KY Court Clerk

Right & Wrong
dizerner

Re: KY Court Clerk

Post by dizerner » Sat Sep 05, 2015 1:22 am


thrombomodulin
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:59 am

Re: KY Court Clerk

Post by thrombomodulin » Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:37 am

morbo3000 wrote: If I remember correctly, the original main issues that marriage equality was meant to address were things like acceptance by hospitals of the same visitation rights as married couples, and benefits from employers.
It has often been pointed out that one government intervention will bring about unintended consequences that become reasons to create further interventions. This seems to be the case here. If there were not for the existance of laws pertaining to visitation rights, the issue of who can or cannot visit remains a private matter decided between the hospital and its customers. If there were not laws about employee benefit allocations then the designation of beneficiaries is a private matter agreed between employers and employees. So the linking of marriage licenses to these things in the past has now lead to reasons for its expansion to homosexuals. It seems to me to be unnecessary for the state to issue marriage licences at all. Is there any compelling reason for the state to issue marriage licenses?

I agree with the idea expressed by some here that marriage as recognized by God has no inherit relationship to marriage licenses issued by the state. i suppose then that a Christian couple who marries before God should not feel any obligation to seek a license from the state. Whether they choose to do so would be a merely a matter of practical considerations to be decided after consulting with a knowledgable lawyer and/or accountant. There is no sin in marrying without the state issued license, nor should churches regard such a couple as "living in sin". Do you agree?

User avatar
robbyyoung
Posts: 811
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:23 am

Re: KY Court Clerk

Post by robbyyoung » Sat Sep 05, 2015 10:00 am

thrombomodulin wrote:I agree with the idea expressed by some here that marriage as recognized by God has no inherit relationship to marriage licenses issued by the state. i suppose then that a Christian couple who marries before God should not feel any obligation to seek a license from the state. Whether they choose to do so would be a merely a matter of practical considerations to be decided after consulting with a knowledgable lawyer and/or accountant. There is no sin in marrying without the state issued license, nor should churches regard such a couple as "living in sin". Do you agree?
Hi Pete,

Yes, I agree.

God Bless.

Singalphile
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm

Re: KY Court Clerk

Post by Singalphile » Sat Sep 05, 2015 10:10 am

thrombomodulin wrote:It has often been pointed out that one government intervention will bring about unintended consequences that become reasons to create further interventions. This seems to be the case here. If there were not for the existance of laws pertaining to visitation rights, the issue of who can or cannot visit remains a private matter decided between the hospital and its customers. If there were not laws about employee benefit allocations then the designation of beneficiaries is a private matter agreed between employers and employees. So the linking of marriage licenses to these things in the past has now lead to reasons for its expansion to homosexuals.
Laws and lawyers somehow ever creating a need for more laws and lawyers! Funny how that works. (No offense to you lawyers. Gotta have some.)
thrombomodulin wrote:It seems to me to be unnecessary for the state to issue marriage licences at all. Is there any compelling reason for the state to issue marriage licenses?
I think there is. Only one man and one woman together can produce children, the next generation of adult citizens. That is one reason why that lifetime union (aka, marriage) is unique and exceptional, and it is a (if not the) reason why the state has a compelling reason to want to license/administer marriages - to help ensure that children (future adult citizens) are cared for and raised by their mother and father in as healthy an environment as possible.

The idea of getting the government out of marriage is not feasible, imo. Never going to happen. But they don't have to call it marriage, especially since they are now forced to license and administer unions that do not constitute marriage.
thrombomodulin wrote:There is no sin in marrying without the state issued license, nor should churches regard such a couple as "living in sin". Do you agree?
I do, sure, but I think it would be advisable for married couples to get the civil-union license (unless the taxes or requirements or whatever make it very inconvenient or otherwise objectionable).
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23

thrombomodulin
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:59 am

Re: KY Court Clerk

Post by thrombomodulin » Sat Sep 05, 2015 11:22 am

Singalphile wrote: I think there is. Only one man and one woman together can produce children, the next generation of adult citizens. That is one reason why that lifetime union (aka, marriage) is unique and exceptional, and it is a (if not the) reason why the state has a compelling reason to want to license/administer marriages - to help ensure that children (future adult citizens) are cared for and raised by their mother and father in as healthy an environment as possible.

The idea of getting the government out of marriage is not feasible, imo. Never going to happen. But they don't have to call it marriage, especially since they are now forced to license and administer unions that do not constitute marriage.
Thanks for your reply. I'll give this some thought and reply to the first point later. As for the second it is my understanding that throughout much of western history the state did not issue such licenses or make them compulsory. If that state of affairs prevailed in the past, there is no reason it could not come about again in the future except for the popular sentiment opposing it - which is not assured to endure. I'm not aware if the creation of such licensing, and making it compulsory, had any beneficial effect of improving marriage stability. (That is to say I'm not informed about if couples failing to stay together was more frequent before state licensing)

User avatar
TheEditor
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:09 pm

Re: KY Court Clerk

Post by TheEditor » Sat Sep 05, 2015 12:21 pm

Thanks for the link Dizerner. I am glad to read that James White saw fit to list my old Alma Mater (JWs) as 'more problematic' than even the LDS. Not sure quite how that works, since the LDS church's teachings are far closer to High Fiction....but I digress (maybe the Mormons are Calvinists?). At any rate, the idea that the support for her by Christians that side with her thinking on the matter is more or less mitigated by her opinion on the trinity, turns my stomach. So there you have it.

Regards, Brenden.
Last edited by TheEditor on Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: KY Court Clerk

Post by Paidion » Sat Sep 05, 2015 1:41 pm

I agree, Throm, that the marriage which God ordained need not be sanctioned by secular authorities. It is an agreement before God to be united until death parts them. Jesus attended a wedding, but that wedding was a celebration of a marriage which had already taken place (apart from government).

However, if a couple in our day wishes to get married before God only, and not have their marriage registered, they may miss out on some secular advantages. In Canada, a marriage classified as "common law" gives the couple the same income tax advantages as a couple whose marriage is registered with the government. But I am not certain that such equal advantages apply in all situations.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

thrombomodulin
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:59 am

Re: KY Court Clerk

Post by thrombomodulin » Sun Sep 06, 2015 7:44 am

Singalphile

I would like to ask more about the idea you mentioned that the state should license marriage to provide a positive influence on couples so that they would remain together. I think you would probably agree that the current legal situation in the USA is far from ideal and detrimental rather than beneficial. If the ideal system could be made for the state "encouraging" couples to stay together what would that look like? I think there would have to be some incentives applied beyond merely giving a license otherwise people would simply ignore the license and shack up. How do you think the state should go about implementing your proposal?

Singalphile
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm

Re: KY Court Clerk

Post by Singalphile » Sun Sep 06, 2015 10:59 am

thrombomodulin wrote:I would like to ask more about the idea you mentioned that the state should license marriage to provide a positive influence on couples so that they would remain together.
I intentionally did not say that the state "should" license marriage. I said that the state has compelling reason(s) for doing so, which is what you asked.
thrombomodulin wrote:I think you would probably agree that the current legal situation in the USA is far from ideal and detrimental rather than beneficial. If the ideal system could be made for the state "encouraging" couples to stay together what would that look like? I think there would have to be some incentives applied beyond merely giving a license otherwise people would simply ignore the license and shack up.
Agreed. Regarding this topic, nothing that I think is ideal will ever happen, so ... I don't know. No use banging my head against a wall. I think you're right.
thrombomodulin wrote:How do you think the state should go about implementing your proposal?
Nothing would change in any way that would affect outcomes. When the Supreme Court made its ruling, states and counties had to edit their documents/forms/licenses/laws to remove the words "man/groom/husband/woman/bride/wife", and replace them with "partner/applicant 1/applicant 2/other party", etc. References to gender/sex will be removed altogether, perhaps. (Some counties/states probably haven't completed this process yet.)

I and others suggest that while they're already doing that, they should replace the words "marriage/married" with some form of "legal/civil union/partnership". The word "divorce" could also be replaced with something suitable. The benefits are that it will be more accurate and it will, I think, solve any dilemma for conscientious objectors.

(It'll be easier than if and when judges decide that these licenses must be granted to groups of 3 or more!)

Other states/counties and the federal gov't might still refer to "marriage licenses". Can't help that.
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23

thrombomodulin
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:59 am

Re: KY Court Clerk

Post by thrombomodulin » Sun Sep 06, 2015 1:09 pm

Singlephile
Thanks for your reply and clarification - I had not recognized the intentional choice in your words. I think your proposal offers some improvement, but it would be better in my opinion for the government to be entirely out of the business of trying to improve the culture in one way or another (eg by granting benefits per marritial status / licensure). Even if they have good intentions, it seem that often the means used fail to accomplish the end goal or are counterproductive to that goal.

Post Reply

Return to “Ethics”