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

also @RyeNorth outside perhaps mandated waiting periods, there really is nothing stopping someone from getting married then divorced, then remarried year after year. So your previous point about declaring yourself married or not year after year is already a reality

and no, it should not CARE about my love life until i ask if for something

The legal procedure of separating two lives.

It's akin to contract law

It used to be much simpler, men get everything minus what the woman needs to live

You're stumbling across a very important detail

You've tripped across it multiple times in this

Then there was some case which bascially allowed women to be entitled to a portion of the wealth of the man, outside ofwhat they needed

You are not required to get married* (excepting common law,which generally only applies to people presenting as Mr. And Mrs. Anyway)

Absolutely nothing stops you from keeping a girlfriend of 10 years and breaking up whenever.

so then why is marriage even needed?

Why are contracts needed?

why do we need to lump a bunch of different stuff that are not necessarily related under 1 contract?

Because they're not

Unrelated I mean

but they are. who is legally part of my family and can make decisions on my behalf is unrelated to who is necessarily living with me, is unrelated to who it might make sense (in the spirit of the idea) for me to file taxes jointly with and unrelated to who i might have a kid with.

they can all overlap

but they don't always overlap

Who you live with DOES matter when it comes to filing taxes.

And that consent to marriage matters too

Otherwise, I could've been taxed harder when I lived in DC with someone that made around 200,000 a year.

Those taxes would've KILLED me.

Yeah I assume living together is probably the main reason to cofile taxes

Specifically, joint finances

yeah