About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Wednesday, June 10, 2009 - 6:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This debate is easy for me. I don't belong to a church, so I don't plan on getting married. I am not a homosexual but if I were I would have no problems with a common-law marriage or civil union.

my kind of humor btw haha

(Edited by Patrick J Hubbard on 6/10, 6:49am)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Wednesday, June 10, 2009 - 6:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Common law marriage exists when a man and a woman who have not formally married cohabitate and produce offspring.

When two men or two women cohabitate, the formal term for that situation is called "roommates." Unless they produce offspring, and then it is called a "miracle."


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Wednesday, June 10, 2009 - 8:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yes, a homosexual man is not forbidden to marry a woman, and a lesbian is not forbidden to marry a man.  But I'd go further than that:  It is not forbidden for two homosexual men to marry one another.  Same for two lesbians.  There is no law in any state that declares it a crime. 

When the pro-gay marriage movement frames the discussion in terms of "legalizing" gay marriage, it conveys the sense that it is illegal, which it is not.

The only issue is whether or not the state will recognize such a union.  I think personal relationships should remain just that...personal...but if the state insists on treated couples differently than individuals, then the way to do this is for the government to get out of the marriage business altogether, and allow civil unions to be the sole contract between partners, whether they're gay, straight, or platonic.

http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Eric/Something_Old,_Something_New.shtml

(Edited by Eric Rockwell on 6/10, 9:44am)


Post 3

Wednesday, June 10, 2009 - 8:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ah, thanks for the correction. I thought it occured if a couple lives together for a said number of years

Post 4

Wednesday, June 10, 2009 - 9:22amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
He errs, you are right, Patrick - it is, at least here in Florida... kids are just an added...
(Edited by robert malcom on 6/10, 9:23am)


Post 5

Wednesday, June 10, 2009 - 9:22amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Common law marriage exists when a man and a woman who have not formally married cohabitate and produce offspring.
There is nothing in the following pages about offspring as a condition of common law marriage in the United States, but it is relevant in Canada.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law_marriage
http://www.unmarried.org/common-law-marriage-fact-sheet.html


Post 6

Wednesday, June 10, 2009 - 9:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Modern changes to the law have made mere cohabitation without offspring tantamount to marriage. But the point of common law marriage was never to establish a woman's right to a man's income merely because they lived in sin, but to protect the children and dependent mother from abandonment.

Some states have done away with common law marriage and others have modified it. The original law had a valid purpose. The modern and mostly post-1970 changes, in two different directions, both follow from the collectivist and anti-male, anti-family premises of the left. The changed law either institutionalizes the slavery of the breadwinner in the case of "palimony" or denies the woman any right to support except at the bottomless trough of the welfare state in case of abandonment.

Palimony, just one more abomination from the left coast.

Post 7

Wednesday, June 10, 2009 - 11:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I've always seen the concept of common law marriage as a way of forcing the imprint of law on top of cohabitation. That is, if a couple were behaving as-if they were married, but outside of the usual sanctioning method of the culture, they weren't going to be allowed to have their cake and eat it too. It is an expression of social vindictiveness, and the tribal requirement of conformity. As to what the couple is saddled with, once declared married by common law, and as to who constitutes a 'couple' - that would vary as time passes and the cultures ideas of what marriage should be change. The day is coming when two men or two women will find themselves with the knot tied by common law. Resistance is futile. :-)

Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.