What you are saying is true, over the last couple of decades the government has slowly taken power over an institution that was a religious rite.
It was more of a control issue not money issue... until the last 20 years or so. Now it is an Industry, everyone making money... everyone but the people stuck in the system.
It should go back to a religious rite and the government and courts should only be brought in if there is a issue with visitation or support. Because every man and woman has a DUTY to support their kids and a RIGHT to see them.
Courts should only be allowed to intervene of either of those are not happening.
2007-09-08 21:48:52
·
answer #1
·
answered by eric_the_red_101 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Guess what, it isn't the draft or anything...nobody is forcing you to get married, not forcing you to get divorced or any of that. If you don't want to do it, then don't. Some people believe very strongly in marriage but not necessarily in churches or religion. Many religions will not condone divorce even if there is serious abuse. As far as all of the divorce, lawyer, custody fees and all...if your relationship does come to divorce and you can both agree (it does happen sometimes though not that often) on the details then you don't really need all of that, just the paperwork and the filing fee. If you DO decide to get married then you know this is part of the deal so if you don't want to go through all the extra hassle and expense be sure to marry someone who won't abuse you, who you will always get along with...and just in case it does still fall apart don't have children, that will save you tons of hassle and expense if the worst case scenario comes to pass.
I would much rather rely on the courts than on the church to help especially with people in abusive situations.
2007-09-09 02:54:36
·
answer #2
·
answered by Starshine 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
accept it or not, the church does not have the power to protect human rights of people, only the law can. you're talking about two different things. and since marriage/family is considered an institution it then becomes part of the bigger one which is the government and the society. the laws keep on changing to be able to keep up with the changes.
unfortunately, it has become costly for the same people for which the law was made to protect. ironic!
2007-09-09 02:55:15
·
answer #3
·
answered by Desiree 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
Then you should not jump into a marriage, so you wouldn't have to divorce in a few years and pay all these fees. Just to get married costs you little. The most expensive part is divorce!!
2007-09-09 02:50:33
·
answer #4
·
answered by terliuke 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
agreed.
so the best is don't get marriage under the legal framework.
love is between 2 persons, but marriage involved both families, govt, lawyers, etc
so just stay together, why bother about the piece of paper - marriage certificate that will costs you your life when the marriage failed.
else go places like China or Japan to get married, there is no such English Law such as The Woman Chapter.
2007-09-09 03:23:01
·
answer #5
·
answered by lost man 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Damn Girl ! Great question............
I for one never really believed this country tries to practice separation between church and state . If a religious symbol is on government property and the courts step in and remove it ... Where is the Separation ?The government grants tax free status to religious organizations... where's the separation ?
But Religion is a part of Culture AND BIG GOVERNMENT FEELS THEY NEED TO CONTROL OR REGULATE CULTURE......
2007-09-09 02:33:03
·
answer #6
·
answered by Bo Remmington . American ! 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think those fees get greatly reimbursed by the taxation benefits (married people get taxed less than individuals). Lawyers' fees are a different story, but lawyers are not a part of the government.
2007-09-09 02:45:41
·
answer #7
·
answered by OC 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Marriage Penalty Tax?
Our Government is Corrupt This is For Sure !
2007-09-09 02:32:43
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Fines for yelling too much at your spouse?My wife could have paid off the federal deficit if that were true.
2007-09-09 03:00:30
·
answer #9
·
answered by Sinister 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Wouldn't it be better if the federal government would just do what it was originally designed for which is protection from outside sources? (other countries)
2007-09-09 02:30:02
·
answer #10
·
answered by baseballdad69 5
·
0⤊
0⤋