- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 6/23/14 at 10:51 am to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
Government was only involved with marriage because the religion WAS the government.
No.
quote:
In ancient Rome, marriage was a civil affair governed by imperial law. But when the empire collapsed, in the 5th century, church courts took over and elevated marriage to a holy union. As the church's power grew through the Middle Ages, so did its influence over marriage. In 1215, marriage was declared one of the church's seven sacraments, alongside rites like baptism and penance. But it was only in the 16th century that the church decreed that weddings be performed in public, by a priest, and before witnesses.
The Roman Religion was the government. The Emperor was the head of the religion and considered a GOD. Not the best example you could have used.
Posted on 6/23/14 at 10:55 am to kingbob
quote:
The Roman Religion was the government.
Not during the Christian period.
quote:
Not the best example you could have used.
It's the perfect example - Roman civil law, Justinian's Code in particular, is perhaps the most important and influential legal document from the ancient period.
Posted on 6/23/14 at 11:00 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
It's the perfect example - Roman civil law, Justinian's Code in particular, is perhaps the most important and influential legal document from the ancient period.
Exactly. This dude has no idea what he's talking about. Justinian's Code was the original basis for the Civil Code in Louisiana.
Posted on 6/23/14 at 11:02 am to kingbob
quote:
kingbob
Posted on 6/23/14 at 11:07 am to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
It's the perfect example - Roman civil law, Justinian's Code in particular, is perhaps the most important and influential legal document from the ancient period.
Exactly. This dude has no idea what he's talking about. Justinian's Code was the original basis for the Civil Code in Louisiana.
I concede this point. I was referring to pre-Justinian Rome. I was ignorant of the application of Justinian Law to the institution of marriage. My next question would be whether or not this was an exceptionally rare period of secular marriage law or was it merely one example of many in the ancient (and not so Ancient) world?
Posted on 6/23/14 at 11:11 am to iwasthere
quote:
If the government shouldn't call it marriage, then religion shouldn't either. Marriage was not created from religion.
You are missing the point.
Posted on 6/23/14 at 11:12 am to kingbob
quote:
My next question would be whether or not this was an exceptionally rare period of secular marriage law or was it merely one example of many in the ancient (and not so Ancient) world?
In all fairness - Justinian was really an Eastern Empire thing - after the fall of the West - and there was lots of Christian stuff plugged into the code itself, but, at that time, the authority of the Constintinople Patriarch in matters of religion was unquestioned and Eastern Emporers tended to function as purely secular rulers.
But, at the end of the western empire, marriage was, effectively, a secular institution as well.
Posted on 6/23/14 at 11:20 am to The Spleen
quote:
Absolutely not. I think it's a good thing that the government encourages a strong family unit.
Yeah, they are doing an outstanding job with that 50% divorce rate
Posted on 6/23/14 at 12:33 pm to elprez00
I am not missing your point. Would you tell the Catholic Church to call it something else besides marriage? Marriage is not a religios thing, therefore the government can use this term without it involving religion. A lot of people say to not call a same sex marriage a marriage due to the religios aspect and that isn't fair or right.
Posted on 6/23/14 at 12:41 pm to Homesick Tiger
yes. There should be a civil union that you can make with anybody that you want. They then get the legal benefits of being married (i.e. end of life decisions, etc) if you make it with more than one person you have to set an order (1,2,3) so you don't have long drawn out fights.
Posted on 6/23/14 at 12:46 pm to Lsut81
quote:Not to derail this thread, but you do know that this 50% number is mildly deceptive, right?
Yeah, they are doing an outstanding job with that 50% divorce rate
IE, it doesn't mean that 50% of all people who get married end up divorced. It means that 50% of all marriages do. Point being, some people are 2,3,4 or more time losers. Hence, if one couple gets married and never divorces but some dude marries 5 different women in his life, he, by himself, overwhelms the couple's stat.
OK. Derail over.
Posted on 6/23/14 at 1:20 pm to Homesick Tiger
The tax aspect would not be that difficult.
Everyone files a single return. Every man, woman, and child gets an exclusion from income (think personal exemption combined with a standard deduction). Since minors generally don't make much/any money, the minor's exclusion can be taken on the return of a parent/guardian. You'd have to write some regulations but this would not be that hard.
The bigger issue is that 200 years of laws and court cases have endowed a "spouse" with many legal protections and rights with respect to the other spouse. All of these things would have to be evaluated. It could certainly be done.
Everyone files a single return. Every man, woman, and child gets an exclusion from income (think personal exemption combined with a standard deduction). Since minors generally don't make much/any money, the minor's exclusion can be taken on the return of a parent/guardian. You'd have to write some regulations but this would not be that hard.
The bigger issue is that 200 years of laws and court cases have endowed a "spouse" with many legal protections and rights with respect to the other spouse. All of these things would have to be evaluated. It could certainly be done.
Posted on 6/23/14 at 1:29 pm to Quidam65
quote:
I'm with kingbob on this, with a few added items to strengthen things:
1. Also eliminate the estate and gift tax.
2. Pass a Constitutional amendment that would allow a church, a minister, or other religious organization to refuse to perform any "marriage ceremony" for any reason, or any business to refuse to participate (bakeries, wedding photographers, etc.).
3. The FAIR Tax should be just that, not a VAT.
+1. We do not need incentives for marriage and especially not for having kids! The tax system should be so much simpler than it is and the first step should be eliminating a lot of deductions.
FTR I am only in favor of this if they DRASTICALLY reduce the wasteful spending. If they are going to take the extra income and spend it on waste like they always do then F them I'll take whatever deductions I can get!
Posted on 6/23/14 at 1:31 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:
Everyone files a single return. Every man, woman, and child gets an exclusion from income (think personal exemption combined with a standard deduction). Since minors generally don't make much/any money, the minor's exclusion can be taken on the return of a parent/guardian. You'd have to write some regulations but this would not be that hard.
Too difficult. Just let me file jointly with my "wife" absent a license. SIMPLE! Oh. But how do I "prove" she's my wife? Simple. I said so and she said so. Done!
quote:No real issue at all. See above.
The bigger issue is that 200 years of laws and court cases have endowed a "spouse" with many legal protections and rights with respect to the other spouse. All of these things would have to be evaluated. It could certainly be done.
Posted on 6/23/14 at 2:03 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
Just let me file jointly with my "wife" absent a license. SIMPLE! Oh. But how do I "prove" she's my wife? Simple. I said so and she said so. Done!
Hello, fraud!
Posted on 6/23/14 at 2:05 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
I said so and she said so. Done!
Simple common law marriage, perfectly legal in some states.
'Because we said so' is about all it takes.
Posted on 6/23/14 at 2:20 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
OK. Derail over.
Not so fast. It is also misleading, because a statistically significant number of divorces end in a remarriage of the same parties.
So, you have at least 2 different things going on - the "divorcers", who drive up the overall divorce rate, and the "Mulligans" - which count as 2 marriages and 1 divorce - brings down the average, yes, but it shouldn't count as a divorce at all - IMHO.
Posted on 6/23/14 at 2:43 pm to Homesick Tiger
The government needs to go out of business entirely.
Posted on 6/23/14 at 2:55 pm to Homesick Tiger
Very wrong. Marriage is a social union into which we all have the fundamental right to enter with a consenter. With marriage comes natural rights, and a big reason for government is to protect rights. The idea of "taking government out of marriage" is no less absurd than is the idea of taking government out of lawmaking.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News