Marriage today is a hot topic, with Supreme Court hearing different issues about marriage. Should same gender couples be allowed to marry? Should mixed race couples be allowed to marry? Should working class be allowed to marry out of their class.
More importantly, at least to me, is the question of whether individual sites or the nation as a whole determine who can marry whom. If your state has decided to accept it, can the Feds refuse?
The truth is, they can. they made the decision to do so way back in the 1990s when the great US of A decided it no longer needed to recognize common law marriage, no matter what the states said. These marriages -- made in homes, not courts or churches, made in private, not in public -- these marriages made after the effective date, are simply not recognized by the Federal government.
Also not new is the ability of one state to ignore a marriage legal in another state. Part of the Cultural Revolution was an attempt to consolidate divorce laws. Many people had to go and get their divorce in the state they were married in for the divorce to be legal. To this day, different states have different requirements to become divorced. Waiting period, legal separation, mediation, etc.
As you can see, the marriage question and Federal meddling is not a new issue.
Federal definition of a family is a newer consideration. In the olden days, families, even mixed and adoptive families, were a group of people who resided together in a private residence. 3 sisters could live together, or a sister, a son-in-law and an unrelated widow could be the Smiths or the Jones family. It wasn't a big deal to anyone -- until the government and the money-makers got involved. The insurance companies, who are my version of the Antichrist.
Once upon a time, an insurance company decided it didn't have to pay a survivorship policy to the unrelated widow who had "kept house" for decades.
Grief-stricken, old, possibly alone, and probably poor, she couldn't or didn't fight back.
Other avaricious industries took note, and began following that precedent. By the time someone was willing and able to fight, the precedent had become policy.
"Family" should be decided by proximal society, not by moneymakers.
"Family" should be defined by other family members, not those who don't know sense from cents.
More importantly, at least to me, is the question of whether individual sites or the nation as a whole determine who can marry whom. If your state has decided to accept it, can the Feds refuse?
The truth is, they can. they made the decision to do so way back in the 1990s when the great US of A decided it no longer needed to recognize common law marriage, no matter what the states said. These marriages -- made in homes, not courts or churches, made in private, not in public -- these marriages made after the effective date, are simply not recognized by the Federal government.
Also not new is the ability of one state to ignore a marriage legal in another state. Part of the Cultural Revolution was an attempt to consolidate divorce laws. Many people had to go and get their divorce in the state they were married in for the divorce to be legal. To this day, different states have different requirements to become divorced. Waiting period, legal separation, mediation, etc.
As you can see, the marriage question and Federal meddling is not a new issue.
Federal definition of a family is a newer consideration. In the olden days, families, even mixed and adoptive families, were a group of people who resided together in a private residence. 3 sisters could live together, or a sister, a son-in-law and an unrelated widow could be the Smiths or the Jones family. It wasn't a big deal to anyone -- until the government and the money-makers got involved. The insurance companies, who are my version of the Antichrist.
Once upon a time, an insurance company decided it didn't have to pay a survivorship policy to the unrelated widow who had "kept house" for decades.
Grief-stricken, old, possibly alone, and probably poor, she couldn't or didn't fight back.
Other avaricious industries took note, and began following that precedent. By the time someone was willing and able to fight, the precedent had become policy.
"Family" should be decided by proximal society, not by moneymakers.
"Family" should be defined by other family members, not those who don't know sense from cents.
