Push for acknowledgment?

[stella]

There are some states here in the U.S. that don't recognize Dudeism or a lot of other philosophies when it comes to marriage laws. I am interested in knowing if anybody out there, preferably of a lawyer persuasion, is interested in pushing for changes that would allow more people to perform weddings in America.

- Why are states allowed to determine which people count as "real" clergy? If a person sincerely believes that they hold religious authority and those wishing to be married acknowledge that authority, shouldn't it all be the same to Uncle Sam when filling out paperwork?

- Why should a person have to be clergy in the first place in order to marry people? I don't understand why any adult isn't capable of conducting a marriage ceremony. I could perhaps see the state having an interest in making sure that those who conduct marriages understand the gravity of the commitment they are supervising, but it's not like we have to prove any deep understanding of that at present through Dudeist or Universal Life Church ordinations.

It seems like a lot of the laws are based on older societal standards that don't really apply any more. In particular, I don't know why a priest is required to marry a couple having a secular ceremony, as many do these days. Going to a justice of the peace is the only option for weddings not performed by a religious authority, but that's not what a lot of people want. Government shouldn't require religious supervision for weddings in a country that allegedly allows freedom of any faith system, including none. What would you dudes think of pushing for the following reforms?

- States being prohibited from rejecting self-identified clergy or members of small, less known churches because they don't happen to be conventionally accepted by The Man as a "real" religion. This would benefit Dudeism directly by increasing the number of areas where Dudeists can perform weddings.

- Allowing any adult to be able to perform a wedding ceremony, whether religiously affiliated or not, provided that the couple have all of their paperwork in order. This would support the Dudeist ethos indirectly by working for a less authoritarian approach to marriage.

[The_Sleevez]

I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure it's more to do with the legality of the marriage paperwork than anything else. It's the marriage license that means more anything else and as with most documents not just anybody can finalize that stuff. I'm just guessing. It's all to do with how much marriage changes you standings with taxes and benefits legal signing rights and such. To change it you would probably have to re write a lot of laws which is huge time and money that's my guess.

[Masked Dude]

I studied law, but I am not a practicing attorney. Nothing below is to be construed as legal advice. Contact a licensed attorney in your state for further verification and explanation.

Marriage is a legal construct. Property owned by one spouse is in some way or another the property of the other. For instance, North Carolina is a tenancy by the entireties state; that means for instance that upon getting married a house would be owned by the couple as one entity. It is not a case where one spouse owns 50% and the other owns 50%. Therefore one spouse cannot sell the house without the permission and signature of the other. Some states do have laws that say each spouse owns half.

Upon divorce the property needs to be split up, and therefore needs to be decided by court or arbitration.

Why? Tax and liability issues.

Since marriage has legal consequences the government has the right and obligation to decide who can and must verify both parties are voluntarily and willingly entering into the marriage.

Hope that helps to shed some light.

[jgiffin]

Better call Saul, dude. I'm a lahwyuh but don't do the whole family law thing.

My guess is you'd have to either: (1) take it state-by-state legislatively; or (2) contrive a federal judicial case a'la Shelley v. Kraemer. The problem is that we, as putative clergy, don't really have a great legal argument or attractive public interest push. The best case would be a Dudeist couple who wanted to be married by a Dudeist priest but were prevented from doing so by some damn fascist bureaucrat. That could work.

[BikerDude]

I don't think that States or the Feds should have anything to do with marriages. In most states if a person lives with another person for some time they become "common law partners" anyway, with the same status essentially as a married couple.
In a way I see the special treatment of marriage as a sort of discrimination against the unmarried. Tax advantages should be based on having children IMO not on marriage.
I just don't buy that the state needs to be involved. And yes if a person feels that the home plate umpire at a baseball game has adequate authority to do the deed they should all be able to get hitched during the 7th inning stretch IMO.

[jgiffin]

Tax advantages should be based on having children IMO not on marriage.

I'd take that one step further and ask why the government should presume to use the tax code as the proverbial carrot-and-stick to persuade the citizenry to do as the government wishes.

[BikerDude]

Tax advantages should be based on having children IMO not on marriage.

I'd take that one step further and ask why the government should presume to use the tax code as the proverbial carrot-and-stick to persuade the citizenry to do as the government wishes.

Well I think in the case of giving tax advantages where kids are concerned it's not the carrot and stick.
It's cutting slack to people raising kids. I don't see that as urging people to have kids.

[Masked Dude]

I used to do property title searches to make sure all were clear. If you were to buy a house and one spouse never signed the sale, you'd be in for a lot of shit trying to clear that title. Furthermore you may not even own the property at all.

My state doesn't have common law marriage so that's not an issue here. But we did have a case where a player for the Hurricanes was traded and tried to sell his house without his wife's signature. You've never seen so many pens hit the table at one time...

[jgiffin]

Yeah, absent a prenuptial (or antenuptual) agreement most states follow the communal-property model where you put pretty much everything either party owns into a pot and then divvy it up according to what's "reasonable" subject to various statutes and sundry other stuff.

As a practical matter, it means the wife gets 40%, the husband gets 40%, and the attorneys get 20%.

[jgiffin]

Tax advantages should be based on having children IMO not on marriage.

I'd take that one step further and ask why the government should presume to use the tax code as the proverbial carrot-and-stick to persuade the citizenry to do as the government wishes.

Well I think in the case of giving tax advantages where kids are concerned it's not the carrot and stick.
It's cutting slack to people raising kids. I don't see that as urging people to have kids.

Whoa. Really? Cause, by definition, "cutting slack to people raising kids" is rather equivalent to "urging people to have kids." It's an artificial incentive to encourage people to have more kids than they can naturally support or could otherwise afford.

You can be pro or con and make whatever policy arguments you want but, c'mon, that's what it is.

[BikerDude]

Tax advantages should be based on having children IMO not on marriage.

I'd take that one step further and ask why the government should presume to use the tax code as the proverbial carrot-and-stick to persuade the citizenry to do as the government wishes.

Well I think in the case of giving tax advantages where kids are concerned it's not the carrot and stick.
It's cutting slack to people raising kids. I don't see that as urging people to have kids.

Whoa. Really? Cause, by definition, "cutting slack to people raising kids" is rather equivalent to "urging people to have kids." It's an artificial incentive to encourage people to have more kids than they can naturally support or could otherwise afford.

You can be pro or con and make whatever policy arguments you want but, c'mon, that's what it is.

No it's not the same.
Take the "Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit" for instance.
It's for people who pay for child day care AND FOR EXPENSES CARING FOR DISABLED OR DEPENDENT ADULTS.
Are you saying the Government is urging people to have more disabilities?
There is no tax deduction that would come even close to offsetting the cost of raising a child.

The point is that there is a level of taxation for any income and there IMO should be deductions based on things like dependent children.
But I don't think that people should enjoy a lower tax rate just by being married.

You might get into a discussion about the effect of public assistance on birth rates but I don't think that the tax code has anything to do with it.
I promise you. The tax code is not written to benefit the poor in any way shape or form.
It is tilted to the extreme to benefit the very wealthy and especially corporations.
I just don't think it's a luxury to be able to write of the cost of child day care in a world were CEO's can write off the cost of private jets.

[jgiffin]

Well, dude, that's prolly where we just differ. I see "deductions," "tax credits," "preferences," and/or "loopholes" of any kind (personal, corporate, etc.) as synonymous with "The government will deign to take less of your property if you agree to utilize it as the government wishes."

I agree the tax code is rigged, though, to favor the elite and mollify the poor. It appears you would try to correct the problem by re-weighing and re-apportioning the privileges. I would do it by preventing the government from granting any privileges in the first place.