Texas Outlawed Marriage

[AGBF]

I hope some of you are enjoying this as much as I am. Texas appears to have outlawed marriage yesterday. The state had been warned in advance that the wording of an amendment with which they hoped to outlaw (already forbidden) same sex marriage could be construed as outlawing all marriage, but the voters went for it anyway. In my opinion, Texas did away with marriage.

Please don't spoil my fun by arguing that this doesn't say what it clearly says!

This is an excerpt from the article, a letter written by an Austin citizen to Representative Warren Chisum.


"I know that this is a busy week for you, considering all the attacks by unpatriotic Texans on your proposed Constitutional amendment banning all marriage in the State of Texas.

Under the language of Proposition 2, which you sponsored, the State of Texas would be prohibited from 'creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage.' What a stroke of genius! While pretending to attack gay marriage, you stand a chance of accomplishing so much more.

Now before you go defending your legislation, Mr. C, saying you actually were intending to target only gays and lesbians — yes, you really do put the 'dis' back in discriminate — let me point out the true beauty of your plan. If this amendment passes, some constitutional scholars believe the courts will rule that you really have outlawed all marriage in Texas — heterosexual, homosexual and polysexual. (We certainly don't want three different sexes asking for equal protection under the law when we can't chance our Constitution being fairly applied to even one).

And that of course means freedom for millions of Texans.

Take my wife and I, for instance, and our marriage of 44 years. (That's 22 years for her and 22 for me, but who's counting?) If your law annuls our marriage, sure our beautiful children will be considered bastards, but that's a small concern for my new-found freedom

..."


article

Deb

 

[strmrdr]

kewl, marriage is none of the governments business anyway.
Do away with they income tax and it will be none of their business.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 11/9/2005 6:45:57 PM
Author: strmrdr
kewl, marriage is none of the governments business anyway.

Thank you for not ruining my day, Storm .

Deb

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 11/9/2005 6:51:04 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 11/9/2005 6:45:57 PM

Author: strmrdr

kewl, marriage is none of the governments business anyway.

Thank you for not ruining my day, Storm .


Deb

umm ok welcome.
You know people challenge everything else yelling seperation of church and state ,,, why not marriage...
Course if there arent goverment marriages there cant be goverment divorces and people couldnt use the courts to steal others property hmmmmm.
win win :}

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Air America Radio mentioned this story this morning. I think it''s hilarious! lol

 

[strmrdr]

btw for the record i consider marriage as being between a man and a woman.
Its just none of the states business its a personal and religious matter.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 11/10/2005 9:22:22 AM
Author: strmrdr
btw for the record i consider marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Well...that is a whole other matter. I used to feel strongly as you now do. (Remember: I am OLD!!!) I grew up in the 1950's with all my friends having pictures of their mothers as brides in the living room! (My mother had eloped in 1941. We had no picture.) I now feel I was wrong to think I should impose my view of marriage on others. How can it be both personal and decided by others, after all?

I wouldn't mind doing away with marriage for the purposes of the state, though. I got married in a church (albeit the Unitarian-Universalist Church which doesn't oppose divorce). I don't much care what the state thinks. Again: that is easy for ME to say because I have already been married for 28 1/2 years. I might want a union to be state-sanctioned if I were just about to enter into one.

Deb

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 11/10/2005 9:47:13 AM
Author: AGBF

I might want a union to be state-sanctioned if I were just about to enter into one.


Deb

curious, Why would it make a difference?
Other than the goverment using taxes to set social policy.
The goverment uses taxes to control people the same way they use our money to control the states.
We want poeple to buy houses:
lets make the intrest tax deductable.
We want people to get married:
lets give it some goverment granted "gifts" to make it more attractive.
interesting isnt it that the tax advantage used to be being married but now it isnt...could it be the goverement dont want people getting married?
things that make ya go hmmmmmm :}

Dont set a speed limit we cut your funding.
Dont set the bac level where we want it we cut your funding.
Eventualy it may be dont set the marriage laws the way we want them we cut your funding.
Its allready happened on the abortion front.
States that refused to use state funds to pay for them have been cut off from federal grants.
edit: has also went the other way, the fed. has said pay for abortions out and funding gets cut.
So they really have been yanked around on that one.

interesting the way the Fed. gov. leads people around by thier pocketbooks.

 

[movie zombie]

Date: 11/10/2005 9:22:22 AM
Author: strmrdr
btw for the record i consider marriage as being between a man and a woman.
Its just none of the states business its a personal and religious matter.

marriage has always been a contract with the ''state'' and historically marriage wasn''t for the masses. most people weren''t wealthy enough for it to matter so marriage was reserved to issues of property, wealth, consolidation of power for protection, etc. this was true for centuries. peasants did not marry: they had nothing to make it worthwhile on a civil basis. social ceremonies in the form of religion [whatever the flavor] would be conducted within the peasant community but had no basis in law. remember: the peasants themselves were merely looked upon as another form of property and the lord of the manor had first right for first night with the ''bride''.

a variation of this theme continued to be practiced by our very own slave owners and withing the slave community itself until the end of slavery in this country. marriage was not allowed between pieces of property but within the slave community itself there was a broom jumping ceremony to recognize the bonding of a couple.

how quickly we forget.

peace, movie zombie

 

[AGBF]

Date: 11/10/2005 3:08:26 PM
Author: movie zombie
marriage has always been a contract with the ''state'' and historically marriage wasn''t for the masses.

I am not disputing this as a generalization. I do not know enough about most of the world to know whether the poor generally married. (My knowledge is, sadly, limited to the West.)

There has been some writing in the area of the history of the family about marriage in Europe, however. I do not know whether the serfs married, but I know that I read that in some of the Middle Ages people (I believe common people) married themselves by having sexual relations. The people were Catholic, but no priest was present to marry them. The act of sexual relations constituted the sacrament of marriage. I believe that even now the Catholic Church feels that people marry themselves by that act; now the Church has a priest conduct a ceremony first, however.

I may even be able to look this up in some ancient tomes still on my book shelves!

Deb

 

[perry]

Movie Zombie says...

marriage has always been a contract with the 'state' and historically marriage wasn't for the masses.

Wrong. Mariage historically, worldwide, and biblically, was between people. The state acknowleded it and tended to pass laws that favored marriage (the best way to produce long term stable families - which was for the masses).

It is only in the last 100 or so years that the state became part of the contract within the US (different dates for differerent states). This was I believe origanilly done for "public health" reasons (you used to have "acceptable" VD testing to get married in my state). Many other legal reasons have evolved over time.

Now, marriage is betweeen the couple and the state within the US. In other places in the world the state is not involved at all (they just recognize it).

I will also note. There is no long term history or biblical argument for monagamy either. That is a goverment forced limitation within the US (the US goverment essentially forced Utah to ban polygamy).

Perry

 

[movie zombie]

perry, that the masses had a celebratory 'religious' ceremony isn't disputed...the legality of that marriage would not necessarily be recognized by 'the state'. in remote areas, the religious head was more than likely also the person people came to to settle disputes as there was not a 'judge' or 'sheriff' or other civil servant of legal authority. by default spiritual/religious leaders took on the task of performing such functions, including marriage. but legally recognized by the state unless the state is a theocracy, i don't think so.

marriage is always a contract between people sanctioned by the state and, if you elect to have such a ceremony, blessed by whatever spiritual tribe you want.

eta: and it is only in the last 150 years or so that marrying for love has come into practice. marriages were arranged in most cultures, but then there was always wales where if you abducted the bride and had sex with her the state [read civil authority] recognized the union as a marriage.

peace, movie zombie

 

[perry]

Movie Zombie:

The following website has a nice little history on marriage "licenses"

www.lib.ndsu.nodak.edu/ndirs/collections/manuscripts/casscounty/Marriages/biography.html

I will enclose what is says below because it is short:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cass County (N.D.) Marriage Licenses, 1877-1944 (Mss 253)

History

The earliest marriage recorded, but filed years later, was for Samuel McPeters and Mary Peterson who were married on March 24, 1872. The first license recorded was for Anders Anderson and Christina Anderson who were married August 3, 1879. According to the Dakota Territory law, marriage licenses were not required. Marriage certificates could, but were not required to, “be filed with the clerk of the city or town where the marriage was solemnized, or where either of the parties reside, or the register of deeds of such county … ” The person solemnizing a marriage had to furnish a signed certificate of the marriage, but only upon request by the parties. The marriage certificates into 1886 consist only of a written statement by the person performing the wedding, giving the names of the bride and groom, and date and place of the wedding. Likely, marriages were performed in the county that were not recorded at the county courthouse. In 1886 a form began to be used that was completed by the person performing the wedding and returned to the courthouse.

In 1887 federal legislation was passed that required the person solemnizing a marriage to file a certificate of the marriage at the office of the probate court or in the office of the court having probate powers. At the first session of the North Dakota Legislature in 1889-1890 a law was passed requiring that a marriage license be obtained from the county court. The judge of the county court also was required to maintain a marriage record book. On July 1, 1890 an “Application for Marriage License” form was implemented.

Marriage licenses were handled in the Cass County Clerk of Court office until January 1, 2001, when the responsibility was transferred to the County Treasurer’s office.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have zipped through another dozen websites: All with similar information.

Bottom line:

People filed a certificate that they were married in the vast majority of states. Typcial items required was names of the people getting married and the name of the person who married them, date of marriage, and an address. A few states required information on previous marriages, divorces, and race. The old licenses were nothing more than a formalized certificate.

There was none of the modern legal mumbo jumbo.

A few of the eastern states required marriage certificates long before the federal law of 1887 (early 1700''s seems to be the first references I find for mandatory certificates to be filed). However, it seems that most states did not require a certificate to be filed before 1887, although a number of them allowed people to file them at their option. The earliest records mentioning "voluntary" filing within the US that I found were in the mid 1600''s.

One of the great comments I found and did not appreciate as much untill a number of websites later was the concept that in colonial america that you needed your family or communities approval to marry, and the state had no say. Now you can completely skip your family and communities approval but the state must approve - and puts restrictions on you.

Marriage has been arround a long time, and it has always been formally recognized by the goverment and a spouse has always had rights and privaleges regarding the other spouse. Your arguments concerning the american slaves are not relevent as they were not considered citizens who had general rights.

Perry

 

[movie zombie]

matters of power, money, and security are always matters of the state. whether that state is an unincorported town, a local city, county, state, nation.....and permission from the community and family is still needing permission from a group other than the couple themselves. and any group whether they be family or community that believes it can and should impose its will in this manner has become ''the state''. isolated communities have indeed set up ''councils'' or chiefs to rule and look after the welfare of the community and in doing so have become ''the state''.

anyone read A HISTORY OF THE WIFE? i''ve been meaning to and i think this discussion has prompted me to go ahead and order it; a brief description:

"From Publishers Weekly
Yalom, a scholar at Stanford''s Institute for Women and Gender, moves easily among several fieldsAfeminist history, religion and myth, anthropology, personal narratives, literature, pop culture and sociologyAto trace the changing role of wives from ancient times to the present. The general direction of changeAfrom subordinate toward more egalitarian rolesAcomes as no surprise. What may be unexpected, however, is Yalom''s evidence that, while generally conforming to cultural norms, individual marriages throughout history have been more complex than law and tradition may have dictated. Barren wives were sometimes favored over fertile ones, arranged marriages sometimes encompassed deep love and wives'' personal "power" could vary considerably. Nevertheless, marriages were hardly egalitarian, even after late-18th-century political ideals proclaimed women to be "co-creators of... new republican societies" in America and Europe. Wives had little legal autonomy; they could not control their own money or even have access to their children in the event of separation or divorce, until equal rights began to be won during the 20th century"

peace, movie zombie