Marriage grew out of property rights. It falls under contract law.
Women until the 1960s were considered chattel. A man literally married his property within the bounds of spiritual purity. So, there are NO DIRECT connections between marriage and the USA Constitution.
The contract between two people is recorded in the records of a city or county. It is recognition of a 'responsible' relationship between two people. "I am responsible to you and for you and you are responsible for me and to me."
Contract law is why divorces exist. Breaking up the contract can be simple, but, it also involves other lives, namely children. So, divorce is a measure to be sure all parties are served well by the dissolution of the contract.
There is no Article of the USA Constitution that guarantees marriage. It has always been under the direction of a contract. Even under Puritan understandings back in the day of. So, the idea that the USA Constitution was ever suppose to legislate marriage was never a promise to anyone. If it was ever considered that vital to democracy the founding documents had plenty of time to incorporate that cornerstone. That is not the case. Freedom is not about binding a man to a woman; that limits freedom. There were LGBT people in 1776, too. They were probably the witches of Salem, Massachusetts.
It can get interesting to discuss, but, marriage is a contract. It is best defined as a contract. The contract can be modified through the ages to reflect changes in society. If marriage were a cornerstone of the USA Constitution it would complicate life immensely. It could be debated that if marriage was mandatory under the USA Constitution it would demand citizens to change behaviors and dictate a religious paradigm. Believe me the founding documents were written with distinct separation of church and state.
Powerful churches have an oppressive force on a populous. They even limit economies and choice. So, the folks in 1776 knew what they were doing.
Where the entire concept departs from 'reasonal' legal standard are the demands for a Marriage Amendment but the refusal of Sharia Law as a dictate in the USA. Right from the start the Marriage Amendment wants to dictate a specific religious standard. There are a lot of problems when ANY privacy issue is dictated with constitutional authority. These privacy issues cause oppression when dictated as a constitutional standard. It is not reasonable to pursue the demands to control the behaviors of an entire country.
I am not going to engage the thought, but, when a country carries a religious standard for it's government it ONLY requires an additional costume to the daily lives of its citizens. The most extreme example are the Taliban. If one is not wearing the costume life becomes dangerous.
In current USA history, was the stark shift in personal fashion, primarily of women, after Bush #43 took office. It was startling to realize what was occurring in the USA. It definitely was a new costume for the country and it was oppressive. Definitely. That occurred as soon as the change in office took place and before September 11th.
Women until the 1960s were considered chattel. A man literally married his property within the bounds of spiritual purity. So, there are NO DIRECT connections between marriage and the USA Constitution.
The contract between two people is recorded in the records of a city or county. It is recognition of a 'responsible' relationship between two people. "I am responsible to you and for you and you are responsible for me and to me."
Contract law is why divorces exist. Breaking up the contract can be simple, but, it also involves other lives, namely children. So, divorce is a measure to be sure all parties are served well by the dissolution of the contract.
There is no Article of the USA Constitution that guarantees marriage. It has always been under the direction of a contract. Even under Puritan understandings back in the day of. So, the idea that the USA Constitution was ever suppose to legislate marriage was never a promise to anyone. If it was ever considered that vital to democracy the founding documents had plenty of time to incorporate that cornerstone. That is not the case. Freedom is not about binding a man to a woman; that limits freedom. There were LGBT people in 1776, too. They were probably the witches of Salem, Massachusetts.
It can get interesting to discuss, but, marriage is a contract. It is best defined as a contract. The contract can be modified through the ages to reflect changes in society. If marriage were a cornerstone of the USA Constitution it would complicate life immensely. It could be debated that if marriage was mandatory under the USA Constitution it would demand citizens to change behaviors and dictate a religious paradigm. Believe me the founding documents were written with distinct separation of church and state.
Powerful churches have an oppressive force on a populous. They even limit economies and choice. So, the folks in 1776 knew what they were doing.
Where the entire concept departs from 'reasonal' legal standard are the demands for a Marriage Amendment but the refusal of Sharia Law as a dictate in the USA. Right from the start the Marriage Amendment wants to dictate a specific religious standard. There are a lot of problems when ANY privacy issue is dictated with constitutional authority. These privacy issues cause oppression when dictated as a constitutional standard. It is not reasonable to pursue the demands to control the behaviors of an entire country.
I am not going to engage the thought, but, when a country carries a religious standard for it's government it ONLY requires an additional costume to the daily lives of its citizens. The most extreme example are the Taliban. If one is not wearing the costume life becomes dangerous.
In current USA history, was the stark shift in personal fashion, primarily of women, after Bush #43 took office. It was startling to realize what was occurring in the USA. It definitely was a new costume for the country and it was oppressive. Definitely. That occurred as soon as the change in office took place and before September 11th.
