I am constantly horrified by news reports of child brides being forced to get married by family members or religious leaders. The minimum age for marriage in 49 states is 18 years old (Nebraska is 19)............except with parental permission!
You can't drive until 16, vote until 18, drink until 21, or rent a car w/o excessive charges until 25......................but a girl can LEGALLY get married at the age of 12!!! Boys can get married at 14.
We need to remove the antiquated loopholes that you can get married at such a young age w/ parental permission, if you are pregnant, or if you have been married before (because nothing says maturity and sound judgment to me like your 2nd marriage before your 18th birthday).
I'm not saying that getting married at a young age is bad ............. just that if we don't think the bride and groom are old enough/responsible enough to drive themselves away from the church, maybe they shouldn't be allowed to get married!
Should we have a concrete age limit for marriage?
What is the youngest you think people should be allowed to marry?
Replies
46
percy
30
SWGB
Oh oh oh<--raises hand then is told by courts to shut up and sit down no opinion allowed.
SoWal ExpertAuthor
Oh oh oh<--raises hand then is told by courts to shut up and sit down no opinion allowed.
Do they have any minimum age requirements for civil unions?
hmmmm......can't remember
Oh oh oh<--raises hand then is told by courts to shut up and sit down no opinion allowed.
Do they have any minimum age requirements for civil unions?
Why is this any of the court's business, by the way? Marriage isn't a government-sanctioned thing. It's religious. Government needs to butt out of it altogether.
SoWal ExpertAuthor
Why is this any of the court's business, by the way? Marriage isn't a government-sanctioned thing. It's religious. Government needs to butt out of it altogether.
Marriage is religious if YOU are religious and want to get married in a church.........and even then there is legal paperwork so that the government recognizes your marriage as legal. Many people choose to not marry in a church or in a religious ceremony.
Plus, it varies greatly by "church". The thing that started this whole thread was the conviction of a religious leader for the circumstances surrounding the "church" sanctioned marriage of an underage girl against her will, which led me to investigate the applicable laws!
SWGB
Why is this any of the court's business, by the way? Marriage isn't a government-sanctioned thing. It's religious. Government needs to butt out of it altogether.
It is government sanctioned when you have to go to the county clerks office to get a government issued license. You could in theory have any religious leader who is sanctioned within that religion to perform one marry you, but then no government agency would recognize it without a marriage license.
hmmmm......can't remember
It is government sanctioned when you have to go to the county clerks office to get a government issued license. You could in theory have any religious leader who is sanctioned within that religion to perform one marry you, but then no government agency would recognize it without a marriage license.
That's my point. I don't think you (or anyone else) should have to go to the government in order to make such a personal decision.
Whether it is a religious decision for you or not, before the government decided to get involved, it was primarily a religious ceremony in this country.
SWGB
That's my point. I don't think you (or anyone else) should have to go to the government in order to make such a personal decision.
Whether it is a religious decision for you or not, before the government decided to get involved, it was primarily a religious ceremony in this country.
Great so the government should simply state that party A and party B have decided to be together in whatever fashion that may be til death.
Oh we should probably keep that to just adult humans.
hmmmm......can't remember
Great so the government should simply state that party A and party B have decided to be together in whatever fashion that may be til death.
Oh we should probably keep that to just adult humans.
You're still not hearing me: The government should zip it. None of their business.
Instead of
Oh oh oh<--raises hand then is told by courts to shut up and sit down no opinion allowed.you get to tell them to shut up and sit down.
Edited
SoWal ExpertAuthor
That's my point. I don't think you (or anyone else) should have to go to the government in order to make such a personal decision.
Whether it is a religious decision for you or not, before the government decided to get involved, it was primarily a religious ceremony in this country.
Actually, it wasn't.
It was common in Colonial times for civil magistrates to perform marriage ceremonies though they would also include prayers in the ceremony.
As for the government getting involved, that won't be ending anytime soon!
hmmmm......can't remember
Actually, it wasn't.
It was common in Colonial times for civil magistrates to perform marriage ceremonies though they would also include prayers in the ceremony.
As for the government getting involved, that won't be ending anytime soon!
Check again. It wasn't "by the powers vested in me by the" [insert government here.] That's a modern addition.
Just because they could perform the ceremony doesn't mean it was a government thing. If I'm married by a ship's captain, it doesn't mean I am a sailor.
Edited
SoWal ExpertAuthor
Marriage ? the ceremony and the customs surrounding it ? took on a variety of forms in Colonial America. While the English were the largest group in early America, other ethnic groups exerted their influence, particularly in some localities: the Dutch in New York and New Jersey, the Swedes along the Delaware, and the Germans in Pennsylvania, for example.
Of course, some of our ancestors adhered to old English customs ? negotiating a dowry, which was then followed by a betrothal (engagement) and finally a wedding. However, soon after the early European settlements of early America began to thrive, the wedding ceremony itself began to change, partly due to ethnicity and religion and partly due to geographic factors.
The Dutch and Germans performed ceremonies in their native languages along with some of the customs from their homelands. The Quakers held weddings in their meetinghouses. There a couple could marry themselves with vows often of their own devising, without the benefit of any clergyman.
In the South for a long time Anglican traditions ? based upon the rite in the Book of Common prayer ? remained prevalent. However, the customary publication of the banns, which had been used in the old country to notify family, friends, and neighbors about an impending marriage, did not work among the widely dispersed settlements in the colonies. Other means had to be found to spread the word. It is claimed by some historians that the marriage license, issued by the county clerk, was thus created. And by the end of the 17th century this innovation had spread northward into the Middle Colonies.
People in New England soon began to forsake their old English wedding customs. The Congregationalists held that nothing in the Bible designated marriage as a religious rite, so they made it a civil affair officiated by a magistrate, but without the festivities that were part of Southern weddings.
The English Puritans who founded Massachusetts in 1630 formed a society as committed to religion as any in history. But for them, marriage was a civil union, a contract, not a sacred rite. In early Massachusetts, weddings were performed by civil magistrates rather than clergymen. They took place in private homes, not in church buildings. No one wore white or walked down the aisle. Even later, when it became customary for ministers to preside at weddings (still held in private homes), the clergy?s authority was granted by the state, not the church.
Massachusetts? founders insisted on civil unions, not as a reluctant compromise with the state, but as a direct outgrowth of their religious beliefs. Puritans were dissenters from the Church of England, which like the Catholic Church treated marriage as a sacrament. In England, the king was "defender of the faith," bishops sat in the House of Lords, and the Church of England had legal authority over all religious matters, including marriage. Puritans strongly opposed this system. They wanted to adhere strictly to the Bible in shaping their forms of worship, but as they read it, the New Testament offered no precedent for bishops, ecclesiastical courts, and royal control over religion.
Marriage remained important to Puritans (it was often used as a metaphor for the divine love between believers and God), but they wanted to remove it from the realm of sacred authority, leaving only the sacraments under church control. This radical change was impossible to achieve in England, where the unified church and state used its power to persecute dissenters. But when they migrated to Massachusetts, the Puritan founders were free to shape their new society according to their beliefs. As a result, Massachusetts had no bishops, no ecclesiastical courts. The state regulated all aspects of the marriage process, from "publishing the banns"?an announcement of the intent to marry that was an early predecessor to the marriage license?to the marriage ceremony, the giving of dowries, property and inheritance rights, and in rare cases, divorce.
Of course, some of our ancestors adhered to old English customs ? negotiating a dowry, which was then followed by a betrothal (engagement) and finally a wedding. However, soon after the early European settlements of early America began to thrive, the wedding ceremony itself began to change, partly due to ethnicity and religion and partly due to geographic factors.
The Dutch and Germans performed ceremonies in their native languages along with some of the customs from their homelands. The Quakers held weddings in their meetinghouses. There a couple could marry themselves with vows often of their own devising, without the benefit of any clergyman.
In the South for a long time Anglican traditions ? based upon the rite in the Book of Common prayer ? remained prevalent. However, the customary publication of the banns, which had been used in the old country to notify family, friends, and neighbors about an impending marriage, did not work among the widely dispersed settlements in the colonies. Other means had to be found to spread the word. It is claimed by some historians that the marriage license, issued by the county clerk, was thus created. And by the end of the 17th century this innovation had spread northward into the Middle Colonies.
People in New England soon began to forsake their old English wedding customs. The Congregationalists held that nothing in the Bible designated marriage as a religious rite, so they made it a civil affair officiated by a magistrate, but without the festivities that were part of Southern weddings.
The English Puritans who founded Massachusetts in 1630 formed a society as committed to religion as any in history. But for them, marriage was a civil union, a contract, not a sacred rite. In early Massachusetts, weddings were performed by civil magistrates rather than clergymen. They took place in private homes, not in church buildings. No one wore white or walked down the aisle. Even later, when it became customary for ministers to preside at weddings (still held in private homes), the clergy?s authority was granted by the state, not the church.
Marriage remained important to Puritans (it was often used as a metaphor for the divine love between believers and God), but they wanted to remove it from the realm of sacred authority, leaving only the sacraments under church control. This radical change was impossible to achieve in England, where the unified church and state used its power to persecute dissenters. But when they migrated to Massachusetts, the Puritan founders were free to shape their new society according to their beliefs. As a result, Massachusetts had no bishops, no ecclesiastical courts. The state regulated all aspects of the marriage process, from "publishing the banns"?an announcement of the intent to marry that was an early predecessor to the marriage license?to the marriage ceremony, the giving of dowries, property and inheritance rights, and in rare cases, divorce.
hmmmm......can't remember
Luv ya, Scooter, but I just finished a LONG day at skew-el! Ain't no way I'm gonna be able to plow through that one before Christmas--I'll have to get the Cliff's Notes.
SoWal ExpertAuthor
Luv ya, Scooter, but I just finished a LONG day at skew-el! Ain't no way I'm gonna be able to plow through that one before Christmas--I'll have to get the Cliff's Notes.
Sorry, got carried away w/ cut and paste! Short version - marriage in the US has historically been a government regulated union.
Beach Fanatic
Everyone should get murdered, I mean everyone should get married at least once.
Darlene is my middle name, not my nickname
Everyone should get murdered, I mean everyone should get married at least once.
:funn: Amen brother!!!!
Beach Fanatic
Marriage ? The state regulated all aspects of the marriage process, from "publishing the banns"?an announcement of the intent to marry that was an early predecessor to the marriage license?to the marriage ceremony, the giving of dowries, property and inheritance rights, and in rare cases, divorce.
Scooterbug...
I learned alot of fascinating information from your post.
Seems to me the boiled down essence of government's historical (& modern) involvement in marriages largely comes down to the above highlight. There is a time & place for some regulation in the marriage arena...
Having said that...I heartily say YEAH to marriage (or NOT) outside the boundaries of government licensure, if, as NoHall said "it's none of their business"... because there are no underage children or inheritance rights involved.
SoWal ExpertAuthor
Having said that...I heartily say YEAH to marriage (or NOT) outside the boundaries of government licensure, if, as NoHall said "it's none of their business"... because there are no underage children or inheritance rights involved.
It's not that easy - we have so completely integrated marriage into our legal system that your marital status affects almost every area of life.
You can try to keep the government out of your relationship, but to live a normal life or deal w/ any type of emergency you have to have legal documents explicitly stating things or you have no rights or claims whatsoever.
Besides the major tax/estate planning benefits married people can be eligible for:
-"family" discounts on car, health, homeowner's insurance etc.
-receipt of military and social security benefits
-visiting rights in a hospital (family only policies in most ICUs)
-right to make funeral arrangements or allow an autopsy
-visiting rights in jail
-being allowed to live in areas zoned "family only"
-leave to care for an ill spouse
-bereavement leave for spouse or spouse's relative
Beach Fanatic
It's not that easy - we have so completely integrated marriage into our legal system that your marital status affects almost every area of life.
You can try to keep the government out of your relationship, but to live a normal life or deal w/ any type of emergency you have to have legal documents explicitly stating things or you have no rights or claims whatsoever.
Besides the major tax/estate planning benefits married people can be eligible for:
-"family" discounts on car, health, homeowner's insurance etc.
-receipt of military and social security benefits
-visiting rights in a hospital (family only policies in most ICUs)
-right to make funeral arrangements or allow an autopsy
-visiting rights in jail
-being allowed to live in areas zoned "family only"
-leave to care for an ill spouse
-bereavement leave for spouse or spouse's relative
Of course you're right....but I found several "legally" alternative routes of dealing with several of these very issues in my marriage that "wasn't" a marriage ... it came down to research & choices.
SoWal ExpertAuthor
My point was that you still have to legally define your relationship in some way - even sans kiddos and inheritance issues.
I think you can cover most of the decisions/access issues with some form of power of attorney etc. but there is still no escaping relationship "laws".
Glad I don't have to deal with any of this firsthand since according to Sowal I'm too young for marriage anyway ;-).
I think you can cover most of the decisions/access issues with some form of power of attorney etc. but there is still no escaping relationship "laws".
Glad I don't have to deal with any of this firsthand since according to Sowal I'm too young for marriage anyway ;-).
hmmmm......can't remember
It's not that easy - we have so completely integrated marriage into our legal system that your marital status affects almost every area of life.
You can try to keep the government out of your relationship, but to live a normal life or deal w/ any type of emergency you have to have legal documents explicitly stating things or you have no rights or claims whatsoever.
Besides the major tax/estate planning benefits married people can be eligible for:
-"family" discounts on car, health, homeowner's insurance etc.
-receipt of military and social security benefits
-visiting rights in a hospital (family only policies in most ICUs)
-right to make funeral arrangements or allow an autopsy
-visiting rights in jail
-being allowed to live in areas zoned "family only"
-leave to care for an ill spouse
-bereavement leave for spouse or spouse's relative
My point was that you still have to legally define your relationship in some way - even sans kiddos and inheritance issues.
I think you can cover most of the decisions/access issues with some form of power of attorney etc. but there is still no escaping relationship "laws".
Glad I don't have to deal with any of this firsthand since according to Sowal I'm too young for marriage anyway ;-).
My interest in "privatizing" marriage started out as a joke. I have been threatening to start the Straight/Single Rights Movement for years. I get none of the spousal benefits you listed.
Joking aside, if marriage were removed from government, don't you think that the hospital would allow me to see my husband/partner in ICU? More than likely the government-sanctioned marriage would be replaced by some sort of power of attorney in the case of catastrophic illness or injury. When I used to nanny, I required that parents leave me a simple signed document stating that in the event of an emergency, the parents left me in charge of signing off on treatment for the children. I don't have a spouse, but I have life insurance. I named my beneficiaries. Employers would recognize the need to allow leave. (Otherwise, they will have employees taking sick leave anyway.)
As for inheritance, I think Leona Helmsley just proved to us that where there's a will, there's a way. I used to research real estate for an attorney's office; if you own any sort of property and are over the age of 25, you should have a will.
That only leaves us with tax issues. All the more reason to go to fair tax...
Checking your forum account
Please wait while we verify your forum account.