News No fault divorce, the biggest idiocy of all times ?

[DaveC426913]

Why would you support somebody which ain't part of your life anymore ? It does not make any sense whatsoever to be forced to support another human being welfare against your will.

Why are you looking at it from only one side?

The last thing you need is an ex-spouse to draw you to the bottom by pretending a part of your income.

I cannot imagine why you think alimony is for the benefit of the one with the income.

 

[DanP]

Why are you looking at it from only one side?

Because even if I look at this issue from the other side, for example in the fantasy situation I would be given alimony, the only thing I feel is a cold shiver along my spine. I can't imagine why anyone would force my ex-spouse to keep me feed.

I cannot imagine why you think alimony is for the beneift of the one with the income.

I don't know how you got this idea, because this is not why I say. It certainly doesn't benefit me to support an ex-spouse.

 

[DaveC426913]

Because even if I look at this issue from the other side, for example in the fantasy situation I would be given alimony, the only thing I feel is a cold shiver along my spine. I can't imagine why anyone would force my ex-spouse to keep me feed.

Why aren't you able to imagine it from a point of view that's not yours? A wife stays home to look after house, the property the client parties, the food, the everytngi else, while the husband brings home the bacon. This is a mutally beneficial partnership, with division of responsibilities, that they both agreed to and it worked for them to build a life together.

Twenty years later, for whatever reason, they divorce. She has given up the best years of her life and will have to get a job starting from scratch. She is entitled something from his earning potential, since she had a hand in getting him where he is.

It certainly doesn't benefit me to support an ex-spouse.

Of course it doesn't. It's not meant to.

But you keep talking about how it would be bad for the supporter; I don't hear you saying anything about the supportee.

"Why would you support somebody which ain't part of your life anymore ?"
" forced to support another human being welfare against your will."
"The last thing you need is an ex-spouse to draw you to the bottom..."


It is for the benefit of the supportee because you made a promise to a life together, and (she) comported her life accordingly. She helped you get where you are by foregoing a promising career in favour of looking after you and your house and everything else so you could concentrate on your salary. Come the divorce, she is entitled it part of the benefits of your impressive salary.

 

[DanP]

Why aren't you able to imagine it from a point of view that's not yours? A wife stays home to look after house, the property the client parties, the food, the everytngi else, while the husband brings home the bacon. This is a mutally beneficial partnership, with division of responsibilities, that they both agreed to and it worked for them to build a life together.

If it's agreed before, then it should be put in a prenuptial. Like, you get X amount of currency for each year spent with me. The family laws shouldn't not generalize any kind of wealth division and ex-spouse support. The law should provide no provisions for those altogether, IMO.

It is for the benefit of the supportee because you made a promise to a life together ...

I believe this is a view of the marriage which doesn't work very well in today society. As I said, nowadays a marriage is a coin toss. Head or Tails. The promise of a life together doesn't hold much water in practice nowadays.

and (he )(she) comported her life accordingly.

To be determined on a case by case basis.

She helped you get where you are by foregoing a promising career in favour of looking after you and your house and everything else so you could concentrate on your salary. Come the divorce, she is entitled it part of the benefits of your impressive salary.

Like Jesse and Sandra ? Sandra is a self made women. I hear (dont know if its true) she doesn't have a prenuptial. So now Jesse gets to get support in the case of a divorce and a share of her earnings during those 5 years of marriage ? Go justice !

Most of man and women are really self made. I really don't see how a spouse would help my career staying at home , washing my underwear and cooking for me. Somehow so far I managed to do those things alone. If she should dedicate her time to raise our children so she can spend all time with them, then yes, that's another story.

There are exceptions to this, but in most of those cases both spouses has rock solid contracts and shares in the enterprises they built together.

 

[Char. Limit]

Why aren't you able to imagine it from a point of view that's not yours? A wife stays home to look after house, the property the client parties, the food, the everytngi else, while the husband brings home the bacon. This is a mutally beneficial partnership, with division of responsibilities, that they both agreed to and it worked for them to build a life together.

Twenty years later, for whatever reason, they divorce. She has given up the best years of her life and will have to get a job starting from scratch. She is entitled something from his earning potential, since she had a hand in getting him where he is.



Of course it doesn't. It's not meant to.

But you keep talking about how it would be bad for the supporter; I don't hear you saying anything about the supportee.

"Why would you support somebody which ain't part of your life anymore ?"
" forced to support another human being welfare against your will."
"The last thing you need is an ex-spouse to draw you to the bottom..."


It is for the benefit of the supportee because you made a promise to a life together, and (she) comported her life accordingly. She helped you get where you are by foregoing a promising career in favour of looking after you and your house and everything else so you could concentrate on your salary. Come the divorce, she is entitled it part of the benefits of your impressive salary.

I find it odd that you seem to assume that only women would get alimony, Dave. Especially considering that the original post was about a man leeching alimony from his wife.

Also, Jesse getting alimony is bullcrap. I have absolutely no pity for any celebrity asking for alimony, because they can obviously take care of themselves. After all, celebrities are almost never poor. And if they are, it's because they blew all of their cash.

And why would any wife give up her job anyway? That's her future, because considering the divorce rate in America, her man sure isn't.

Ditto for men, the idea of being a stay-at-home mom or dad is just plain loony if you consider the facts. Like the divorce rate. That's a fact, and is one of the reasons why I might refuse to marry someone who would give up their job for me.

 

[DaveC426913]

To be determined on a case by case basis.

Thannng qew. That's all I needed to hear. You grant that it is not unilateral.

If it's agreed before, then it should be put in a prenuptial. Like, you get X amount of currency for each year spent with me. The family laws shouldn't not generalize any kind of wealth division and ex-spouse support. The law should provide no provisions for those altogether, IMO.

I believe this is a view of the marriage which doesn't work very well in today society. As I said, nowadays a marriage is a coin toss. Head or Tails. The promise of a life together doesn't hold much water in practice nowadays.

...and you believe that it should have to be this way? Whether the couple want it or not? You believe that everyone ought to believe
the same thing you believe?

 

[DaveC426913]

I find it odd that you seem to assume that only women would get alimony, Dave.

I'm not assuming anything. It is simply that "He or she" is difficult to write/read everytime.

 

[Char. Limit]

I'm not assuming anything. It is simply that "He or she" is difficult to write/read everytime.

Usually when I have to write something cumbersome many times, I use the copy-paste keys. It makes it so much easier.

Just a tip.

 

[DanP]

Thannng qew. That's all I needed to hear. You grant that it is not unilateral.

You are welcome, but I was only referring to the fact that you assumed faithfulness in any marriage.

...and you believe that it should have to be this way? Whether the couple want it or not? You believe that everyone ought to believe
the same thing you believe?

Of course not. Everybody is entitled to his way to see life. This is why politics exist. So we can impose our ideas and our ways to be on others who don't agree with us.
And yes, this is how it should be. This way no one would be entitled after 5 years of marriage to the wealth produced unilaterally by the other spouse. This is how a normal world should work. But yeah, everybody would be done a great favor if we have the family laws changed drastically. Give it time. In my opinion we will get there. The "for life, in good and evil" view of marriage is deprecating everyday right before our eyes. Laws will follow sooner or later.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

If it's agreed before, then it should be put in a prenuptial. Like, you get X amount of currency for each year spent with me. The family laws shouldn't not generalize any kind of wealth division and ex-spouse support. The law should provide no provisions for those altogether, IMO.

No. Any contract requires a certain level of assumed obligation and duty, regardless of any added specifications, otherwise the contract may as well have never existed. In a No Fault divorce any argument that one spouse or the other did not live up to their responsibilities and obligations as party to the contract are given up. So all obligations, as assumed by contract, are considered to be in force.

I believe this is a view of the marriage which doesn't work very well in today society. As I said, nowadays a marriage is a coin toss. Head or Tails. The promise of a life together doesn't hold much water in practice nowadays.

Then you are no longer talking about marriage since marriage, by definition, is a life long contract. If you have issues with a life long contract then do not enter into one. You can not simply up and walk away from a contract and there by erase all obligation to the other party. Again, with such an interpretation, there may as well have never been a contract in the first place.

To be determined on a case by case basis.

That would be an At Fault divorce. In No Fault there is no determination of whether or not either spouse lived up to expectations.

 

[DanP]

Then you are no longer talking about marriage since marriage, by definition, is a life long contract. If you have issues with a life long contract then do not enter into one. You can not simply up and walk away from a contract and there by erase all obligation to the other party. Again, with such an interpretation, there may as well have never been a contract in the first place.

By this logic, we finished talking about marriage several centuries ago then. The moment when divorce was wrestled from religious authority to the civil authority where it belongs.

Marriage is not a life long contract. Not anymore. The sate does recognize divorce. And this is all it needs to be said regarding your point on marriage as lifelong contract.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

By this logic, we finished talking about marriage several centuries ago then. The moment when divorce was wrestled from religious authority to the civil authority where it belongs.

Marriage is not a life long contract. Not anymore. The sate does recognize divorce. And this is all it needs to be said regarding your point on marriage as lifelong contract.

Of course marriage is still a life long contract. Just because you are legally allowed to break it or dissolve it does not change that the contract unbroken will be in effect for the rest of your life with no need of renewal and no expiration other than the death of one of the parties.

I can enter a two year contract with my phone company and then break from contract after a year if I so choose. That does not mean that it was not a two year contract and that I have no further obligation to the party whom I was in contract with. The fact that many people break from contracts with their phone companies does not change the fact this was a two year contract either.

 

[DanP]

Of course marriage is still a life long contract. Just because you are legally allowed to break it or dissolve it does not change that the contract unbroken will be in effect for the rest of your life with no need of renewal and no expiration other than the death of one of the parties.

If you refer to this particular legal aspect, it's called undetermined length contract, not life long contract. The wording is important. A "life long" contract is a determined length contract, for the life spawn of the parts. It was a life long contract when the church was prohibiting the divorce.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

If you refer to this particular legal aspect, it's called undetermined length contract, not life long contract. The wording is important. A "life long" contract is a determined length contract, for the life spawn of the parts. It was a life long contract when the church was prohibiting the divorce.

That a contract can be broken or dissolved does not mean that it is of an undetermined length. As I noted there are obviously contracts of determined length that one can back out of before the expiry.

 

[DanP]

That a contract can be broken or dissolved does not mean that it is of an undetermined length.

It is not the fact that it can be broken or dissolved which gives this particular aspect. It is whatever the contract is determined in time or not.

 

[Evo]

Surprisingly, a legal marriage is not legally a contract. It's one of those weird situations in that you don't know what you can legally be held responsible for until you try to dissolve it.

What is a marriage contract?

A marriage contract is a legal agreement, very much like any other type of contract. It’s a written document between two people. It can be between two people who are already married, or two people who are planning to marry (called a “pre-nuptial agreement”) to take effect on the date of their marriage. A marriage contract identifies who you are and usually makes some statement about the purpose of the agreement. Then it sets out a series of promises that you each make to the other.

http://www.cba.org/bc/public_media/family/162.aspx

 

[DanP]

Surprisingly, a legal marriage is not legally a contract. It's one of those weird situations in that you don't know what you can legally be held responsible for until you try to dissolve it.



http://www.cba.org/bc/public_media/family/162.aspx

This is a great point. Interesting enough, it produces a lot of legal effects though.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It is not the fact that it can be broken or dissolved which gives this particular aspect. It is whatever the contract is determined in time or not.

I am unaware of any definition of marriage that does not at least imply a life long commitment. People generally do not marry as a temporary state of affairs and usually marriages that are for temporary purposes (ie, gaining citizenship) are not considered legal.

Surprisingly, a legal marriage is not legally a contract. It's one of those weird situations in that you don't know what you can legally be held responsible for until you try to dissolve it.



http://www.cba.org/bc/public_media/family/162.aspx

http://definitions.uslegal.com/m/marriage/
Perhaps they have oddly worded definitions in TX. As far as I understand a contract is any agreement between two parties, either express or implied, which meets certain criteria.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/contract-law/
Perhaps TX treats the contract as implicit and terms "marriage" as any so-called union legally recognized and binding or not.
I only mention TX since you seem to reference experience and I assume you were divorced in TX?
Note that I am only

 

[DanP]

I am unaware of any definition of marriage that does not at least imply a life long commitment. People generally do not marry as a temporary state of affairs and usually marriages that are for temporary purposes (ie, gaining citizenship) are not considered legal.

The problem is that this idealized model in inherited from the times when the church enforced a true "life long" marriage.

Such Definitions are getting obsolete nowadays. The practical reality of the world doesn't give a dime of wording implying life long marriages. The fact is almost half of the marriages are doomed and end up in divorce or legal separation. 10-20 years ago you could not talk about marriage between 2 same sex persons. You would have been called insane to imply that 2 same sex persons can get married. The church still goes insane when it hears such things. Yet the society changed this, and rightly so, in many places of the world. Today we allow gay persons to get married. It becomes a more and more widespread fact. Wordings are to be changed with social pressure.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The problem is that this idealized model in inherited from the times when the church enforced a true "life long" marriage.

Such Definitions are getting obsolete nowadays. The practical reality of the world doesn't give a dime of wording implying life long marriages. The fact is almost half of the marriages are doomed and end up in divorce or legal separation.


10-20 years ago you could not talk about marriage between 2 same sex persons. You would have been called insane to imply that 2 same sex persons can get married. The church still goes insane when it hears such things. Yet the society changed this, and rightly so, in many places of the world. Today we allow gay persons to get married. It becomes a more and more widespread fact. Wordings are to be changed with social pressure.

Regardless, when two people get married they typically do so with the understanding that it is a life long commitment. That it is statistically unlikely to be so is irrelevant. It is not legal to enter into a contract with express or implicit terms and then turn around and say "You didn't really Believe that, did you?"

 

[DanP]

It is not legal to enter into a contract with express or implicit terms and then turn around and say "You didn't really Believe that, did you?"

But it is very legal to use legal means to get out of a marriage. Such as divorce.

Easy(er) divorce exists because some enlighted minds recognized the futility of calling marriages "for life". As I said, close to half of contracted marriages are failing. This is the reality. The "till death do us part" is obsoleted by reality. Already.

One has to realize that the wordings from matrimony vaults are not interpreted literally by family law. Else you would not be permitted any form of divorce.

 

[mheslep]

Sorry, I don't buy the religious part. Marriage it's a civil contract.

Not if one gets married in a church. Then it is both civil and religious.

 

[DanP]

Not if one gets married in a church. Then it is both civil and religious.

Really ? The law couldn't care less if you get married in a church , or in a god forgotten Vegas brothel with an Elvis lookalike as your "priest", or that you decide to marry another same sex person. The civil effects produced by the marriage are the only one important. If you marry in a church, the priest is legally empowered by the state to marry ppl. He can't doit on the basis on his religious authority alone. And that's the key. The priest's authority to marry ppl flow from the state, and not from the church. Priests are still allowed to marry ppl in the virtue of their historical role in this affair.

I couldn't care less what religious persons are thinking about what marriage should be. I hope that the current of liberalism in marriage (like same sex marriage) will once and forever crush the remnant religious opposition and church involvement in marriage (and generally, in civil society, the church is a burden).

 

[mheslep]

Really ? The law couldn't care less if you get married in a church , or in a god forgotten Vegas brothel with an Elvis lookalike as your "priest", or that you decide to marry another same sex person. The civil effects produced by the marriage are the only one important. If you marry in a church, the priest is legally empowered by the state to marry ppl. He can't doit on the basis on his religious authority alone. And that's the key. The priest's authority to marry ppl flow from the state, and not from the church. Priests are still allowed to marry ppl in the virtue of their historical role in this affair.

I couldn't care less what religious persons are thinking about what marriage should be. I hope that the current of liberalism in marriage (like same sex marriage) will once and forever crush the remnant religious opposition and church involvement in marriage (and generally, in civil society, the church is a burden).

Interestingly, I think I'd take the opposite view in every single sentence above. Ministers and priests need no authority whatsoever from the state to bestow the blessing of marriage on a couple; as it happens they wear another legal hat that is granted by the state. In my view the government should have absolutely nothing to do with marriage. I say resign the government to issuing civil union contracts for tax purposes perhaps and nothing more, and then the entire issue of same sex 'marriage' would vanish at a stroke. And generally speaking government involvement in society is a burden, as the US founders recognized. Unfortunately we need some government to live together, but it should be kept to a minimum as it is a dangerous construction.

 

[DanP]

Interestingly, I think I'd take the opposite view in every single sentence above. Ministers and priests need no authority whatsoever from the state to bestow the blessing of marriage on a couple; as it happens they wear another legal hat that is granted by the state. In my view the government should have absolutely nothing to do with marriage.

In practice, nowadays, you are not considered married without being married by someone who is empowered by the sate to marry ppl. The "power" of the church is symbolic and vestigial.

And yes, ministers and priests need a central authority, from the state in this case. There are tenths of cults in a country so big like USA. What, you will forbid two ppl of different faiths to get married ? The church does. Fortunately, the state overrides the church.

I say resign the government to issuing civil union contracts for tax purposes perhaps and nothing more, and then the entire issue of same sex 'marriage' would vanish at a stroke.

This is why governments needs to exist. To enforce protection of a minority, the gay minority in this case, from the persecution of the church.

Yes, the church would vanish the same sex marriage in a instant. The church is conservative, limited, old, with no imagination and full of discriminative practices against women, other confessions and some minorities.

In a civilized world, the church will be stripped of any power whatsoever. It's influence in governments must be shattered. (creationist propaganda, discrimination lobby, and so on ). It must exist only as a option for religious humans to exercise their right to their beleifs.

And generally speaking government involvement in society is a burden, as the US founders recognized. Unfortunately we need some government to live together, but it should be kept to a minimum as it is a dangerous construction.

A necessary evil. But between church and governments, I choose the big brother.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Really ? The law couldn't care less if you get married in a church , or in a god forgotten Vegas brothel with an Elvis lookalike as your "priest", or that you decide to marry another same sex person.

I don't see how this is related to what mheslep said. Sure, the law doesn't care. It's a civil contract, as both you and mheslep say. But mheslep says that under certain situations, it's a religious contract as well as a civil contract. You appear to deny this. And just as the law doesn't care whether the marriage is officiated by a priest or a judge, on presumes that a religion doesn't care that the priest has state authority.

Actually, I don't see why you'd be bothered by mheslep's statement. If religion means nothing to you, then wouldn't "a civil and religious" contract mean precisely as much to you as a civil contract?

Say I don't accept the statehood of the micronation of Avram. Wouldn't I consider a marriage recognized by Australia and Avram to be precisely the same as one recognized by Australia?

 

[DaveC426913]

Yes, the church would vanish the same sex marriage in a instant. The church is conservative, limited, old, with no imagination and full of discriminative practices against women, other confessions and some minorities.

In a civilized world, the church will be stripped of any power whatsoever. It's influence in governments must be shattered. (creationist propaganda, discrimination lobby, and so on ). It must exist only as a option for religious humans to exercise their right to their beleifs.

This is just bashing.

 

[DanP]

This is just bashing.

No, its a political stance. It is my view of the church.

 

[DanP]

I don't see how this is related to what mheslep said. Sure, the law doesn't care. It's a civil contract, as both you and mheslep say. But mheslep says that under certain situations, it's a religious contract as well as a civil contract.

Yeah, for religious humans. However, the state does not recognize the religious contract.
The marriage formalities are only recognized when are executed in concordance with family laws.

 

[Evo]

I don't see how this is related to what mheslep said. Sure, the law doesn't care. It's a civil contract, as both you and mheslep say. But mheslep says that under certain situations, it's a religious contract as well as a civil contract. You appear to deny this. And just as the law doesn't care whether the marriage is officiated by a priest or a judge, on presumes that a religion doesn't care that the priest has state authority.

Actually, the marriage is not legal until the religious officiator files the legal paperwork with the proper legal jurisdiction, usually the county clerk's office and is signed by the local judge/justice of the peace, etc... The priest/pastor is only authorized to prepare and file the legal paperwork on behalf of the couple. A religious marriage is just a ceremony, it is not itself legally recognized.

 

[DanP]

Actually, the marriage is not legal until the religious officiator files the legal paperwork with the proper legal jurisdiction, usually the county clerk's office and is signed by the local judge/justice of the peace, etc... The priest/pastor is only authorized to prepare and file the legal paperwork for the couple. A religious marriage is just a ceremony, it is not itself legally recognized.

Yeah, this is exactly what I am saying.

 

[DaveC426913]

Actually, the marriage is not legal until the religious officiator files the legal paperwork with the proper legal jurisdiction, usually the county clerk's office and is signed by the local judge/justice of the peace, etc... The priest/pastor is only authorized to prepare and file the legal paperwork for the couple. A religious marriage is just a ceremony, it is not itself legally recognized.

I can personally attest to this. Our papers did not get filed, and sat in the trunk of our pastor's car for who knows how long. There is a non-zero chance that my wife and I are not legally married these past 18 years.

 

[CRGreathouse]

This is just bashing.

No, its a political stance.

1. DaveC: "X is bashing."
2. DanP: "No, X is a political stance."

Why would #2 preclude #1? You're just talking past each other.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Yeah, for religious humans. However, the state does not recognize the religious contract.
The marriage formalities are only recognized when are executed in concordance with family laws.

Actually, the marriage is not legal until the religious officiator files the legal paperwork with the proper legal jurisdiction, usually the county clerk's office and is signed by the local judge/justice of the peace, etc... The priest/pastor is only authorized to prepare and file the legal paperwork on behalf of the couple. A religious marriage is just a ceremony, it is not itself legally recognized.

I don't see how either of these speaks to my statement. A religious ceremony has no civil standing. Civil proceedings have no religious standing.

 

[DanP]

1. DaveC: "X is bashing."
2. DanP: "No, X is a political stance."

Why would #2 preclude #1? You're just talking past each other.

Because you open a whole can of worms otherwise. Next a republican will say something against Obama, Ill say is bashing. Ill say something liberal, they'll say is bashing.

We are all biased towards our political views. So its better to leave it at the level of difference in opinion on a forum.

 

[DanP]

I don't see how either of these speaks to my statement. A religious ceremony has no civil standing. Civil proceedings have no religious standing.

Because the courts of law , family law, civil law, juridical effects of marriage will not recognize the religious standing. You are not married through religious ceremony in the eyes of society at large.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Because the courts of law , family law, civil law, juridical effects of marriage will not recognize the religious standing. You are not married through religious ceremony in the eyes of society at large.

Yes. That's as it should be; is anyone disagreeing with that?

Similarly, a church would presumably not recognize civil marriages. I don't think you or anyone else would say that they should be forced to recognize them.

Remember, the statement you're disgareeing with is mheslep's "Not if one gets married in a church. Then it is both civil and religious.".

 

[CRGreathouse]

Because you open a whole can of worms otherwise. Next a republican will say something against Obama, Ill say is bashing. Ill say something liberal, they'll say is bashing.

Aren't many political threads closed because they degenerate into bashing?

(Notice, I have taken no issue with your thread -- only with your apparent claim that expressing a political opinion means you are not bashing.)

 

[DaveC426913]

Next a republican will say something against Obama, Ill say is bashing. Ill say something liberal, they'll say is bashing.

Bashing is when you're not offering an arguable case, you're just venting personal, emotional and highly negative feelings about something. It adds nothing to the discussion and is not constructive to the discussion in any way.

And we're not in a political open floor in public here. We're in a private forum, for the purposes of discussion.

Because you open a whole can of worms otherwise.

Yeah, I'll bet you don't want anyone else holding that can of worms but you. You wanted to get your bashing out there under the guise of "political view" without being called on it being just bashing.

 

[DanP]

Remember, the statement you're disgareeing with is mheslep's "Not if one gets married in a church. Then it is both civil and religious.".

Perhaps in your eyes, or in the eyes of a member of your particular cult. You can't really expect someone who doesn't believe in church/religion to recognize a religious aspect.

 

[DanP]

Bashing is when you're not offering an arguable case, you're just venting personal, emotional and highly negative feelings about something. It adds nothing to the discussion and is not constructive to the discusion in any way.

You are jut going emotional yourself here and vent your feelings.

 

[DanP]

Yeah, I'll bet you don't want anyone else holding that can of worms but you. You wanted to get your bashing out there under the guise of "political view" without being called on it being just bashing.

Sorry mate. You are beating a dead horse. Learn to accept others ppl political views of the church.

I would also ask you to refrain from venting your biased views on my behavior, and stop your wild suppositions that I want to get my bashing under a political disguise. Keep it out of personal level. Dont fantasize about what I believe and what I want.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Perhaps in your eyes, or in the eyes of a member of your particular cult. You can't really expect someone who doesn't believe in church/religion to recognize a religious aspect.

I'm sorry, I don't follow. (This is probably not your fault -- I'm bad at interpreting people's intentions.)

I read your post as saying: "Perhaps in [CRGreathouse's] eyes," my statement is true -- but that a reasonable person would think otherwise. That is, my statement would not be accepted by a reasonable person.

But my statement was that the statement with which you take issue is mheslep's statement, "Not if one gets married in a church. Then it is both civil and religious.". This seems a relatively non-controversial point.

You continue by saying, "You can't really expect someone who doesn't believe in church/religion to recognize a religious aspect.". But I don't see how this is relevant to anything I wrote. (Since you quoted only me, I assume that is was intended to refer to my words.)

So please, for my benefit, clarify this post.

 

[CRGreathouse]

the church

Which?

 

[DanP]

I'm sorry, I don't follow. (This is probably not your fault -- I'm bad at interpreting people's intentions.)


So please, for my benefit, clarify this post.

Ok, let me try to clarify:

One gets married in church. Then he claims that his marriage is religious and civil. Nothing wrong with this, except for the fact that the "religious" part is subjective. It holds true for him,
and for members of his cult. Other cults may deny that his religious marriage holds any water, because it wasnt done in accordance with their religious customs. Atheists will surely deny any religious aspect whatsoever. So the meaning of religious marriage is highly subjective and relative. Not so with civil marriage, recognize by the state. No cult or atheist will be able to dispute the legal standing of the marriage

 

[CRGreathouse]

One gets married in church. Then he claims that his marriage is religious and civil. Nothing wrong with this, except for the fact that the "religious" part is subjective. It holds true for him,
and for members of his cult.

Right. So (if I understand correctly) you're saying that I should say, not that is is civil and religious, but that it is civil and religious[R] for some religion R. I accept that -- I'm not saying that a Shinto marriage is the same as an Eastern Orthodox marriage.

Atheists will surely deny any religious aspect whatsoever.

I don't think we have a disagreement here. If a person denies R, then it's clear that a civil and religious[R] marriage would mean no more (and, presumably, no less) than a civil marriage. Atheists deny R for all religions R, so they would feel this regardless of the particular religion.

Not so with civil marriage, recognize by the state. No cult or atheist will be able to dispute the legal standing of the marriage

This is where you seem to be misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that a Shinto follower would deny that a civil marriage has legal standing, just that it need not be a valid Shinto marriage. For some reason, perhaps because the word "marriage" is the same in both cases, you seem to conflate the two.

 

[DanP]

This is where you seem to be misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that a Shinto follower would deny that a civil marriage has legal standing, just that it need not be a valid Shinto marriage. For some reason, perhaps because the word "marriage" is the same in both cases, you seem to conflate the two.

I see your point now. Thanks for explaining. You are right.

 

[mheslep]

Actually, the marriage is not legal until the religious officiator files the legal paperwork with the proper legal jurisdiction, usually the county clerk's office and is signed by the local judge/justice of the peace, etc... The priest/pastor is only authorized to prepare and file the legal paperwork on behalf of the couple. A religious marriage is just a ceremony, it is not itself legally recognized.

Yes, though I'd juxatapose your choice of emphasis and say the legal aspect - marriage certificate and so on - is 'just' paperwork, and that the marriage ceremony is all important. To trivialize or otherwise take the marriage ceremony lightly is a large mistake in my view, if one wants to start a marriage on the right track.

 

[DanP]

Yes, though I'd juxatapose your choice of emphasis and say the legal aspect - marriage certificate and so on - is 'just' paperwork, and that the marriage ceremony is all important. To trivialize or otherwise take the marriage ceremony lightly is a large mistake in my view, if one wants to start a marriage on the right track.

Why ? It's just a "ceremony". It doesn't enable a couple to get along, or otherwise stay on the right track. I am willing to bet that a significant percent of the failed marriages where ones where this religious ceremony was present. Surely it was present in the case of some of my friends, and it didn't saved their marriages.

 

[turbo]

Why ? It's just a "ceremony". It doesn't enable a couple to get along, or otherwise stay on the right track. I am willing to bet that a significant percent of the failed marriages where ones where this religious ceremony was present. Surely it was present in the case of some of my friends, and it didn't saved their marriages.

So true. Most of my schoolmates were married in religious ceremonies, and many of them are on their 2nd or 3rd marriages. My wife and I were married in a civil "ceremony" involving a JP (she was a friend of both of us), my best friend, and my wife's best friend as witnesses. We were married in our apartment, dressed casually, and celebrated with a bottle of inexpensive champagne. No religion involved, yet we're still going strong 35+ years later. Religious trappings may make some people happy, but it doesn't seem to do anything to help with the mutual respect, fidelity, and commitment that a real marriage requires.