DOMA struck down!

LisaC said:
stradial said:
ShoeDiva said:
J-man said:
LisaC said:
ShoeDiva said:
stradial said:
Did you know that when the country was young, it was against the law for a clergy person to preform a marriage?
It was strictly a legal affair and preformed only be legal persons.

No point, just a bit of trivia.

I actually did not. I will look that up, interesting. :thumbsup

Back in the day, marriages were also arranged by families, not by consent of the bride. It has been said that Mary could have been as young as 13 when she had Jesus. Today, that thought is shocking!

That actually held true until just 3 generations ago. It was common for young teenage girls to marry and immediately start a family, and to have as many as a dozen kids.
I did know about all the arranged marriages and did you know that it still happens? Not here, (that I know of) but in certain cultures.
I still can not find anything on StRadials bit of trivia....point me in the right direction.

I can't remember which documentary I saw it in.
But they discussed how it was illegal for "preacher" to marry someone and gave the info on how, why and when that changed.
Early colonist viewed marriage as a legal thing only.

ETA It stuck in my mind because I had never known that before and I found it very interesting.

Here's a little help...

In the colonies, weddings were not religious ceremonies. Rather, they were a civil contract that set the responsibilities and duties of husband and wife.
Read more: http://www.ehow.com/about_4568812_colonial-marriage-customs.html#ixzz2XLeGAAqI

Thanks.
I have read that also.
 
Re: Re: DOMA struck down!

LisaC said:
ShoeDiva said:
naturegirl said:
Guard Dad said:
Don't take my statement wrong, but the feds have no business in marriage anyway.


Sent by mental telepathy

^^^I've been saying this for a long time. I don't care what you do in your bedroom just don't expect me to endorse it if you choose to share. The government shouldn't either. I would prefer we not even discuss it. :)

I truly believe all of this is about all the other aspects of marriage not the bedroom. I do not want to discuss any bedroom stuff of anyone's, gay, straight, anything.

I agree - this case had to do with the fact that the plaintiff had to pay estate taxes because the federal government refused to acknowledge her same-sex marriage. Had this been a hetero couple, the tax would not have been applied. This is about benefits, not what happens in the bedroom.
It is about a government that condones and rewards the acts of some at the expense of others. It is the state taking property from those it deems unlikely to successfully resist.

Sent from a small screen using fat thumbs.
 
LisaC said:
Guard Dad said:
Don't take my statement wrong, but the feds have no business in marriage anyway.


Sent by mental telepathy

Neither does the state or any government agency.

That's where we disagree.

The government extends tax breaks and benefits to married couples, it should have the right to regulate marriage on the state level. Marriage also carries some legal rights, and the state has to decide them when challenged.

Society demands certain standards be assigned to marriage. SSM aside; there are and will still be regulations on who an individual can marry. The state has a duty to it's people to regulate marriage under the standards determined by the people.
 
Guard Dad said:
LisaC said:
Guard Dad said:
Don't take my statement wrong, but the feds have no business in marriage anyway.


Sent by mental telepathy

Neither does the state or any government agency.

That's where we disagree.

The government extends tax breaks and benefits to married couples, it should have the right to regulate marriage on the state level. Marriage also carries some legal rights, and the state has to decide them when challenged.

Society demands certain standards be assigned to marriage. SSM aside; there are and will still be regulations on who an individual can marry. The state has a duty to it's people to regulate marriage under the standards determined by the people.


You're right, we disagree.
 
Back
Top