OK, but I suspect it would be hard to get any proof out of the local authority, they being so famously efficient, etc. 
They get arrested and charged with attempted bigamy.
I’m not really sure what your point is, but when my stepfather ran for city council, the city provided him with a printout of all registered voters, their party affiliation, and whether or not they voted in every election for the last 10 years.
Incidently, this is how they determine who to send jury summons to. If you don’t vote, you won’t get a summons.
In the past, but now most places use drivers licenses, tax roles, and other means to get a more complete list. Not voting doesn’t mean you won’t be on jury duty.
Eligibility for marriage should be determined by who prevails in the feats of strength and the airing of the grievances.
There’s a technical problem too; elections don’t happen all that frequently and the minimum age for voting is often higher than the minimum age for marriage; combine these two factors together and you could be forcing people to wait half a decade to get married.
I’m gonna agree with schplebordnik. If people are gonna get married, gay or not, they have to prove they’re strong enough to contine America’s long, proud, Festivus tradition.
This is certainly an argument in favor of the proposal.
Excuse me, but I have to take exception to that. We can do whatever we want by changing the rules? :rolleyes: Where does it end? This is freedom we’re talking about. Must our nation’s Founding Fathers roll in their graves?
To those who would ban any kind of marriage I say, give me one good reason. So far the only argument I’ve heard from that side is that marriage is a sacred union of one man and one woman. Which is ridiculous to enforce legally because we’re supposed to have a separation of church and state over here.
On the offchance that you’re serious, why?
I’ve read this paragraph about 20 times and it still doesn’t parse. Are you saying that government sanction of marriage is the result of seperation of church and state?
The government wouldn’t be sanctioning any kind of marriage if seperation of church and state were truly enforced. Marriage is primarily a religious insitution. Whether or not a person chooses to marry and whom the choose to marry is none of the government’s business.
No, I’m saying government sanction of marriage violates seperation of church and state.
I agree it’s none of the government’s business. We’re saying the same thing 2 different ways.
Maybe Dogface was starting this thread tongue-in-cheek, maybe not.
But why not discuss how to resolve the marriage conundra?
But “it’s none of the government’s business” (cityboy916) doesn’t fly with me.
If you take an extreme libertarian view, you always seem to have to appeal to a judicial or arbitration system to resolve disputes. Those sorts of systems, in order to be just, need to dispense consistent solutions. In order to be consistent, there have to be some basic definitions.
If someone comes to the judge and says “We’ve been married for 5 years but now he’s cheating on me and I want out,” the judge has to know (a) what does “married” mean, (b) what does “cheating” mean, © under what conditions can a marriage be ended, (d) what happens to joint property and children (if any) when a marriage ends, and many, many more issues. The judge really needs some standard definitions to work from, so’s to work on the same basis as other judges around the country.
So, it seems sensible to me that governments have legislative functions so as (among other things) to establish the bases for settling disputes. In particular, I think it is perfectly within the realm of government to say “if you want an official means to deal with marriage contracts, we have to define marriage and the rights, responsibilities, and limits that go with it.”
You might say, “let churches deal with marriage and divorce and marital disputes.” I say, one party or the other is eventually going to appeal outside the church, if they can. Marriage is a kind of contract, and civil law does deal with contracts.
And it happens in a pluralistic society that many different religions have different definitions of marriage. So it makes sense that government would carve out some generic parameters and enforce things that way.
Some churches still maintain stricter standards and if you want to stay in the church, you have to abide by them. But that’s their business.
If some folks (Mormons, gays, Catholics) are unhappy about civil marriage and divorce rules, then we’re supposed to have a system that allows them to protest and possibly get the rules changed. That’s what’s happening. I think it’s pretty healthy. Unfortunately, it doesn’t always result in fairness or justice for everyone right away.
My solution would be to remove the gender restrictions on marriage, and make sure all the conditions, responsibilities, property rights, custody rights, and so on are the same regardless. I don’t think gays should be held to a lower standard of commitment than others.
But that’s neither original nor witty. Sorry. :dubious:
I’ll second what Max_Castle said several posts back, about doing away with the sanctions and replacing them with contracts. AFAIK anybody can enter into a contract (but IANAL).
I don’t see any reason why (a) and (b) need to be handled in court, nor should © the way you’ve worded it (had you said “contract” instead of “marriage”, I’d give you item ©). And again, (d) could be handled by a private contract, could it not?
Let the marriage itself fall under the rules and arbitration of the church. Contractual disputes fall under legal jurisdiction. When people marry, they would have their religious ceremony and they would have their legal contract. Two separate events, and if they divorce, for whatever reason their faith deems good enough, they would usually also dissolve the contract.
Rather than let each religion have their own regulations? See, the problem with generic parameters is that there’ll always be somebody out there whose belief system is in conflict with them.
Nothing wrong with that.
If this is in response to what I said about amending the Constitution, then I should clarify. What I mean is that the principles on which this country was based upon would allow gays (etc…) the freedom to marry. Actually, that response itself was in reference to the OP, which I have to concede sounds a bit silly.
I don’t see how they would be, if contracts were used instead of having a legal marriage entity.
What I meant when I said with “none of the government’s business” is that I think religious matters and civil matters don’t mix.
Dogface, as a “furriner” of a sort, here’s my problem with this. I was a toddler when my family moved to the United States. In the US, you cannot start the process of becoming a US citizen (naturalization) until you’re 18. When I was naturalized several years ago at age 21, the process took 4 months. When my parents and brother were naturalized a few years ago, it took much longer. I was naturalized in mid-October, about 2 weeks before election day. Since you must register to vote at least 30 days before the election, I was unable to vote in that election, and it would be a full year before the next one came around. By that time, I’d left the state. I remember because I wanted to, and rather badly (I did not like one candidate for governor). I believe there’s also a requirement that a person must be a legal resident of the United States before he or she can become a citizen. Being a resident of the United States will, I think, render that person ineligible to vote in elections in their home country. In other words, us foreigners are going to be in a rather neat Catch-22.
I’m all in favor of marriage and voting, although I’d prefer people did the latter more often than the former. It’s just that the logistics don’t work for me. There’s also the all too common problem of what do you do when there’s no one worth voting for? I’ve done the whole “hold my nose and pull the lever” bit, but some people can’t hold their breath that long! 
CJ
I’m pretty sure these two statements are contradictory. In the first, you defend government sanction of marriage and ask for one good reason to do away with it. In the second you give a good reason. Are you answering your own questions now?
Now, Max_Castle, I really don’t agree with cityboy916, but I think he is consistent.
He doesn’t think the government should ban marriages of any kind, and he doesn’t think the government should sanction them, either. Just let churches define marriage for themselves and keep government out of it.
Personally, I think the government should define, regulate, and enforce a broad range of marriage contracts… far broader than most single religions would sanction.
But my viewpoint aside, I think cityboy916 has a consistent opinion on the matter.
Half a decade? Where do you live? I have never lived anywhere that didn’t have local elections at least once a year. More often if you count the primaries and runoffs. Why do people only ever think of the presidential elections when they talk about voting.
Still, the idea is dumb. I vote in every election but voting doesn’t make me a good wife. I am against any proposal for getting more folks to vote if it doesn’t include actually educating yourself on who to vote for. A bunch of stupid-heads voting just to be able to get married probably won’t help the country much.
What!?!?!?
How is:
a defense of government sanctioning?
I don’t know which side of the debate you’re on, Max_Castle. When I read your first post I thought we were in agreement. Even though vknowles disagrees with me, at least s/he is right about where I stand.
Sorry, I interpreted your use of the word “ban” to mean “end government saction of.” If you don’t want to end government sanction, you must be in support of it. Like I said, I couldn’t really parse what you wrote.
So, what did you mean by “ban?” What form of marriage are people trying to do away with? You couldn’t possibly be talking about gay marriage, because you can’t ban something that’s not legal to begin with. I’m confused…
