Marriage Debate

[KingMerv00]

Here's mine:

In times past (and not so long ago) a person's word was expected to be valid.

Oh for cripes sake. Cue the dream sequence.

Remember when no one lied? Me neither.

For the record, the "good ol' days" of law were pretty crappy.

Today, either everyone is a liar, or something has made verbal speech meaningless.

Nope, people got smart. Now that we live in the information age, he can document things much more easily. The courts like a little thing called "evidence".

Verbal contracts can be legally binding btw, though generally they are harder to prove than written ones.

I can speculate that the lawyers have done it, and I can speculate that debate tactics (whether political or ideological) like those commonly seen on this forum have done it.

The bottom line is that it has to be in writing, and there can still be doubt and aversion ascribed to it by those with forked tongues.

Yesssssss....the lawyerssssss.

 

[KingMerv00]

Yes, and mommy and daddy always loved one another and the kids were always respectful of their elders. No one ever used that kind of language and no one ever had sex until marriage. Heck, the only crime in town was the occasional speeder, but Andy and Barney always cought 'em.

 

[Meadmaker]

Based on a day’s worth of google research, I’ll have to change somewhat. I had asserted that the marriage vows constitute a contract. Historically, that isn’t quite accurate, although it’s close enough. In the words of Maynard v. Hill, it is “more than a contract”.

More accurately, marriage could be thought of as a contract, but it was one in which the participants had no choice on the terms. The legal view of wedding vows in America was that the people getting married agreed to become husband and wife, but the state got to decide what it meant to be “husband and wife” And how did they define it? For the most part, they said it meant exactly what the traditional marriage vows said it meant.

So, it’s not accurate to say that the marriage vows were themselves a legally recognized contract, but for all practical purposes, they were. I would be interested to see any example of 19th century law that in any way contradicted that view. Even up until the advent of no fault divorce in 1969, that was still pretty accurate.

So, what about today? What should we do? In my humble opinion, wives and children still need protection from husbands who would abandon them. There are other cases as well, but let’s be real. That’s the one that happens most often and causes the most concern. You don’t believe me? Look up the poverty rate for divorced women, compared to the rest of society.

Therefore, availability of legally binding marriage contracts is very, very, important. It’s all very well to talk about love and happiness and keeping the government out of your personal life, but when your personal life consists of two children under five and an ex-husband who’s got a new baby with his new girlfriend, a little bit of government intervention doesn’t strike me as so bad.

 

[Huntster]

...Legally speaking, I think marriage vows could be viewed as an illusory promise. Sort of like "I'd gladly pay you Tuesday for a Hamburger today."

"Swear in", then lie. The courts might become extremely interested then.

Perjury is a criminal offense.....

So, a verbal lie told to one's spouse at the moment of marriage is violable, but a verbal lie told to a lawyer (of all people!) in court is a criminal offense.

Damned lawyers..........

Up yours too.

Yours first.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Here's mine:

In times past (and not so long ago) a person's word was expected to be valid.

Yes, and mommy and daddy always loved one another and the kids were always respectful of their elders. No one ever used that kind of language and no one ever had sex until marriage. Heck, the only crime in town was the occasional speeder, but Andy and Barney always cought 'em.

Ah, the good ol' days.

Yup. Long gone with this generation.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
I can speculate that the lawyers have done it, and I can speculate that debate tactics (whether political or ideological) like those commonly seen on this forum have done it.

Yeah, challenging people's false assumptions in the light of reality is really a rotten thing to do, huh?

Not as rotten as claiming everything is f**ked up in order to ◊◊◊◊ it up some more.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Here's mine:

In times past (and not so long ago) a person's word was expected to be valid.

Oh for cripes sake. Cue the dream sequence.

Remember when no one lied? Me neither.

For the record, the "good ol' days" of law were pretty crappy.

As if today's law is ideal?

Who are you trying to BS?

Today, either everyone is a liar, or something has made verbal speech meaningless.

Nope, people got smart. Now that we live in the information age, he can document things much more easily. The courts like a little thing called "evidence".

And since there's a hellava lot more "court" than there used to be, there's a hellava lot more need for "evidence".

Verbal contracts can be legally binding btw, though generally they are harder to prove than written ones.

Apparently, as this thread is illustrating, wedding vows are not binding, are they?

I can speculate that the lawyers have done it, and I can speculate that debate tactics (whether political or ideological) like those commonly seen on this forum have done it.

The bottom line is that it has to be in writing, and there can still be doubt and aversion ascribed to it by those with forked tongues.

Yesssssss....the lawyerssssss.

Yessssssssssss...........the lawyersssssssssssss.

 

[Meadmaker]

Can you provide some links? I find this very puzzling.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew3.HTM


Here's one that discusses it. He's against the whole deal.

It's not hard to grasp, really. Before you start making babies with someone, or any long term plans, you want some assurance that this person really was going to be in your life forever, or if not, that you could at least keep his stuff. Marriage used to provide that protection. Now, it doesn't. As a consequence, independent contracts are being written to fill the void.

 

[Upchurch]

Yup. Long gone with this generation.

More like: Never was with any generation.

Not as rotten as claiming everything is f**ked up in order to ◊◊◊◊ it up some more.

To the contrary, you and I may disagree on what the world should be, but my every intention is to see the world as it is and improve upon it.

 

[Upchurch]

Based on a day’s worth of google research, I’ll have to change somewhat. I had asserted that the marriage vows constitute a contract. Historically, that isn’t quite accurate, although it’s close enough. In the words of Maynard v. Hill, it is “more than a contract”.

And you don't think he was speaking of something other than the legal sense of the word, huh? I find it amazing that you could spend an entire day researching your position, finding next to nothing in support of it, and still assert that your basic premise is correct.

The legal view of wedding vows in America was that the people getting married agreed to become husband and wife, but the state got to decide what it meant to be “husband and wife” And how did they define it? For the most part, they said it meant exactly what the traditional marriage vows said it meant.

Based on what? Ohio alone?

So, it’s not accurate to say that the marriage vows were themselves a legally recognized contract,

Now do you and Huntster understand why it is important that we question our assumptions and take next to nothing for granted?

but for all practical purposes, they were.

Perhaps, but this is because of social reasons, not legal.

In my humble opinion, wives and children still need protection from husbands who would abandon them. There are other cases as well, but let’s be real. That’s the one that happens most often and causes the most concern. You don’t believe me? Look up the poverty rate for divorced women, compared to the rest of society.

Therefore, availability of legally binding marriage contracts is very, very, important. It’s all very well to talk about love and happiness and keeping the government out of your personal life, but when your personal life consists of two children under five and an ex-husband who’s got a new baby with his new girlfriend, a little bit of government intervention doesn’t strike me as so bad.

How does this relate to SSM?

 

[Meadmaker]

And you don't think he was speaking of something other than the legal sense of the word, huh?

In a Supreme Court opinion? Citing numerous examples of case law? In a case that was addressing the question of the legality of a divorce? When they go on about it for quite a few paragraphs? I'm pretty sure he was speaking legally.

But here's a challenge for you, if you're up to it. Find anything written before 1960 that said marriage vows had no legal force.

How does this relate to SSM?

You decide. What is marriage?

 

[Upchurch]

But here's a challenge for you, if you're up to it. Find anything written before 1960 that said marriage vows had no legal force.

If marriage vows have no legal force, why would anyone write a legal document saying that "marriage vows have no legal force"?


eta: Nice shifting of the burden of proof, btw.

 

[Upchurch]

did find this: source

8. Under English common law, and in all American colonies and states until the middle of the 19th century, married women had no legal standing. They could not own property, sign contracts, or legally control any wages they might earn.

No legal standing and not being able to sign contracts means that wedding vows between a man and a woman could not be considered two people entering into a legally binding contract. Women could not enter into contracts.

 

[Meadmaker]

If marriage vows have no legal force, why would anyone write a legal document saying that "marriage vows have no legal force"?


eta: Nice shifting of the burden of proof, btw.

The burden of proof is on the person trying to persuade.

In the course of searching, I found many references to marriage vows and the violation thereof in legal documents. The only thing I didn't find was that the source of their legal authority was the vows themselves. I had expected to find that, but several documents, especially Maynard v. Hill, explained why it wasn't there.

Justice Marshall explains the difference between the marriage contract (his term) and other contracts. I'm afraid his interpretation of the law differs from yours. But hey, he's dead now, so who cares?


ETA: And after, I got tot thinking that it didn't sound right anyway. Women had to be allowed to enter contracts. So, I looked it up. Lots of sites had lines like this:

http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/twhp/wwwlps/lessons/76mclintock/76facts2.htm

Determining the Facts
Reading 2: American Women
in the Mid-19th Century
Law, religion, and tradition combined to limit severely the rights of and opportunities for American women before the Civil War. Nowhere in the country could they vote; in many states, once married they could not sign contracts, own property (even if they had inherited it), or control their own earnings.

The prohibition on women signing contracts applied only to married women. That would have no effect on entering into marriage.

 

[KingMerv00]

So, a verbal lie told to one's spouse at the moment of marriage is violable, but a verbal lie told to a lawyer (of all people!) in court is a criminal offense.

I'm confused, do you want lies to your spouse to be punishable by jail time?

Perjury is a crime because you are wronging the state/nation as a whole. I'll bet the lawyers aren't that hurt.

Yours first.

Well you DID insult me first. Guess you win.

 

[KingMerv00]

As if today's law is ideal?

Who are you trying to BS?

You got me. I DID say that today's law was perfect in every way.

And since there's a hellava lot more "court" than there used to be, there's a hellava lot more need for "evidence".

Why are "court" and "evidence" in quotes?

With better technology, we have increased our standard of evidence. A wise move.

We could always go by to trial by ordeal or trial by "however the magistrate is feeling that day".

Yessssssssssss...........the lawyersssssssssssss.

So I'll be evil in 3 years when I finish law school?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
So, a verbal lie told to one's spouse at the moment of marriage is violable, but a verbal lie told to a lawyer (of all people!) in court is a criminal offense.

I'm confused, do you want lies to your spouse to be punishable by jail time?

I want the marriage vows to be enforced. In the church, it is. Regardless if you "separate", you're still married "until death do you part" (although, I admit, even the RCC in the West is bending to pressure, liberalizing the "annulment").

In secular law, marriage vows are a ceremonial joke. Even the marriage license and contract are a joke. (I guess we can't expect much better from a society that has "privitized" it's military in the way that it has).

Perjury is a crime because you are wronging the state/nation as a whole. I'll bet the lawyers aren't that hurt.

Oh, how correct you are. That gives them yet another case to try.

Job security.

Yours first.

Well you DID insult me first. Guess you win..

Did I insult lawyersssssssssssssssss?

Oh, well.

Sue me.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
As if today's law is ideal?

Who are you trying to BS?

You got me. I DID say that today's law was perfect in every way.

No, you wrote:

For the record, the "good ol' days" of law were pretty crappy.

Does that mean that today's law is better, or that before the "good ol' days" law was better?

We have a saying among the unwashed:

There is a whole bunch of law being practiced, but damned little justice.

And since there's a hellava lot more "court" than there used to be, there's a hellava lot more need for "evidence".

Why are "court" and "evidence" in quotes?

To highlight the words. If you prefer emboldening or italics, I can do that, too.

With better technology, we have increased our standard of evidence. A wise move.

With better technology, we have increased our quality of evidence. The defense (and subsequent appellant rulings) have increased our standard of evidence.

We could always go by to trial by ordeal or trial by "however the magistrate is feeling that day".

That still happens, too. Judges, jury members, and magistrates are still human (just like lawyers).

Yessssssssssss...........the lawyersssssssssssss.

So I'll be evil in 3 years when I finish law school?

Of course not.

You might be as evil as I am right now, and you might not. You might become evil upon graduation, and you might not. You might become evil much later, and you might not. You might never become evil, and still commit evil acts.

But this is for sure:

The United States has become too litigious, has too many lawyers, too much focus on legality vrs. common sense, and it is a problem.

I wish you good fortune in your future, but I ask that you consider the "lawyer jokes" and anti-lawyer sentiment in this country, and think about where it comes from and why.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I want the marriage vows to be enforced.

Do you want religious vows to be enforced by the government as well?

 

[Huntster]

Kenny! You've been quiet lately. Been on a trip? Hope all is well.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
I want the marriage vows to be enforced.

Do you want religious vows to be enforced by the government as well?

Is a marriage performed in a religious ceremony recognized by government?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

When did "personal" become "not legal?"

When did marriage vows become a legal contract? Care to find any state law that refers to marriage vows as part of the marriage contract?

"Swear in", then lie. The courts might become extremely interested then.

You have a bizarre view here. Swear in? Swear in to what or for what? A marriage contract is the legal areas covered in state law like finances, property and bigamy. There might still be an archaic adultery law on the books somewhere. The state sanctions who can perform a marriage and there needs to be a witness usually. None of the rest of your wedding has anything to do with marriage laws.