How Did Gov't Get Involved in Marriage?

[Reason]

http://www.alimonyreform.org/content/articles/How%20Did%20Government%20Get%20Involved%20in%20Mar riage.pdf

Found this fascinating :)

Your thoughts?

I am interested in any sources anyone knows of that cover the topic of how govt got involved in marriage.

[Reason]

How Did Gov't Get Involved in "Marriage", a Matter of Religious Tradition?
From: "Virgil Cooper" ultrac21@whitemtns.com

About 15 years ago, my former wife of 26-1/2 years, filed for divorce. We had seven children, five daughters and two sons. Our youngest at the time, our second son, was five years old. At the time, I prepared a counterclaim to the Petition for Dissolution her attorney filed in Domestic Relations (DR) court. I met one afternoon with the head of the Maricopa County Superior Court, Marriage License Bureau, in downtown Phoenix. The marriage license bureau was headed by a young woman of about age 25. I asked her to explain to me the general and statutory implications of the marriage license. She was very cooperative, and called in an Assistant, a tall Black man who at the time was working on an Operations Manual for internal departmental use. She deferred for most technical explanations to her Assistant. He walked through the technicalities of the marriage license as it operates in Arizona. He mentioned that marriage licensing is pretty much the same in the other states -- but there are differences. One significant difference he mentioned was that Arizona is one of eight western states that are Community Property states. The other states are Common Law states, including Utah, with the exception of Lousiana which is a Napoleonic Code state. He then explained some of the technicalities of the marriage license. He said, first of all, the marriage license is Secular Contract between the parties and the State. The State is the principal party in that Secular Contract. The husband and wife are secondary or inferior parties. The Secular Contract is a three-way contract between the State, as Principal, and the husband and wife as the other two legs of the Contract. He said, in the traditional sense a marriage is a covenant between the husband and wife and God. But in the Secular Contract with the state, reference to God is a dotted line, and not officially considered included in the Secular Contract at all.
He said, if the husband and wife wish to include God as a party in their marriage, that is a "dotted line" they will have to add in their own minds. The state's marriage license is "strictly secular," he said. He said further, that what he meant by the relationship to God being a "dotted line" meant that the State regards any mention of God as irrelevant, even meaningless. In his description of the marriage license contract, the related one other "dotted line." He said in the traditional religious context, marriage was a covenant between the husband and wife and God with husband and wife joined as one.
This is not the case in the secular realm of the state's marriage license contract. The State is the Principal or dominant party. The husband and wife are merely contractually "joined" as business partners, not in any religious union. They may even be considered, he said, connected to each other by another "dotted line." The picture he was trying to "paint" was that of a triangle with the State at the top and a solid line extending from the apex, the State, down the left side to the husband, and a separate solid line extending down the right side to the wife, a "dotted line" merely showing that they consider themselves to have entered into a religious union of some sort that is irrrelevant to the State.
He further mentioned that this "religious overtone" is recognized by the State by requiring that the marriage must be solemnized either by a state official or by a minister of religion that has been "deputized" by the State to perform the marriage ceremony and make a return of the signed and executed marriage license to the State. Again, he emphasized that marriage is a strictily secular relationship so far as the State is concerned and because it is looked upon as a "privileged business enterprise" various tax advantages and other political privileges have become attached to the marriage license contract that have nothing at all to do with marriage as a religious covenant or bond between God and a man and a woman. By way of reference, if you would like to read a legal treatise on marriage, one of the best is "Principles of Community Property," by William Defuniak. At the outset, he explains that Community Property law decends from Roman Civil Law through the Spanish Codes, 600 A.D., written by the Spanish jurisconsults. In the civil law, the marriage is considered to be a for-profit venture or profit-making venture (even though it may never actually produce a profit in operation) and as the wife goes out to the local market to purchase food stuffs and other supplies for the marriage household, she is replenishing the stocks of the business. To restate: In the civil law, the marriage is considered to be a business venture, that is, a for-profit business venture. Moreover, as children come into the marriage household, the business venture is considered to have "borne fruit." Now, back to the explanation by the Maricopa County Superior Court, Marriage Bureau's administrative Assistant. He went on to explain that every contract must have consideration. The State offers consideration in the form of the actual license itself -- the piece of paper, the Certificate of Marriage. The other part of consideration by the State is "the privilege to be regulated by statute." He added that this privilege to be regulated by statute includes all related statutes, and all court cases as they are ruled on by the courts, and all statutes and regulations into the future in the years following the commencement of the marriage. He said in a way the marriage license contract is a dynamic or flexible, ever-changing contract as time goes along – even though the husband and wife didn't realize that. My thought on this is can it really be considered a true contract as one becomes aware of the failure by the State to make full disclosure of the terms and conditions. A contract must be entered into knowingly, intelligently, intentionally, and with fully informed consent. Otherwise, technically there is no contract. Another way to look as the marriage license contract with the State is as a contract of adhesion, a contract between two disparate, unequal parties. Again, a flawed
"contract." Such a contract with the State is said to be a "specific performance" contract as to the privileges, duties and responsibilities that attach. Consideration on the part of the husband and wife is the actual fee paid and the implied agreement to be subject to the state's statutes, rules, and regulations and all court cases ruled on related to marriage law, family law, children, and property. He emphasized that this contractual consideration by the bride and groom places them in a definite and defined-by-law position inferior and subject to the State. He commented that very few people realize this. He also said that it is very important to understand that children born to the marriage are considered by law as "the contract bearing fruit" -- meaning the children primarily belong to the State, even though the law never comes out and says so in so many words. In this regard, children born to the contract regarded as "the contract bearing fruit," he said it is vitally important for parents to understand two doctrines that became established in the United States during the 1930s. The first is the Doctrine of Parens Patriae. The second is the Doctrine of In Loco Parentis. Parens Patriae means literally "the parent of the country" or to state it more bluntly – the State is the undisclosed true parent. Along this line, a 1930s Arizona Supreme Court case states that parents have no property right in their children, and have custody of their children during good behavior at the sufferance of the State. This means that parents may raise their children and maintain custody of their children as long as they don't offend the State, but if they in some manner displease the State, the State can step in at any time and exercise its superior status and take custody and control of its children -- the parents are only conditional caretakers. He also added a few more technical details. The marriage license is an ongoing contractual relationship with the State. Technically, the marriage license is a business license allowing the husband and wife, in the name of the marriage, to enter into contracts with third parties and contract mortgages and debts. They can get car loans, home mortgages, and installment debts in the name of the marriage because it is not only a secular enterprise, but it is looked upon by the State as a privileged business enterprise as well as a for-profit business enterprise. The marriage contract acquires property throughout its existence and over time, it is hoped, increases in value. Also, the marriage contract "bears fruit" by adding children. If sometime later, the marriage fails, and a "divorce" results the contract continues in existence. The "divorce" is merely a contractual dissolution or amendment of the terms and conditions of the contract. Jurisdiction of the State over the marriage, over the husband and wife, now separated, continues and continues over all aspects of the marriage, over marital property and over children brought into the marriage. That is why family law and the Domestic Relations court calls "divorce" a dissolution of the marriage because the contract continues in operation but in amended or modified form. He also pointed out that the marriage license contract is one of the strongest, most binding contractual relationships the States has on people At the end of our hour-long meeting, I somewhat humorously asked if other people had
come in and asked the questions I was asking? The Assistant replied that in the several years he had worked there, he was not aware of anyone else asking these questions. He added that he was very glad to see someone interested in the legal implications of the marriage license and the contractual relationship it creates with the State. His boss, the young woman Marriage Bureau department head stated, "You have to understand that people who come in here to get a marriage license are in heat. The last thing they want to know is technical, legal and statutory implications of the marriage license." (Laughter) I hope this is helpful information to anyone interested in getting more familiar with the contractual implications of the marriage license. The marriage license as we know it didn't come into existence until after the Civil War and didn't become standard practice in all the states until after 1900, becoming firmly established by 1920. In effect, the states or governments appropriated or usurped control of marriages in secular form and in the process declared Common Law applicable to marriages "abrogated."

[Objectivist]

Putting the People in second position and the State in first, is unConstitutional. The People are supposed to come first but we know how that's working out.

Personally I'm against State sanctioned marriage as there should be a separation of religion and the government. Marriage is a religious institution but there's money in it for the Government.

Matrimony----- Marti= Mother Mony= Many.
Then most of you know what a Matriarch is.

[brandon]

It's natural that the government is involved in marriage.

Marriage is a financial contract between two people. Enforcing contracts is a legitimate role of the government.

I never understand what archists mean when they say "the state should have nothing to do with marriage"

[Elwar]

Marriage is a financial contract between two people.

If two people want a legal contract between themselves then they can write up a legal contract.

A marriage "certificate" is worse than a contract because it gets to pick and choose who can be in that contract and provides a one size fits all solution even if you don't want everything that the government includes in it. There are no "opt out" clauses to the contract.

[sratiug]

It's natural that the government is involved in marriage.

Marriage is a financial contract between two people. Enforcing contracts is a legitimate role of the government.

I never understand what archists mean when they say "the state should have nothing to do with marriage"

I'm no anarchist but it is evil to have government officials deciding who is married and who is not, and who gets to raise their kids and who does not, and who has to pay child support.

My divorced cousin's child was taken from his mother two months ago because she was arrested drunk driving at 3 in the morning with the kid in the car. Instead of calling my cousin to come get the kid the government put him in foster care. Now my cousin with no record has to take piss tests to see his own son a couple of times a month for an hour supervised visitation.

Government has no place in marriage.

[brandon]

If two people want a legal contract between themselves then they can write up a legal contract.

A marriage "certificate" is worse than a contract because it gets to pick and choose who can be in that contract and provides a one size fits all solution even if you don't want everything that the government includes in it. There are no "opt out" clauses to the contract.

So then isn't the problem actually that the government isn't involved enough in marriage?

In other words, their are some "marriage" contracts that they don't enforce, when they should enforce all of them.

[nate895]

It was originally to prevent interracial marriages.

[nate895]

So then isn't the problem actually that the government isn't involved enough in marriage?

In other words, their are some "marriage" contracts that they don't enforce, when they should enforce all of them.

No, the government needs to keep out of the making of private contracts. When the government is involved, you are asking permission to do something. The government should be there for enforcement, not permitting people to enter into contracts. At the same time, if the government hands out marriage certificates and licenses to certain groups, everyone must recognize them. It is immoral to force groups of people who find gay marriage morally repugnant to recognize gay marriage, simple as that.

[dannno]

So then isn't the problem actually that the government isn't involved enough in marriage?

In other words, their are some "marriage" contracts that they don't enforce, when they should enforce all of them.

No, the idea is that rather than having a cookie cutter marriage contract mandated by the states, individuals initiate their own contracts. This is already done using prenuptial agreements, so it's not like the state contracts make everything that much easier.

There will still be general marriage contracts, but they won't be mandated by the state.

The main idea is that the state cannot limit who can or cannot make a contract.

[dannno]

It is immoral to force groups of people who find gay marriage morally repugnant to recognize gay marriage, simple as that.

They'll still have to recognize it because gay people have every right to make contracts with each other. Sorry.

What we shouldn't do is force churches to marry gay people.. that is the valid concern of religious people. Any religious person who doesn't want to recognize a contract between two men or two women..well, deal with it.

[dannno]

I have no problem with religious people, but I do think it is stupid that some people who are religious just don't want to see gay people get married. I mean, IF their religion is true and straight marriages are holy, then gay marriage only exist in the minds of of people and God doesn't recognize it. Isn't that the only thing that is important, that God doesn't recognize it? Who cares if man recognizes it, people sin. They can call it what they want, it is their first amendment right. What if some gay people believe that gay marriages are holy, but straight marriages are not? That's their religion, are you going to discriminate against it?

[donnay]

It was originally to prevent interracial marriages.

Yes that is true.

What happens now is when people apply for a marriage license the state sanctions the marriage. It becomes a virtual threesome--the state becomes the third party (silent partner) in your marriage. They will have say over your marriage, so to speak; the property your own to the children you have.:mad:

[dannno]

Just live your own life and be a good example for others.. You can teach people about what you believe but stop trying to force your beliefs on other people's lives....is the advice I have for authoritarian Christians (there are none like that here, of course ;))

[nate895]

They'll still have to recognize it because gay people have every right to make contracts with each other. Sorry.

What we shouldn't do is force churches to marry gay people.. that is the valid concern of religious people. Any religious person who doesn't want to recognize a contract between two men or two women..well, deal with it.

They have the right to make contracts, yes, and the courts have to recognize that for their own purposes. However, Christian business owners who don't believe in gay marriage, do not have to extend benefits to gay partners who are "married," nor do Christians have to say gays are "married." Since marriage is a covenant between God and the man and woman in my belief, it is simply impossible for them to be "married" according to my beliefs. That doesn't mean they can't call themselves "married" or not hold properties in the same manner as a married couple does.

[dannno]

They have the right to make contracts, yes, and the courts have to recognize that for their own purposes. However, Christian business owners who don't believe in gay marriage, do not have to extend benefits to gay partners who are "married," nor do Christians have to say gays are "married." Since marriage is a covenant between God and the man and woman in my belief, it is simply impossible for them to be "married" according to my beliefs. That doesn't mean they can't call themselves "married" or not hold properties in the same manner as a married couple does.

So if two men make a contract that if one of them gets sick, the other can come in for visits just like immediate family, and make certain medical decisions, etc.. and they go into a Christian Hospital, does the hospital have a right to not allow the other individual in as stated in the contract?? What if they aren't actually married, they aren't having sexual relations, they just happen to have a contract like that written up because they are good friends and have no immediate family left?

What other benefits might you be referring to?

[nate895]

So if two men make a contract that if one of them gets sick, the other can come in for visits just like immediate family, and make certain medical decisions, etc.. and they go into a Christian Hospital, does the hospital have a right to not allow the other individual in as stated in the contract?? What if they aren't actually married, they aren't having sexual relations, they just happen to have a contract like that written up because they are good friends and have no immediate family left?

What other benefits might you be referring to?

You can already do that without marriage licenses. You can even delegate that authority from your spouse if you have one. Because my parents are going through a divorce, my mom has delegated the authority to make medical decisions (which is a possibility because she received a kidney a year-and-a-half ago) to my grandmother instead of my dad.

You don't have to be married to visit people in the hospital, or even related.

[dannno]

Marriage in the eyes of God has to do with forming a family unit, sex and reproduction. Anything outside of that scope, in a contract, between two individuals, should not offend Christians.

[dannno]

You can already do that without marriage licenses. You can even delegate that authority from your spouse if you have one. Because my parents are going through a divorce, my mom has delegated the authority to make medical decisions (which is a possibility because she received a kidney a year-and-a-half ago) to my grandmother instead of my dad.

You don't have to be married to visit people in the hospital, or even related.

Ok, so what sort of services are you talking about?

I agree that wedding planners should not be forced to plan gay weddings. Chapels shouldn't be forced to perform gay marriages... great.. so once that is done, what is your concern? What are you forcing Christians to do?

[nate895]

Marriage in the eyes of God has to do with forming a family unit, sex and reproduction. Anything outside of that scope, in a contract, between two individuals, should not offend Christians.

In and of itself, the benefits of marriage as far as property and certain powers go does not offend me. However, the nature of their relationship offends me and therefore I should not have to recognize in any way that isn't necessary, such as extending employee benefits or calling them "married."

[nate895]

Ok, so what sort of services are you talking about?

I agree that wedding planners should not be forced to plan gay weddings. Chapels shouldn't be forced to perform gay marriages... great.. so once that is done, what is your concern? What are you forcing Christians to do?

Benefits of a job, if your company offers medical insurance for your employees and their families for example, you should be able to determine who is or isn't family.

[dannno]

In and of itself, the benefits of marriage as far as property and certain powers go does not offend me. However, the nature of their relationship offends me and therefore I should not have to recognize in any way that isn't necessary, such as extending employee benefits or calling them "married."

Why should you have to extend employee benefits to a straight couple?

If you are an employer, and you hire a gay person, and they make a lot of money for you, and you decide not to give them a raise they might leave.. whether that raise comes in the form of higher salary or extending benefits, etc.. but if you give them a higher salary, they might use it in place of extending benefits.

[dannno]

I dunno, if I were hardcore Christian and I had to call a gay couple "married" then I might say the word while recognizing that they only think they are married while knowing in the back of my head that God doesn't recognize it. That would be enough for me to not feel uncomfortable, calling their partnership a marriage wouldn't be that big of a deal.

[nate895]

Why should you have to extend employee benefits to a straight couple?

If you are an employer, and you hire a gay person, and they make a lot of money for you, and you decide not to give them a raise they might leave.. whether that raise comes in the form of higher salary or extending benefits, etc.. but if you give them a higher salary, they might use it in place of extending benefits.

You shouldn't have to extend benefits to anybody, but doing so brings in employees. If the gay person doesn't like working for someone who won't extend their partner benefits, they can leave. This is one of those instances where the "rational" free market runs into the wall of social morals. Without morals, rational people pick up money lying on the table and don't care, but moral people in real life will give it to the police or ask whose it is. Morals will stop pure market forces in too many situations to count.

[fisharmor]

Benefits of a job, if your company offers medical insurance for your employees and their families for example, you should be able to determine who is or isn't family.

Danno mostly pointed this out... but the only reason companies offer medical insurance is because it is tax deductible for the employee, per federal law. If it wasn't tax deductible, we would simply get the extra thousand bucks a month. Moreover, medical costs would plummet because we would be paying everything out of pocket and skinflints like me would take providers to task for the shenanigans they currently charge my insurance provider for.

That's all in The Revolution, as far as I remember... the point being that in a free society our employers would have zero, zip, zilch, nada to do with our health care... because it is irrational for a company to spend that much time and money on something their employees would, in the absence of the federal carrot/stick routine, be infinitely better positioned to figure out for themselves.

Plus, the insurance companies would pretty quickly divide into progressive companies catering to gay marriages, and those supporting traditional marriage only... and each would be an advertising point for each company. The most interesting thing to find out would be whether there would be a difference in premiums between gay and straight....


I dunno, if I were hardcore Christian and I had to call a gay couple "married" then I might say the word while recognizing that they only think they are married while knowing in the back of my head that God doesn't recognize it. That would be enough for me to not feel uncomfortable, calling their partnership a marriage wouldn't be that big of a deal.

I'm not sure what "hardcore" is but I probably qualify. The thing you need to realize is that within Christian communities, there is very little knowledge of what marriage actually is.

At bible studies I have taken people to task for spouting the sound bites about one man/ one woman, without getting any deeper. I belong to a denomination which drew sharp distinction between the role of the Church and the role of the state hundreds of years before the Constitution was codified, yet I can't find anyone - clergy included - who can reconcile Church/state separation (which, again, we believe in) with the gay "marriage" issue.

So given that they haven't gotten beyond sound bites, all that's left on that side is what they "feel". And mind you, I'm talking about the learned of the bunch, and in a denomination that would positively decry the notion of spreading Christianity by the sword.

In short, the nations' Christians generally know as much about marriage as a religious institution as the 2nd poster's "in heat" youngsters know about civil marriage. It's just a gigantic mess on all three sides of the issue, and we all know too well, that means it can only feed leviathan.

[dannno]

It's just a gigantic mess on all three sides of the issue, and we all know too well, that means it can only feed leviathan.

That's what I'm sayin, this issue is beyond ridiculous....I live in California where we had Prop 8 recently... I had openly gay friends who were fighting on one side, and my religious parents actually went out sign waiving for the other side. They had cars keyed in their church parking lot, while in other areas religious groups were spouting ridiculous "hate speech" against gay people. There was so much propaganda on both sides, I almost decided not to vote either way...but I knew that if they allowed gay marriage that the gay community would calm down and probably wouldn't really try to bring down the entire Christian community as was predicted by many Christians. My parents' church leaders literally told them they may have to practice their religion at home if Prop 8 did not pass because the church would be shut down by the gay community for not performing gay marriages.

[Krugerrand]

but I knew that if they allowed gay marriage that the gay community would calm down and probably wouldn't really try to bring down the entire Christian community as was predicted by many Christians.

I think you give too much credit to the political wing of the gay community. Was it not your state that forced eharmony to extend its private dating service to gay couples?

Of course, gay adoption is a big issue. Is there a right to adoption (by anybody)? Is there a right to not be adopted on the part of the child?

What about the public education system? Are we going to force the public education system to wash itself clean of any reference to a husband and wife? Sex education.... are we going to teach the how-to's of gay sex?

I don't see gay marriage as an issue of "don't interfere in our personal lives." This is most definitely a "we are going to push our lifestyle on you and your children. To that end, my sympathy lies with those that don't want the gay lifestyle shoved down their children's throats.

[heavenlyboy34]

It's natural that the government is involved in marriage.

Marriage is a financial contract between two people. Enforcing contracts is a legitimate role of the government.

I never understand what archists mean when they say "the state should have nothing to do with marriage"

Enforcing contracts is a legitimate role of private legal firms who specialize in that-or the church, if the married parties wish that. The notion that the State is to enforce contracts is a foolish, Statist idea contrived by power hungry misanthropes. :p

[heavenlyboy34]

I think you give too much credit to the political wing of the gay community. Was it not your state that forced eharmony to extend its private dating service to gay couples?

Of course, gay adoption is a big issue. Is there a right to adoption (by anybody)? Is there a right to not be adopted on the part of the child?

What about the public education system? Are we going to force the public education system to wash itself clean of any reference to a husband and wife? Sex education.... are we going to teach the how-to's of gay sex?

I don't see gay marriage as an issue of "don't interfere in our personal lives." This is most definitely a "we are going to push our lifestyle on you and your children. To that end, my sympathy lies with those that don't want the gay lifestyle shoved down their children's throats.

The bolded questions are covered by the 10th amendment, IMHO. :cool:

[Reason]

./bump for more sources on the issue of how govt got involved in marriage

[brandon]

Enforcing contracts is a legitimate role of private legal firms who specialize in that-or the church, if the married parties wish that. The notion that the State is to enforce contracts is a foolish, Statist idea contrived by power hungry misanthropes. :p

Notice my use of the word "archist." :D

[asimplegirl]

Or you can just do as we did, and make your own contract, and keep the state out.

[donnay]

Or you can just do as we did, and make your own contract, and keep the state out.

More sage advice. :)

[asimplegirl]

I like sage. :P

[heavenlyboy34]

Notice my use of the word "archist." :D
aha! You're right!:) Sorry, I've been having some difficulty reading posts lately due to seasonal allergies that irritate my eyes.:(:p Perhaps I need an RPF break till I get better.:eek::(

[andrewh817]

I would write my opinion but this guy says it better!! Doug Stanhope is the shit

YouTube - Doug Stanhope - Marriage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXpsT3e8UsM)

[ryanduff]

Marriage is a financial contract between two people. Enforcing contracts is a legitimate role of the government.

Local government... when did we give this power to the federal government. Oh right, when they instituted the federal income tax and gave breaks to those married over those unmarried.

Why do you think gay marriage is such a big deal? They want the same tax breaks and benefits that other people get from marriage. If the federal government didn't have their hand in the cookie jar, there would be no real issue because we wouldn't be giving preferential benefits to one group over another.

[LibForestPaul]

Benefits of a job, if your company offers medical insurance for your employees and their families for example, you should be able to determine who is or isn't family.

So, if I believe blacks and whites should not marry...that it blasphemes my beliefs...I, as an employer, should not be required to recognize the contract between two individuals?


Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in many more aspects of the employment relationship. It applies to most employers engaged in interstate commerce with more than 15 employees, labor organizations, and employment agencies. Title VII prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. It makes it illegal for employers to discriminate based upon protected characteristics regarding terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.

Though again, the interstate commerce clause rears its head.

So, property rights, business, multiple contract rights, employer employee, spouse spouse,...hmmm? Any thoughts?

This also brings up providing birth control or fertility treatment for certain religious businesses...

Well, at least I see the resistance to gay marriage. Religious groups fear more stripping of their inherent liberties... Even though the issue is really not gay marriage.