This makes a lot of sense.

[pod]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070919...t_070919190221


German politician proposes that marriages expire after seven years.

Makes sense if you think about it.

[coach]

(LMAO! This is what I was about to post when you moved it: Mods, please move this to the Junkie Chat section where it goes. Some yahoo has misplaced it.)

[quote author=pod link=board=2;threadid=43676;start=0#msg484821 date=1190246175]
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070919...t_070919190221


German politician proposes that marriages expire after seven years.

Makes sense if you think about it.
[/quote]Quoting German politicos, Pod, your Libertarian license is hereby revoked.

What I think makes a lot of sense is detaching Marriage from the legal system. You would have 2 separate institutions, one legal and one religious. Call the legal one a Partnership Contract or whatever. It would provide for all the legal benefits that our current "marriage" system does and could be between any 2 or more people.

Then have the religious one that people can enter into according to their own beliefs and restrictions. It would offer no legal protection whatsoever is would be entirely a religious ceremony, much like getting baptized.

That way you do away with all of the stupid religious arguments in the political/social aspects of the legal partnership.

[pod]

This would be a step in that direction. Like I told that kid that I banned last week, I know that a Libertarian government isn't going to happen overnight.

The 'contract' idea is great. And yes, divest the religious authorities of the capabilities to perform "legal" marriages. You wanna get married in the Church? Fine. Then do it, but don't expect protections unless you get married under the state, too.

If I'm not mistaken, in some Latin American countries, this is exactly how it works, sans expiration date. You get a church wedding, then a civil wedding.

Now, in a real Libertarian society, the government would have no business in marriage at all. Benefit coverage would be determined by the person providing such.

It'd be interesting though, to see how many people would renew their marriages.

[slamminshaun]

Originally Posted by coach

What I think makes a lot of sense is detaching Marriage from the legal system. You would have 2 separate institutions, one legal and one religious. Call the legal one a Partnership Contract or whatever. It would provide for all the legal benefits that our current "marriage" system does and could be between any 2 or more people.

Then have the religious one that people can enter into according to their own beliefs and restrictions. It would offer no legal protection whatsoever is would be entirely a religious ceremony, much like getting baptized.

That way you do away with all of the stupid religious arguments in the political/social aspects of the legal partnership.

That is what we have now. Marriage is the recognition by God of the union of a man and woman. Even those married in the church must still complete paperwork for the government, hence, the legal, civil union part.

[pod]

What we're kicking about here though, is separating those two processes totally.

As a social experiment, I'm all for time-limited marriages. Call it morbid curiosity, but I wonder what the renew rate would be?

[saintjohn]

Originally Posted by coach

You would have 2 separate institutions, one legal and one religious.

Now THAT is a Constitutional Amendment I would support

[coach]

Originally Posted by Slammin'

[quote author=coach link=board=6;threadid=43676;start=0#msg484830 date=1190247141]

What I think makes a lot of sense is detaching Marriage from the legal system. You would have 2 separate institutions, one legal and one religious. Call the legal one a Partnership Contract or whatever. It would provide for all the legal benefits that our current "marriage" system does and could be between any 2 or more people.

Then have the religious one that people can enter into according to their own beliefs and restrictions. It would offer no legal protection whatsoever is would be entirely a religious ceremony, much like getting baptized.

That way you do away with all of the stupid religious arguments in the political/social aspects of the legal partnership.

That is what we have now. Marriage is the recognition by God of the union of a man and woman. Even those married in the church must still complete paperwork for the government, hence, the legal, civil union part.
[/quote]What I'm suggesting isn't remotely what we have now.

[pod]

What Coach is suggesting is taking away all the religious overtones of marriage. Even if you just get a Justice of the Peace to do the ceremony, it's still laden with a lot of religious overtones, in the fact that it's still largely a boy/girl thing and not a boy/boy thing or a girl/girl thing.

Coach's idea, is to pretty much make it into a business arrangement. The religious ceremony would be only there for tradition's sake, and hold no legal power whatsoever.

Right now, priests of any tax-exempt religion are permitted to perform legally binding marriages in their respective states. Hell, half the time, doesn't the priest say "By the power invested in me by God and the State of XYZ?"

The idea is to drop one or the other from that sentence, depending on who is doing the ceremony.

Now Coach, on the civil side, what say you on making it a time-limited deal?

Hell, I'll be all for it, maybe near the end of the contract I can negotiate to trade the current wife in for a younger one and a party to be named later?

[michael^heaven]

Originally Posted by Slammin'

Marriage is the recognition by God of the union of a man and woman.

+1

[pod]

Marriage is an interpersonal relationship with governmental, social, or religious recognition, usually intimate and sexual, and often created as a contract, or through civil process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage