Author Topic: Marriage- what's the point?  (Read 14439 times)

Offline B.D.F.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4955
  • Country: 00
  • It's only really cold if you fall down in it.
    • C-14 farkles you almost cannot ride without.
Re: Marriage- what's the point?
« Reply #40 on: July 28, 2015, 01:16:36 PM »
Of course I am not sure how things are in Canada but yes, there are legal changes, benefits and rights extended to married people in the US that often do not apply to 'a couple' in a non- married situation.

When married in the US, the spouses both become the nearest 'next of kin' of each other, able to make health care choices, inherent property (automatically, just by being married) and various other advantages. A spouse cannot be compelled to testify against a spouse but that does not in any way apply to people who have or are acting as a couple. There are US Gov't 'death benefits' given to a spouse but not any other 'couple'. A spouse (with some restrictions but speaking generally here) can and often does get the Social Security pension of the spouse that dies first, and for the rest of the living spouse's life; that does not apply to a [ non- married couple]. These and quite a few other issues are why the gay marriage issue was.... well, such an issue. It is also why the issue really could not have been decided any other way than it was by the US Supreme Court a little while ago: our Constitution provides for "equal protection under the law" (twice, in the 5th and 14th amendments) and so as married couples are given certain protections (which include privileges and advantages by the way), then same- sex couples who could not get married, or have their married status [not recognized] in some states were being denied those 'equal protections'.

Again, strictly from the legal point of view, reading 'The Big Book of Rules' (the Constitution) that we live under, there was just no other way to apply that rule in my opinion, as well as the opinions of 5 out of 9 of the Supreme Court justices.... their opinion carrying significantly greater weight, at least outside my house.  ;D  It really does not have anything to do with what a person's opinion or belief system is, it is just a matter of following our own law. If, as a country, we really did not / do not want gay marriage, then we would have to change the Constitution by writing and ratifying a new amendment.

Brian


<snip>

I have no idea about what the laws are in the states...but here in Canada...it doesn't really matter whether a couple is married or not. Once two people are living together...according to every legal aspect, they ARE married.

<snip>

Are couples having to get married to get family medical insurance?

Of course things are different here in Canada with our so-called "free" healthcare, but we still do have separate medical / health insurance that we can buy through our employers or 3rd party...but there's no cost savings in being married. The price is the price, per person. I pay about $235/month for both my wife and I, and it covers all the extra stuff that our national healthcare program doesn't cover...dental, eye care, short and long term disability, etc.

<snip>

Homo Sapiens Sapiens and just a tad of Neanderthal but it usually does not show....  My Private mail is blocked; it is not you, it is me, just like that dating partner said all those years ago. Please send an e-mail if you want to contact me privately.

KiPass keeping you up at night? Fuel gauge warning burning your retinas? Get unlimited peace and harmony here: www.incontrolne.com

Offline Rembrant

  • Arena
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 466
  • Country: ca
Re: Marriage- what's the point?
« Reply #41 on: July 28, 2015, 04:33:07 PM »
You had a next to nothing cost wedding.  Sounds like your friends are just using the cost as an excuse. 

Yes...I suppose it looks like an excuse doesn't it? I was really referring to a specific couple when I said that...but these guys don't make excuses...and they don't have commitment issues either...they're just cheap...LOL. After all, some couples DO want that big expensive wedding...others not so much. 

Of course I am not sure how things are in Canada but yes, there are legal changes, benefits and rights extended to married people in the US that often do not apply to 'a couple' in a non- married situation.


Interesting stuff. I had no idea.

I took a look with Dr. Google to check my facts...I may have spoken too loosely...the Common Law marriage rules vary by province apparently...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage

I only went to read the Canadian section (about half way down) but there is some info on the US closer to the bottom. Looks like Rhode Island is one of 9 states that has some sort of common law marriage rules...

Anyway...I'm happily married...and I don't mind buying the cow even when the milk is free...lol.
I don't care much what the rest of the world does.

Hey BDF...I'll be down your way again in late Sept or Oct. I'll be in touch...I owe you some spare ribs and rice?...lol.

Rem
“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.” ~ Winston Churchill.

Offline gPink

  • Arena
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5686
  • Country: cn
  • MMVIII C XIV
Re: Marriage- what's the point?
« Reply #42 on: July 28, 2015, 04:36:47 PM »
You better hope the cow doesn't read the forum....just sayin

Offline maxtog

  • Elite Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8869
  • Country: us
  • 2011 Silver
Re: Marriage- what's the point?
« Reply #43 on: July 28, 2015, 04:48:43 PM »
My mother told me a long time ago, that there are two main reasons that marriages fail: Disagreements over money and/or children.
Not that there's anything wrong with money OR children, but they both become things to fight over. (My wife and I both came from divorces that happened when were too young to remember)

I don't think I thought much of her comments at the time, but all these years later, what she said does appear to be true.

There are other main reasons too- infidelity and control issues.  From what I have seen, those seem to be just as prevalent.

Quote
I have no idea about what the laws are in the states...but here in Canada...it doesn't really matter whether a couple is married or not. Once two people are living together...according to every legal aspect, they ARE married.

Indeed.  Canada is different.  And from what I understand, Quebec is even MORE different... to the point of marriage almost being irrelevant.

Quote
The few couples that we know that are not married, are simply not married due to the costs involved. A wedding costs money.

Well, technically, from what I understand about most western countries, you don't have to have a "marriage" to be married.  It is just a license, which is a piece of paper.  You apply for a license, go in front of a Justice, and bam, married.  I think that can't cost more than a few hundred $ tops.

Quote
Are couples having to get married to get family medical insurance?

Sometimes, yes, sometimes no (as opposed to just getting singles coverage each).  It depends on the state and on the insurer.   For many, it is no cheaper being married than not.   And it really *shouldn't* be any cheaper either... there is no special, magical consideration that should make married couples less expensive to insure.

Anyway insurers often need some legal definition for what constitutes "family". At my employer and with their plans, if you want to cover someone else that lives with you, they just be "direct family", which they define as your children and/or spouse.

What Strawboss said is the other major financial reason- car insurance.  Insurers are allowed to discriminate based on age, gender, and marital status; and so they do.  Why marital status?  I don't know.  Again, they have magical numbers that tell them OVERALL that married people are more responsible and better drivers.  That men are in more accidents.  That young people are many, many times more likely to have an accident (as are the very old).  However, they can't discriminate based on religion, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, or many other factors; regardless of how good a predictor THOSE factors might be.
Shoodaben (was Guhl) Mountain Runner ECU flash, Canyon Cages front/rear, Helibars risers, Phil's wedges, Grip Puppies, Sargent World seat-low & heated & pod, Muzzy lowering links, Soupy's stand, Nautilus air horn, Admore lightbar, Ronnie's highway pegs, front running lights, all LED, helmet locks, RAM Xgrip, Sena SMH10, Throttle Tamer, MRA X-Creen, BearingUp Shifter, PR4-GT, Scorpion EXO-T1200,etc

Offline maxtog

  • Elite Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8869
  • Country: us
  • 2011 Silver
Re: Marriage- what's the point?
« Reply #44 on: July 28, 2015, 04:50:31 PM »
Other than the business proposition, the only point of getting married is showing that you are willing to commit to a monogamous life with one person through all the good and all the bad.  Today, marriage has lost that commitment.  So, other than doing it because you are being faithful to your God, there is no reason to get married.

And, with the few unfair financial situations that we have pointed out, and a sprinkle of legal protections that can't be done otherwise (like testifying in court), you have made my point exactly for this entire thread.
Shoodaben (was Guhl) Mountain Runner ECU flash, Canyon Cages front/rear, Helibars risers, Phil's wedges, Grip Puppies, Sargent World seat-low & heated & pod, Muzzy lowering links, Soupy's stand, Nautilus air horn, Admore lightbar, Ronnie's highway pegs, front running lights, all LED, helmet locks, RAM Xgrip, Sena SMH10, Throttle Tamer, MRA X-Creen, BearingUp Shifter, PR4-GT, Scorpion EXO-T1200,etc

Offline maxtog

  • Elite Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8869
  • Country: us
  • 2011 Silver
Re: Marriage- what's the point?
« Reply #45 on: July 28, 2015, 05:03:18 PM »
These and quite a few other issues are why the gay marriage issue was.... well, such an issue. It is also why the issue really could not have been decided any other way than it was by the US Supreme Court a little while ago: our Constitution provides for "equal protection under the law" (twice, in the 5th and 14th amendments) and so as married couples are given certain protections (which include privileges and advantages by the way), then same- sex couples who could not get married, or have their married status [not recognized] in some states were being denied those 'equal protections'.

Again, strictly from the legal point of view, reading 'The Big Book of Rules' (the Constitution) that we live under, there was just no other way to apply that rule in my opinion, as well as the opinions of 5 out of 9 of the Supreme Court justices.... their opinion carrying significantly greater weight, at least outside my house.  ;D  It really does not have anything to do with what a person's opinion or belief system is, it is just a matter of following our own law. If, as a country, we really did not / do not want gay marriage, then we would have to change the Constitution by writing and ratifying a new amendment.

I am not sure I agree.  "Marriage" is not defined nor protected in the Constitution at all.  The concept of applying laws equally is... sortof.  Disclaimer- I am not Constitutional law expert...

I have a specific right to bear arms and own a gun.  That atually *is* in the Constitution.  And my State defines how I can exercise that right.  And yet I can travel to another state and have my rights completely stripped away (for example, a concealed-carry permit).  I would hardly call that "equal protections".

"Marriage" is a made-up construct that states can define however they want (or should be able to, because powers not SPECIFICALLY listed in the Constitution as belonging to the Fed, belong to the States).  Why would a man-woman arrangement be allowed but not a man-man or woman-woman?  Because that is how it was defined.  It doesn't seem fair- but I could say that giving ANY kind of financial or legal advantage to someone who is "married" but not someone who is single is also just as unfair... it discriminates against people who are single.  It also discriminates against people who might want to have a "marriage" involving more than just 2 people.... throw religion aside and one needs to ask "why not"?

Although the country is not ready for it,  what I was saying in my first post is that perhaps the whole concept of marriage is unfair, dated, ill-defined, watered-down, becoming irrelevant, and primarily a religious domain (and I believe in STRONG separation of government and religion).
Shoodaben (was Guhl) Mountain Runner ECU flash, Canyon Cages front/rear, Helibars risers, Phil's wedges, Grip Puppies, Sargent World seat-low & heated & pod, Muzzy lowering links, Soupy's stand, Nautilus air horn, Admore lightbar, Ronnie's highway pegs, front running lights, all LED, helmet locks, RAM Xgrip, Sena SMH10, Throttle Tamer, MRA X-Creen, BearingUp Shifter, PR4-GT, Scorpion EXO-T1200,etc

Offline B.D.F.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4955
  • Country: 00
  • It's only really cold if you fall down in it.
    • C-14 farkles you almost cannot ride without.
Re: Marriage- what's the point?
« Reply #46 on: July 28, 2015, 07:46:05 PM »
Oh Oh, rubbing my little hands together in anticipation! I am a lay- student of constitutional law and pay pretty close attention to quite a few of the 'rules' (the Constitution of the US, along with the amendments, which become part of the Constitution).

1) Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution. But "equal protection under the law" is, in the fifth and fourteenth amendments. That means that any protection extended to any individual or group must be extended to all individuals or groups. If marriage between a man and a woman are afforded any 'protections', and it most certainly is, then those protections must be extended to any individuals or groups that <may> be married. It appears that the limits of marriage have now been legally extended to anyone with a 'soul', meaning homo sapiens sapiens. So marriage is not the issue, Constitutional protections are.

2) Marriage cannot be defined as whatever a state wants it to mean. That has been decided by the Supreme Court of the US at least twice now: the first time was when a pair of lesbians got married in CA, only to have their marriage effectively nullified by the state of CA when the state defined the state of marriage as a condition that can exist between 'a man and a woman'. The two women sued, and amazingly enough, the law was upheld through the CA state Supreme Court. It was appealed to the US Supreme Court, citing the fourteenth amendment, and was overturned. Again, any protections afforded <any> married persons must be extended to <all> married persons per 'equal protection under the law'.

The second time was most recently when again, the US Supreme Court struck down 'states rights' to [not recognize] same- sex marriages which were completed and remain valid in different states. As an example, if, say, Oregon recognizes same- sex marriage, then for example, say, Kentucky cannot choose to disregard that state (married) because Kentucky refuses to endorse same- sex marriage. In cases such as this, federal law trumps state law, again due to the US Constitution.

3) These rulings regarding the current usefulness / meaningfulness of marriage: It may be 'passe' or not but that does not matter at all. This is a civil liberties question, not one of morality, current thinking or anything else. Again, read the Constitution and its amendments and see if you can find a 'way out' of these rulings. It does not matter if you, I and / or anyone else likes it or not but we all have certain rights that are "inalienable" and cannot be infringed.

Lastly, careful on the 'right to bear arms'; while I agree with you on this issue, and I believe that I too have that same right (along with anyone else), we must be careful that it is more complex and convoluted that it is sometimes represented to be. You have the right to bear arms but the definition of 'arms' is very much controlled and limited. Try buying weaponized anthrax or plutonium..... not going to happen. An individual is restricted in possessing weapons of mass destruction, and there are very strict rules regarding an individuals 'right' to own many person arms, such as machine guns, guns masquerading as anything else (such as a cane or umbrella), etc., etc.. Contrary to common thought, an individual CAN own such items, up to and including artillery, but that person must have a Federal Transfer Permit and be 'allowed' to purchase / own such devices. So your 'right to bear arms' is absolutely limited, as is you right to free speech and quite a few others.

Brian

I am not sure I agree.  "Marriage" is not defined nor protected in the Constitution at all.  The concept of applying laws equally is... sortof.  Disclaimer- I am not Constitutional law expert...

I have a specific right to bear arms and own a gun.  That atually *is* in the Constitution.  And my State defines how I can exercise that right.  And yet I can travel to another state and have my rights completely stripped away (for example, a concealed-carry permit).  I would hardly call that "equal protections".

"Marriage" is a made-up construct that states can define however they want (or should be able to, because powers not SPECIFICALLY listed in the Constitution as belonging to the Fed, belong to the States).  Why would a man-woman arrangement be allowed but not a man-man or woman-woman?  Because that is how it was defined.  It doesn't seem fair- but I could say that giving ANY kind of financial or legal advantage to someone who is "married" but not someone who is single is also just as unfair... it discriminates against people who are single.  It also discriminates against people who might want to have a "marriage" involving more than just 2 people.... throw religion aside and one needs to ask "why not"?

Although the country is not ready for it,  what I was saying in my first post is that perhaps the whole concept of marriage is unfair, dated, ill-defined, watered-down, becoming irrelevant, and primarily a religious domain (and I believe in STRONG separation of government and religion).
Homo Sapiens Sapiens and just a tad of Neanderthal but it usually does not show....  My Private mail is blocked; it is not you, it is me, just like that dating partner said all those years ago. Please send an e-mail if you want to contact me privately.

KiPass keeping you up at night? Fuel gauge warning burning your retinas? Get unlimited peace and harmony here: www.incontrolne.com