- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
re: If the Government stopped issuing marriage licenses
Posted on 9/7/25 at 8:39 am to jcaz
Posted on 9/7/25 at 8:39 am to jcaz
quote:The historical bases of marriage are political/financial power and the legitimacy of heirs. The church didn't get involved until later.
The only one that technically matters is from a church. After all, that’s the basis of marriage from a historical perspective.
0
Posted on 9/7/25 at 8:41 am to Boston Bob
this place needs an incel board. Or fewer incels. Either would work
Posted on 9/7/25 at 8:45 am to Boston Bob
Like everything else that the governments tentacles grasp a government marriage license is because of and for lawyers.
Everything that the government does is encased in lawyerism so that lawyers from top to bottom of the system, have job security.
And that’s why laws are written so that only lawyers can interpret them. The fact that they have to be interpreted at all is for the lawyers to have job security. It’s also why judges allow frivolous lawsuits.
In that respect, the whole thing is set up so that lawyers will have job security and it’s probably been like that from the very beginning.
Everything that the government does is encased in lawyerism so that lawyers from top to bottom of the system, have job security.
And that’s why laws are written so that only lawyers can interpret them. The fact that they have to be interpreted at all is for the lawyers to have job security. It’s also why judges allow frivolous lawsuits.
In that respect, the whole thing is set up so that lawyers will have job security and it’s probably been like that from the very beginning.
Posted on 9/7/25 at 8:46 am to Boston Bob
Government at it's core is contracts between neighbors for the common good. It is very good for society that all of its children grow up in two parents homes (man and woman). Generally, the worst influences on your children in the neighborhood and school come from disfunctional families.
We totally blew all of that with no-fault divorce and gay marriage though. The family is the building block of society. It's hard for people to have conversations about trusting the government in the ideal because the government is no longer trustworthy. But if this all blows up, you are going to want to surround yourself with people who share your values, and that would mean surrounding yourselves with people who love their families, not hookers with seven different baby daddies. You might even want to make a rule that everyone has to enter into contracts to have children and will be outcasts if they do not have them within a marriage contract.
We totally blew all of that with no-fault divorce and gay marriage though. The family is the building block of society. It's hard for people to have conversations about trusting the government in the ideal because the government is no longer trustworthy. But if this all blows up, you are going to want to surround yourself with people who share your values, and that would mean surrounding yourselves with people who love their families, not hookers with seven different baby daddies. You might even want to make a rule that everyone has to enter into contracts to have children and will be outcasts if they do not have them within a marriage contract.
Posted on 9/7/25 at 8:50 am to Upperdecker
quote:
Imagine how many more divorces there would be
Women initiate divorce today almost 8 out of 10 times. They do this because of alimony and equitable distribution, which are both enforced by the state's contempt power. Take away the financial incentives of divorce and I'd bet far more women suddenly are not as interested in "finding themselves" or "living their best life".
This post was edited on 9/7/25 at 8:52 am
Posted on 9/7/25 at 8:58 am to Boston Bob
The obvious argument that politicians and pundits should’ve been making in response to the gay marriage question is that the government should not be involved in any marriages.
If you want to have a contract with another person (or two or 20) to share your assets, then fine. Sign a contract.
But what about the children? Already 40 percent of children are born out of wedlock and divorce is rampant. The idea that THIS would be the issue is laughable.
If you want to have a contract with another person (or two or 20) to share your assets, then fine. Sign a contract.
But what about the children? Already 40 percent of children are born out of wedlock and divorce is rampant. The idea that THIS would be the issue is laughable.
This post was edited on 9/7/25 at 10:22 am
Posted on 9/7/25 at 9:07 am to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
If you want to have a contract with another person (or two or 20) to share your assets, then fine. Sign a contract.
Nobody is going to do that.
Think about the number of people who enter into financial transactions (loans, investments, rentals, “business partnerships”, etc) with friends/family sans a contract. It’s pretty much most of the time. That’s what marriage would look like, and when they end (either by death or divorce) they will require even more legal resources to determine who gets what (kids, assets).
I get it man, I really do. Nobody likes government involvement, but what you’re proposing will almost definitely be worse from a government involvement standpoint.
This post was edited on 9/7/25 at 9:10 am
Posted on 9/7/25 at 10:29 am to Dadren
quote:
Nobody is going to do that.
People already do it with marriage licenses. You have to go down to the courthouse and fill out paperwork. This would be no different.
quote:
they will require even more legal resources to determine who gets what (kids, assets).
Family law already takes up about 10 percent of all civil court cases.
Almost half of all children are born out of wedlock. The situation you are against already exists 50 percent of the time.
Posted on 9/7/25 at 10:54 am to Boston Bob
quote:
unable to reproduce
quote:
care for their children
Posted on 9/7/25 at 10:57 am to Boston Bob
quote:
Or is that not possible without the government giving you a piece of paper ?
Loaded question based upon IQ.
It’s not possible without the wedding ceremony for the majority. Weddings are rites of initiation. Wedding licenses are the mechanism by which the government forces the whole to subsidize payrolls for the few. Weddings have cultural significance. Wedding licenses are an economic institution.
The state issued licenses have nothing to do with commitment. They are revenue sources.
Posted on 9/7/25 at 11:12 am to Boston Bob
Since marriage licenses were invented in the 17th and 18th centuries and humans seemed to be able to navigate marriage for millennia before then, I would say that we'd manage just fine without them.
Posted on 9/7/25 at 11:24 am to Boston Bob
Marriage licenses are required because marriages are more than a sacrament, a religious union. It has become a business union.
Posted on 9/7/25 at 11:33 am to Boston Bob
Couples would probably enter into their own legal agreements.
Posted on 9/7/25 at 11:42 am to Upperdecker
quote:
Imagine how many more divorces there would be if you had no permanence to marriage
Imagine how much less divorce we would have if the system, designed by government, wasn't set up to specifically cater to one of the partners.
Posted on 9/7/25 at 11:44 am to doubleb
quote:
It has become a business union.
History tells us it was this
quote:
a sacrament, a religious union
Before it was this.
Originally designed it was a business contract between the families of the two getting married. The religious aspect came much later and is still not universal.
Posted on 9/7/25 at 12:00 pm to Boston Bob
Alabama did this.
You merely file a Marriage Certificate signed by both parties in the Probate Court now.
However, to obtain a divorce, you go through the same legal proceedings.
You merely file a Marriage Certificate signed by both parties in the Probate Court now.
However, to obtain a divorce, you go through the same legal proceedings.
Posted on 9/7/25 at 12:27 pm to Boston Bob
As long as marriage is valid thru the church
Posted on 9/7/25 at 12:28 pm to tigerbacon
quote:
like power of attorney at hospitals, tax benefits, and being able to be on your spouse medical and dental plans
You can do all of this sans the tax benefits without getting married. You need an advanced directive and/or will for care. Some larger companies are also now allowing employees to add their life partners to insurance plans (mine does).
Posted on 9/7/25 at 12:32 pm to Boston Bob
My relationship with my wife would be solid no matter.
However, we followed the laws and customs appropriate to becoming happily married without regret.
Those decades since have been great.
Hope that your experiences are as successful as ours has been.
However, we followed the laws and customs appropriate to becoming happily married without regret.
Those decades since have been great.
Hope that your experiences are as successful as ours has been.
Posted on 9/7/25 at 1:13 pm to andwesway
Again answering why you care about getting married. Makes life a lot easier
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News