Guys, I'm not sure where you're getting this. In every civilization you can name, in every place and time through history, marriage has always been a legal contract that was recognized by the state/nation/whatever it was.
That's why marriage means something. It is a public ceremony that has legal, formal recognition by the state.
Of course the state is involved. Sure, overhaul the laws so nobody gets destroyed in the event of a divorce, but you can't throw the state out of it entirely.
Otherwise, it's just people exchanging friendship rings and promising to go steady. And that protects no one.
US states didn't keep track of it until around the civil war. There was no central authority at all. To prove bigamy, you'd have to go figure out where a person got married the first time and get the record from that church, and then bring it to the sheriff/police in the town where the bigamist was openly married to someone else.
A little before the civil war, northern states offered it as a service. It was very useful for married black couples, so that nobody accused one of the parties of being an escaped slave. I researched this a while back when gay marriage was just getting started in the news.
In every civilization you can name, in every place and time through history, marriage has always been a legal contract that was recognized by the state/nation/whatever it was.
That's a mighty big statement. Would be really interesting to see actual evidence but seriously..... no.
Nations are fairly recent creations in the evolution of society, the 'state' also.
I'd be willing to bet that in the vast majority of cases, it was NOT some sort of legal recognition, but rather, a religious and social convention that was embedded in the community life, far more than it was ever 'legal' - except perhaps for the very, very minority group of aristocrats and royalty.
I'm on my second wife, but I've never been married. I never felt any desire to involve the govt in my personal life, so the idea of getting a license in order to make a commitment seemed absurd.
Man, Woman & God
Genesis: 2:21-24
Guys, I'm not sure where you're getting this. In every civilization you can name, in every place and time through history, marriage has always been a legal contract that was recognized by the state/nation/whatever it was.
That's why marriage means something. It is a public ceremony that has legal, formal recognition by the state.
Of course the state is involved. Sure, overhaul the laws so nobody gets destroyed in the event of a divorce, but you can't throw the state out of it entirely.
Otherwise, it's just people exchanging friendship rings and promising to go steady. And that protects no one.
US states didn't keep track of it until around the civil war. There was no central authority at all. To prove bigamy, you'd have to go figure out where a person got married the first time and get the record from that church, and then bring it to the sheriff/police in the town where the bigamist was openly married to someone else.
A little before the civil war, northern states offered it as a service. It was very useful for married black couples, so that nobody accused one of the parties of being an escaped slave. I researched this a while back when gay marriage was just getting started in the news.
"The State" is a fictional entity. Men and women are real. Herein lies the rub.
That's a mighty big statement. Would be really interesting to see actual evidence but seriously..... no.
Nations are fairly recent creations in the evolution of society, the 'state' also.
I'd be willing to bet that in the vast majority of cases, it was NOT some sort of legal recognition, but rather, a religious and social convention that was embedded in the community life, far more than it was ever 'legal' - except perhaps for the very, very minority group of aristocrats and royalty.
Sovereign citizen bullcrap. You're not marrying the state either. These are the same folks that talk about flag w fringe and martitime law.
I'm on my second wife, but I've never been married. I never felt any desire to involve the govt in my personal life, so the idea of getting a license in order to make a commitment seemed absurd.
Same here. Our commitment to each other is between us alone, and I have no desire to co-mingle that with the gov by signing into their legal contract.
What makes this sooo wrong is the state can unilaterally change the terms of the contract.