Is my marriage valid?

Question

I keep reading where others think marriage is a religious issue,and the government is only involved for the best interest of the children. I say neither is true. I wasn't married in a church yet i feel my marriage is very valid. The courts don't worry about the children,except in child abuse cases,which has nothing to do with marriage. In custody cases the court is only interested the money they can make off child support,not the children. Can anyone explain this?

Ruth. I was hoping for a better explanation. I wasn't married in a church,so i don't view it as religious. It is not a right,but an act of two people to show their love and commitment. The whole "best interest of the children" is what is throwing me a curve though. This is not about gay marriage,but it could lead to a question about it,if we run short of them.

Answer 1

I can appreciate what you are saying, but you are looking at this backwards. No one is interested in your marriage, because you didn't marry your sister and you are not abusing your children (I hope).

So, the issue is how is public policy created in the US? This is an issue which divides Liberals and Conservatives.

Liberals will use the Loving v. Virginia caselaw to arrive at the conclusion that marriage is a right and so every individual gets the right. I believe this is Judicial activism.

Marriage is a religious institution. The only reason the government ever intervened was "in the best interests of the child." And so public policy would have to be viewed through this lens. But I am a Conservative.

I also believe marriage is a states' rights thing. It is not a Federal matter. States regulate marriage. Always have. That should not change, per the 10th amendment.

The only way to create "homosexual marriage" is to use the Liberal way. Create a new class of people and confer special equal rights on them. Forget about "the best interests of children." Make it about rights.

At some point, our children are the only reason we should care about marriage at all.

ADDED: Okay, so you want marriage to be defined by YOUR marriage? Because I do not comprehend this notion. Marriage as an institution was created by Ecclesiastical Courts in England, circa 1100. Back when church and state were married (pun intended). Our founders brought the English common law to the US. We interpret our laws the same way, using stare decisis (rule of law as interpreted by prior cases). But our founders kicked out the church/state marriage. Still, marriage was a religious creation. And the State must have compelling state interests for getting into it.

ADDED Again: (Sorry about the book). I try to resist modern existentialism, or the notion that my situation is unique and the law must accomodate my situation.

Answer 2

If you were married in the US and you got a valid marriage license before you got married, it's valid. You can be married by anyone authorized to give an oath, such as a notary public, justice of the peace, etc. and it does not have to be a religious ceremony. I do not think that the place where one is married "makes" a marriage more or less valid morally and it has no bearing at all on whether the marriage is valid.
When couples get divorced, if they have kids, the custodial parent can get child support under most circumstances. Many people who are custodial parents have troulble getting their child support payments on time or want the payments made thru the court so an abusive spouse doesn't know where they now live. If the payments are made thru the court system so that there is a record of what payments were or were not made, the court system doesn't get or keep the money. They serve as a bank or clearing house so that if one party claims they didn't get the money that they had coming and the other party claims they already paid that there is a way to go back and check. The court actually loses money b/c it spends a lot to set up these systems so I disagree w/ your last assertion on that basis.

Answer 3

Marriage in NOT a religious issue.

In order to "get married" all one needs to do is purchase a marriage license from the county and have someone who is authorized by the state to swear in the two people involved and declare them married. That can be a justice of the peace, a judge and others.

Some people prefer to have a minister or priest do the "swearing"....then that church has it's own ceremonies and rituals concerning the act and do a lot of "declaring before god" and like that. That is a choice the couple makes.

Churches and marriage have nothing to do with each other legally. One doesn't validate or invalidate the other. Just having the license and being sworn before an official is all that is required.

And, as far as child support goes - the court doesn't make any money off of child support payments. The non-custodial spouse is equally responsible for the maintenance and support of his or her children. Many spouses (especially fathers) don't like to pay child support so the court has to chase them down and make them pay. They don't make any money off of the transaction except court costs that recoup the expense involved in finding the deadbeat dad and bringing him before the court.

Answer 4

I don't think children is the sole reason for the government's involvement; however, I disagree with your assessment of the court's interests during a divorce. They don't make ANY money from child support.

Answer 5

In Russia, the age of consent is sixteen. You cannot marry at 14. The try to diminish that age used to be voted down a number of years in the past. The authorized marrying age is eighteen years historical for each guys and ladies, however it's viable below a few particular situations for a woman to marry at sixteen of age. Stop trolling.

Answer 6

Here in the U.S. as long as you got a marriage license, and were married by a priest or a judge, your marriage is legit.