what is a backwards incentive?

Divorce laws werent instiuted for a long time because marriage was supposed to be until death. It wasnt until the 1920-40s when people started giving women the ability to divorce

@Blackhawk342 the fact they are laws is because marriage is a legal status

And as such

if it wasn't a legal status, there would be no need for a law removing that legal status

It's been something increasingly taken more and more lightly.

Did I say that it wasnt a legal status?

just give marriage back to the churches and rename all the current legal benefits to "codependent" instead of "married"
That way roommates can get it temporarily too

that would mean changing it to a temporary status, not something permanent.

You mean the same churches which seem to be the last bastions against same sex marriage?

Im not really in favor of that

not all churches were against it

and it would also not stop you from calling yourself married

You realize sometimes its men who divorce women right ?

the government, nor the church, nor anyone outside you and your partner, should get to make the call if you are married

Id rather not hand over any more power to religious organizations than absolutely necessary

Marriage was primarily a religious ceremony until like 1515 or so

what power would they have? @Blackhawk342

The government stole the idea

As youve been going on at length grenade, the power to marry people

last i checked, the church could not tell i couldn't call my gf my wife and say we are married.

only the government can

more than one religion has their own versions of marraige

But the option you put forward was that you can declare yourself married or not from year to year.

So now grenade, if you go back up through the chat and read you will find that aidanwr has proposed giving that power back to the church

Simply put, that's not something I can get behind.

Yeah Aidan is with me in that

@Blackhawk342 not the legal power, if you look back

don't know how it works for you guys, but where i live getting married by a religious organization has no legal meaning

Between the national socialists and the weebs

Marriage only moved under state juristiction because Henry VIII wanted to leave his wife for someone else and the Catholic church wouldn't grant a divorce

@RyeNorth abstract the legal benefits from the word, as there are too many unrelated benefits clumped together under there.

He literally made his own church so he could get a divorce and made himself its head yea

Yeah by "give marriage back to the church" I mean dissociate the word from the legal benefits and move said benefits onto a different word

Exactly that

Swallow that red pill

there is two pieces here: 1) the concept of devoting ones life to someone until the end of of your time here on earth 2) and a host of legal benefits that should not have to be attached to a the "until death do us part" aspect, and have nothing to do with the concept of devoting ones life to another.

It's the best approach I can see for simultaneously maintaining religious *and* LGBT liberties

and when both are combined, it causes a rats nest of bullshit that destroys the reason for either piece existing.

Do you think the government,in it's duties,should include essential tabloid details of everyone's love lifes?

I really dont want the government to know who im in love with no