Latest Diablo 3 News
DiabloWiki Updates
Support the site! Become a Diablo: IncGamers PAL - Remove ads and more!

U.S. soldiers no longer have the freedom to marry who they like. d

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Yossarian, Apr 10, 2007.

  1. SaroDarksbane

    SaroDarksbane IncGamers Site Pal

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
    Messages:
    8,563
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    467
    Common Law Marriage.

    If you try to sidestep the marriage system by not being formally married, the state will consider you married anyway. =/



     
  2. thegiantturtle

    thegiantturtle IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2004
    Messages:
    4,642
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    120
    1) Common Law Marriage does not exist in all states.
    2) All the states that do have Common Law Marriage laws require that the couple represent themselves as married. Don't represent yourself as married, and it won't apply.



     
  3. Dondrei

    Dondrei IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    36,855
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    467
    This very day? Maybe not, but it wouldn't take long.

    And I sincerely doubt marriage originally evolved to ensure parentage of children, that would've come much later. It far more likely evolved as a natural extension of humans' natural monogamy and possessiveness of their mates.

    I fail to see the comparison.

    I've been married for almost seven years, isn't that as long as the average one lasts these days?

    The property stuff is a consequence, not the whole point.

    Name one other contract that functions this way. That is, the terms are not in the contract (wherever it is, apparently the marriage certificate isn't what you're referring to, in fact it doesn't seem to actually, you know, exist) but rather in a series of laws designed around the long-standing social position of it.

    There aren't any. Because that's not what a contract is, you are describing something more like an institution. Or else name the specific terms of this contract, and where people agree to them. I think you'll find that's a fundamental part of deciding whether or not something is in fact a contract.

    Marriage is a unique institution. It is not a contract.

    Again, what you are describing is not a contract. It's just a certain categorisation that has been targeted for extensive legislation.

    You just don't get it. You keep trying to bring logic into it for one thing.



     
  4. Moosashi

    Moosashi IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,711
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    120
    You fail to see the comparison between basic liberties of volunteer soldiers, some of which are limited and others, like marriage, that you advocate should not be? (In a manner of speaking, the ability of foreign spouses to become American citizens was a result of government control in the first place. I'm really advocating complete freedom). The obvious question is why should some liberties be immune from limitation when others, even more basic, are not? Why won't you just answer that? Oh, I know. You've put the institution of marriage on a pedestal and refuse to consider any argument that challenges that characterization because you fear it might make your own marriage vows ring hollow.

    It's the only thing that separates marriage from any other loving relationship. Whether you know it or not, marriage is so special to you because you pledged to share the burdens of life together– you love your wife so much that you want to make what was yours, hers, forever. It isn't because you love your wife per se. You already loved her before you married her. Marriage is a commitment of support. A guarantee. A contract.

    Gimme a break. Why can't you people ever see the distinction between is and ought. Marriage ought not to be controlled by the government because it is a contract. The fact that it is controlled by the government doesn't change that.

    Me: Government shouldn't control marriage because it's a personal contract between two people.

    You: Government controls marriage so it isn't a contract.

    Begging. The. Question.

    Are you saying you refuse to consider logical arguments on this matter?



     
  5. LorveN

    LorveN D3 Off Topic Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Messages:
    7,026
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    256
    I'll just hit the buzzer here then.

    Keep the discussion clean please. Obviously you have different opinions which is perfectly okay, but keep it on a constructive basis.

    I sense anger...Just don't. We want it clean.
     
  6. Athelstan

    Athelstan IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2006
    Messages:
    385
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    77
    No anger??? There goes 99% of the OTF threads....



     
  7. LorveN

    LorveN D3 Off Topic Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Messages:
    7,026
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    256
    Anger is okay, there is a difference however in how you make your statements. As I said, constructive = good. I'm sure you all understand.



     
  8. Athelstan

    Athelstan IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2006
    Messages:
    385
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    77
    I know, I was just giving the new mod a hard time. :wink3: This is actually one of the milder arguements in the OTF, wait till you get your first religion thread.



     
  9. Moosashi

    Moosashi IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,711
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    120
    Woops. Screwed up an edit. My mistake.
     
  10. Dondrei

    Dondrei IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    36,855
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    467
    I don't know what you're talking about, it's not comparable. They joined the military to fight, putting their lives on the line. They didn't join the only-approved-marriages club.

    Really? Go to a wedding and ask the bride and groom why they're getting married.

    You are ignoring the emotional dimension, and when you're talking about an issue like marriage that means you miss the entire point.

    Are you even listening?

    I'm saying that marriage isn't just about laws and money. I wouldn't expect you to understand.

    I'm not angry, this is just the way I argue.



     
  11. Moosashi

    Moosashi IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,711
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    120
    They joined the military to enhance national security. If foreign wives are a security risk, and it's easy to see how they could be, then it makes sense for there to be some extra red tape.

    Being married doesn't make you an authority on the meaning of marriage. It certainly doesn't make you an expert on why the government absolutely must be involved. There's no inkling of a reason why saying "I do" should give you this sudden insight.

    I'm not ignoring it, it's independent. The mere fact that you can have a deep emotional relationship without being married in the eyes of the law means that marriage is actually about the more mundane but necessary aspects of sharing a life together. I think the commitment required to take responsibility for new life should it arise and for your spouse's well-being, through thick and thin, requires a deep level of trust, emotional involvement and ideally, love. Your willingness to make that commitment says a lot to your partner about your relationship. You're saying, "yes, I will always be there for you (and our children). What's mine is yours. Why? Because I love you."

    But the laws and the money give it that higher level of commitment and set it apart from a simple, deep, loving relationship. It's your commitment to share everything about your lives. It's your commitment to pool resources to weather the bad times and to raise children (if you so choose or if there's an accident). It's your pledge of all the material production of your time on this Earth. And you know what? That's all you've got. No, I do understand. Marriage is special and sanctified because you can give nothing higher to your spouse but your life and its products.

    I don't mind if you don't.



     
  12. Yossarian

    Yossarian IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2003
    Messages:
    816
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165
    If the government does like his choice of spouse discharge him and put him under surveillance. Yes it costs more but it seems like the right thing to do under the constitution. Christ we spend $100000's to lock up prisoners for life with no chance of parole. I think it's the least we can do for those that served our country.

    If the soldier marries the girl anyway immigration can still stop her entry. So whats the problem? If they only stay as lovers any information the DOD was worried about being shared can still be shared while he's on active duty and after I suppose as well.
     
  13. Dondrei

    Dondrei IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    36,855
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    467
    So you say. Look, when you join the military there are indeed certain things you can no longer do because that would legitimately warrant your dismissal, but that doesn't give the government carte blanche. This is a ridiculous excess.

    If you want another example, I don't think soldiers should be prevented from getting tattoos either.

    Hmm, but apparently not being married does.

    I would've thought that the reason people are getting married has a lot to do with the reason for marriage.

    No, you're wrong. If money and the mundane practicalities of living together somehow did not exist, marriage still would.

    And most vows do not include "what's mine is yours" or anything about children. The fact that such things have evolved around the institution does not mean that they are the point of the institution.

    You do realize that there is absolutely no obligation to combine your resources when you get married, right? And no, I'm not talking about a pre-nuptial agreement. It's just that people usually choose to do so.

    For instance you can get married and still live in completely separate houses if you want to.



     
  14. Moosashi

    Moosashi IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,711
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    120
    I agree they don't have carte blanche. What I don't understand is with so many of their other freedoms restricted, why you get so upity about this one.

    So you can tell your wife "you know hon, I'm sure glad we got married, because I loved you less before."

    That doesn't make any sense. How do you figure marriage would exist if people didn't live together and share their lives? Surely you don't think everyone would be perfectly happy living in separate houses, do you?

    The vows are not the contract. The government's law is the contract, essentially, your marriage license.

    And without a prenup, what happens to the property when they are divorced?

    That would just be a mockery of the institution. Because it's possible doesn't mean it defines what marriage customarily is.



     
  15. Dondrei

    Dondrei IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    36,855
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    467
    I think we're just going around in circles (and we've had this discussion before anyway), so I'll just address a few points:

    Because I don't agree that this one is justified. If they're going to deny them some of their personal rights then you need to weigh up the necessity of doing so against their entitlement to those rights, in this case I think it falls strongly on the latter side.

    I'd like to know, actually. I don't think the laws are set up to deal with that situation.

    It's an area I think needs a lot of reform.

    Heh, says you. And there are lots of things that marriage customarily was that are no longer relevant.



     
  16. Moosashi

    Moosashi IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,711
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    120
    My state, Arizona, is a community property state. That means that unless the two can reach and sign a mutual property settlement agreement, all assets and debt acquired since the date of marriage are split 50/50, no matter who actually accumulated them. Also, an amount of support determined by the court is paid to one of the couple by the other if equitable division of assets does not result in both being able to support themselves.

    Thus, by Arizona law, marriage signifies that assets acquired during marriage are the default property of the couple together. Further contracts must be signed to circumvent this.

    In California, where I grew up, all property used together during the marriage is assumed to be community property and divided in half at divorce unless one of the couple can prove separate ownership, either through a previous written agreement or by an explicit statement to that effect in the deed. So one of the spouses could lose a house he/she purchased before being married.

    I understand this to mean that by California law, all property is owned mutually unless further contracts are made to the contrary.

    I'm sure Australian law is similar, differing in particulars.



     
  17. Dondrei

    Dondrei IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    36,855
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    467
    Hmm, yes but this is the interesting point; normally the problem with individual ownership is that having pooled their property and incomes for many years it is quite unclear. If however they remained completely separate in that sense then proof of individual ownership would be easy. The only reason the normal 50/50 division of property should go ahead in that instance is if the laws are just not smart enough to accomodate such an unusual scenario. If you're right then it sounds like in California you'd both keep your original property but in Arizona it'd be divided in half (plus alimony).

    I personally think the whole issue needs severe reform. Particularly alimony, I'm not convinced there's any reason for that in this day and age (child support is a different matter of course).

    I don't really know what the law is here precisely, from what I've heard it's more or less like that though.



     
  18. SaroDarksbane

    SaroDarksbane IncGamers Site Pal

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
    Messages:
    8,563
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    467
    That's right. You think humans are naturally monogamous. *snort*



     
  19. Punkonjunk

    Punkonjunk IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2005
    Messages:
    855
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    this fricking country is sooooo much lulz. How can something so stupid come into existance? The worst part is, the guy who did that didn't do it because it would be funny to make it harder for people to marry people.
    It's either because he's a racist or he's just an asshole. And that sucks.
     
  20. SaroDarksbane

    SaroDarksbane IncGamers Site Pal

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
    Messages:
    8,563
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    467
    Translation anyone?



     

Share This Page