Redefining marriage

[This_person]

To stave off the next 75 posts back and forth on whether or not signatures are required, ever, I will stipulate that signatures are not required.

Willingness, however, still is, which is the point of what I said. Yes, I said in a followup post regarding willingness that willingness is demonstrated by signatures. I recant that - I was clearly not 100% accurate with that.

Doesn't change that willingness is required. Only that willingness is not necessarily demonstrated by signatures.

Nor does it change that, until VERY recently, "marriage" has been defined as one male and one female, and nothing else. This is still indisputed/indisputable.

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by This_person

That it may be incomplete. Plus, given that the counties are the ones who file and authenticate the certificates, each county would need to be polled to see what's actually on their forms - see Nuck's posts regarding his signature being required.The question is combined - what must the official ensure happens? Is he/she required to ascertain the willingness of each participant?

Nucks experience was an example that proof is not required, beyond a verbal consent, to obtain a marriage license

[Animal]

Originally Posted by This_person

That it may be incomplete. Plus, given that the counties are the ones who file and authenticate the certificates, each county would need to be polled to see what's actually on their forms - see Nuck's posts regarding his signature being required.The question is combined - what must the official ensure happens? Is he/she required to ascertain the willingness of each participant?

That what is incomplete, the law.

Go ahead and poll the counties if you have a desire to do such.

The law has a section titled "Forms of license and certificates". Maybe you could do a little searching on your own and find the answer yourself. Hint, the links I provided have a previous/next option that will walk you through the subtitle.

As to Nuck's post you will see that he was being a little sarcastic, though it does seem obvious that it zoomed right over your head.

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by This_person

To stave off the next 75 posts back and forth on whether or not signatures are required, ever, I will stipulate that signatures are not required.

Willingness, however, still is, which is the point of what I said. Yes, I said in a followup post regarding willingness that willingness is demonstrated by signatures. I recant that - I was clearly not 100% accurate with that.

Doesn't change that willingness is required. Only that willingness is not necessarily demonstrated by signatures.

Nor does it change that, until VERY recently, "marriage" has been defined as one male and one female, and nothing else. This is still indisputed/indisputable.

But the definition of Marriage, you know the topic of this thread, has changed over the years. This is still indisputed/indisputable.

[libby]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

But the definition of Marriage, you know the topic of this thread, has changed over the years. This is still indisputed/indisputable.

But the changes (at least with respect to the Catholic Church, which was our last exchange) are more a recognition of cultural changes (such as was done in Act at the Council of Jerusalem) vs. the moral absolute of man/woman. Even if the church believed that the primary reason for marriage was procreation, I don't consider that an error by any stretch, and I don't think stating or restating that mutual help, etc. is an equally valid reason for marriage negates the church's authority (for it's members) on gay marriage.

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by libby

But the changes (at least with respect to the Catholic Church, which was our last exchange) are more a recognition of cultural changes (such as was done in Act at the Council of Jerusalem) vs. the moral absolute of man/woman. Even if the church believed that the primary reason for marriage was procreation, I don't consider that an error by any stretch, and I don't think stating or restating that mutual help, etc. is an equally valid reason for marriage negates the church's authority (for it's members) on gay marriage.

The Catholic Churchs redefinition of marriage to someting other than procreation is one example of society changing the definition of Marriage.

The US has also changed the legal definition of marriage.

• It used to be that the man and woman had to be of the same race, an aspect of this has recently hit the news about a couple in Lousiana.
  • We may think its ridiculous now, but society up until the change, held that Mix races could not get married.
• To recognize a womans right within the marriage. At one time women were considered Chattel (or prooperty of) to the husband.
• To prevent the marriage of close relations, though Cousins can get married
• To set a mandatory age, though this varies from 13 - 16 based on stipulations

So to your original question, yes the definition of Marriage is fluid. It has changed in the past.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

Nucks experience was an example that proof is not required, beyond a verbal consent, to obtain a marriage license

It looked like you said you signed it......

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

When we got married, my wife went to the court and picked up the application to bring home. We signed it, at home, and she took it back to the courthouse.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Animal

That what is incomplete, the law.

Go ahead and poll the counties if you have a desire to do such.

The law has a section titled "Forms of license and certificates". Maybe you could do a little searching on your own and find the answer yourself. Hint, the links I provided have a previous/next option that will walk you through the subtitle.

As to Nuck's post you will see that he was being a little sarcastic, though it does seem obvious that it zoomed right over your head.

I have no desire. As I said, I've already ceded the point about signatures. Not willingness, but signatures. It was a minor point off of a secondary point regarding the bigger issue - in other words, not worth the fight.

But, sarcastic or not, he said he had to sign it. Anything else would have been forgery, making the license invalid.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

But the definition of Marriage, you know the topic of this thread, has changed over the years. This is still indisputed/indisputable.

Yep, the specifics of many things.

Not who the parties are who are involved in marriage mind you, but other, less significant points. We agree on that.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

So to your original question, yes the definition of Marriage is fluid. It has changed in the past.

Yep, just not who'se involved (by gender) - that hasn't changed.