marry people. Licenses should be abolished. You gain no real benefit today by having the state "bless" your union.

So, leave marriage for the churches. Let the justice of the peace perform "civil unions." If the state wants to let people get civil unions with goats and sheep, fine.

The church can recognize civil unions if they so choose. The state can recognize marriages done by churches if they so choose. No reciprocity is required by either side.

As long as it's not me getting married or civilly-unioned (yeah I made that up!) they can do what they want. But I do agree there should be a separation between politics and religion.

its some silly activity, like just another reason to have a party. people like partying so i'd ignore it
i dont always feel this way as i want to get married. it doesnt make sence i know, so please dont point this out

Despite the clear indication that the founders of the USA wanted a clear separation between church and state it's obvious that a large number of citizens don't like it that way. When you can convince a large majority to agree to the separation you may make some progress but it doesn't look likely at the moment.

My thought as just been new institutions - they do best when they have some amount of specificity to them. To me that means let heterosexual union be handles by one institution, let homosexual union be handled by an institution of their design that tailor fits its needs just as the heterosexual community have an institution that tailor fits its own needs as well.

While I agree with equality I don't like the idea of huge grafts and forced political changes to an institution that's been with us for thousands of years - I believe that the state's involvement in it is a problem, also that the state would need to find another means of dealing with children in the cases of neglect, abuse, or custody disputes - in that case why not let legislators (ie. lawyers) do what they do best; it'll keep em from chasing EMS for a while anyway.

Except in gay marriage you CAN do it YOUR WAY... Sorry Gay folk, hopefully social stigmas are released soon.

Don't like big Party weddings?

Don't have one.

How about useless Burocratic nonsense paperwork... who's in?

And everyone wants a union of church and government. Just imagine the fun rules we could be boxed in with.

Do it Your way... I am literally listening to the radio playing "IF YOU LIKE IT, THEN YOU SHOULD A PUT A RING ON IT"

this song always makes me laugh. . . as if. . . like IT. ha ha.

Hopefully the One You love doesn't come with Showy wedding mandates, or anything else you can't handle.

Personally Ban which ever type of marriage you don't like. "Can You Meet Me Halfway" is now playing on the radio.

Shakespeare would have something to say about this, in his play Romeo and Juliet, such as "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet", so to call a rose a "lilac" would not actually change what the rose is, and neither would calling a lilac a "rose" change what it is either. How about we get rid of etymology instead, and then have a completely descriptive vocabulary with no prescriptiveness derived from the history of words? No more amelioration or pejoration, just invent and call things as we wish. I will start by calling dogs "barking rats" and calling cats "a waste of money" and calling parakeets "noisy beaks".