Header Ads


migrating a post...

It has been awhile....
THURSDAY, 8. JANUARY 2009, 00:30:55 (original posting)

Thought I'd post something controversial for once. it's an open dialogue of course....

--The marriage license as we know it (In the United States) 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."--

It is not a question about the definition of marriage, it is one of contracts. Push come to shove, remove sexual preference from it, and it is a completely different argument at all facets. I understand that I may have a different perspective and might even disagree with another point of view, but we can discuss points to try to gain a better view of all things.

For most of Western history, marriage was a private contract between two families (contract law). It comes down to contract law and the basis of marriage contracts (who goes that deep in the argument though). The original reason for a marriage license stems back to several reasons including but not limited to: legally marry another's property, to deter inter racial mixing (gotta love america sometimes) and the 'highly popular' -- civil law view, the marriage is
considered to be a for-profit venture or profit-making venture. This is the way the US has interpreted and viewed marriage and it has persisted until today.

The real question is if two persons enter into a contract: what level and by what parties and/or establishments must acknowledge it (contract) as a binding and legal agreement and tender associated rights and obligations. (note: A contract must be entered into knowingly, intelligently, intentionally, and with fully informed consent. Otherwise, technically there is no contract.) If the institution is not part of the contract along with the two (or more I suppose) entering parties, it negates the argument at large and I believe it is why these persons still argue on the marriage front (it’s an easier argument and it provides easier access to emotional fights and publicity).

However, the state views it just the opposite of these tenets. In fact let me paint a clearer picture!!!

--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. 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.

Further, 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". What's meant by the relationship to God being a "dotted line" means that the State regards any mention of God as irrelevant, even meaningless. In the traditional religious context, marriage is surmised as 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 (example Arizona, Community Property State) 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, connected to each other by another "dotted line." The picture or image trying to be "painted" is 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.

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. --

So what is all the hullabaloo about anyway?

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."

I don't know where this is going but it was stemmed by my happening accross this site : Click here for link to referenced material where I did copy and paste and modify some of the information from (tring to get better at siting resources and laying true credit where it is due).

I intend to read "Principles of Community Property," by William Defuniak and am beginning to be stirred again by topics such as these. I do not know if I am wanting to be engaged merely in discussion or laboring for a cause. The future will tell all I suppose. Just this point of view stirred up some pretty interesting questions and given a few peoples viewpoints I know on this discussion, it seems relevant as both an ascertation of false assumptions on many's parts to the history, pretense and governing factors where contract and property law is concerned as it pertains to the equal rights and marriage discussion.

I'm sure this review may piss some off, assuage others, and possibly confuse others. I felt it interesting to share in my little corner of unknown blogtopia....

Cheers and goodnight....

No comments:

Powered by Blogger.